PTAB

IPR2019-01165

Chegg Inc v. Netsoc LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method And System For Establishing And Using A Social Network To Facilitate People In Life Issues
  • Brief Description: The ’107 patent discloses a computer-implemented method and system for a social network that connects users with service providers (referred to as "participants") to resolve various "life issues." The system allows users to select service categories, receive a list of matching participants based on criteria including ratings, and communicate with them while the participants' contact information is shielded from the user.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Beaudoin and Shubov - Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-11 are obvious over Beaudoin in view of Shubov.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Beaudoin (Patent 7,096,193) and Shubov (Application # 2002/0038233).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that Beaudoin taught all elements of the challenged claims except for shielding participant contact information, a feature explicitly disclosed by Shubov. Combining these known elements to improve user privacy would have been obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Beaudoin, which describes the ServiceMagic platform, teaches the core functionality of independent claims 1 and 6. This includes maintaining a database of service providers, presenting a user interface with selectable service categories, displaying matched providers to the user, and enabling messaging. Beaudoin also discloses displaying results based on consumer ratings, tracking provider response times, and updating ratings in real-time. To meet the "shielding contact information" limitation, Petitioner pointed to Shubov, which describes a matching system for legal services that uses anonymous identification numbers (e.g., "Attorney ID") to conceal a provider's identity and contact details during initial communications.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Shubov’s well-understood privacy features with Beaudoin’s matching system for predictable benefits. Both references operate in the same field of matching consumers with service providers and address the common problem of facilitating initial contact efficiently and safely. Petitioner argued that incorporating Shubov's anonymous communication method into Beaudoin's system was an obvious way to enhance user privacy and maintain control over the communication platform, a known business objective.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known technique (anonymous identifiers) to a similar system to achieve a predictable result (enhanced user privacy). Petitioner asserted this would not have required undue experimentation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Beaudoin, Shubov, and Herz - Claims 4 and 9 are obvious over Beaudoin and Shubov in view of Herz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Beaudoin (Patent 7,096,193), Shubov (Application # 2002/0038233), and Herz (Application # 2004/0019579).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground builds upon the combination in Ground 1, adding the teachings of Herz to render the "referral" limitations of claims 4 and 9 obvious. Claims 4 and 9 require identifying an additional participant based on a referral from another user of the system.
    • Prior Art Mapping: The base combination of Beaudoin and Shubov provides the core matching system with shielded communications. Petitioner argued that Herz, which discloses a "professional referral network" for medical services, explicitly teaches the claimed referral functionality. In Herz, a professional can refer a client to other suitable, best-qualified professionals within the network. This directly addresses the limitation of identifying a participant based on a referral provided by another system user.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to improve the match quality and expand the capabilities of the Beaudoin/Shubov system would have been motivated to incorporate a referral system like that taught by Herz. Beaudoin itself suggests a rudimentary concept of providers identifying other "Referred Prospects." Herz provides a developed and known method for implementing such a referral network to provide consumers with access to higher-quality or more specialized providers. This would be a logical and obvious enhancement.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating a known referral system into an online matching platform was a conventional approach to improving search results and would have produced the expected benefit of providing consumers with better-qualified matches.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued for specific constructions of key terms, asserting they are consistent with the specification and prosecution history.

  • "rating" (claims 1, 5, 6, 10): Proposed construction is "relative quality score." This was argued to be critical because the patent ties ratings to quality, and this construction supports the argument that Beaudoin's system of sorting providers based on consumer scores and performance meets the claim limitation.
  • "inquiry message" (claims 1, 6): Proposed construction is "a communication requesting information." This broad construction was argued to encompass the web-based messaging systems disclosed in the prior art.
  • "social network" (claim 1): Proposed construction is "networked computers and applications to facilitate users interacting with other users with similar interests or needs." This construction aligns the patent's scope with the general functionality of the matching platforms described in Beaudoin and Shubov.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

Petitioner noted the concurrent filing of a separate IPR petition (IPR2019-01171) against the same patent. It argued that the present petition should be considered on its merits because the grounds asserted are not cumulative with those in the concurrent petition. Petitioner contended that each petition utilizes different prior art references and rationales for combining them, raising distinct patentability issues for the Board to consider.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11 of Patent 9,978,107 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.