PTAB

IPR2021-00033

Facebook Inc v. USC IP Partnership LP

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Intent Data Processing
  • Brief Description: The ’300 patent describes systems and methods for determining a website visitor's intent based on input parameters. The system uses the inferred intent to predict and suggest webpages, and may incorporate user feedback like ratings to refine the process.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4 and 11-16 are obvious over Gregov, Nickerson, and additional web technology references.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gregov (Patent 8,032,506), Nickerson (Patent 7,827,487), Hartman (Patent 6,615,226), Linden (Patent 6,912,505), and Holzner (Ajax for Dummies (2006)).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the claimed invention combines two well-known web features: providing recommendations and allowing users to rank content. Gregov, assigned to Amazon.com, was asserted to teach the core recommendation system. It describes receiving user input (e.g., a search for "digital photography"), processing it to determine an inferred intent, and displaying a ranked list of recommended products. Gregov also discloses prompting a user to confirm their intent by providing a "More like this" button next to each recommendation, which generates a new set of recommendations based on that selected "seed" item. Nickerson was asserted to teach a "feedback measurement tool" that can be incorporated into any webpage to allow a visitor to rank the page using a multi-level rating scale (e.g., from "--" to "++"). The combination of Gregov's recommendation engine with Nickerson's ranking tool was argued to render the primary limitations of claims 1 and 11 obvious. Hartman and Linden, also related to Amazon's systems, were used to show the obviousness of making the recommended items in Gregov hyperlinks to item detail pages.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Gregov and Nickerson to collect valuable user feedback on the quality and relevance of the recommendations. This feedback could be used to improve the recommendation engine and overall user experience, potentially increasing sales. Adding hyperlinks, as taught by Hartman and Linden, was a straightforward way to improve website usability by allowing visitors to easily get more information.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have a high expectation of success. Gregov, Hartman, and Linden all relate to a common commercial system (Amazon.com) and are analogous art. Nickerson's feedback tool was designed for easy integration into existing webpages, and combining these known web technologies would have involved conventional programming techniques.

Ground 2: Claim 17 is obvious over the combination for Ground 1 in further view of Sriver.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gregov (Patent 8,032,506), Nickerson (Patent 7,827,487), Hartman (Patent 6,615,226), Linden (Patent 6,912,505), Holzner (Ajax for Dummies (2006)), and Sriver (WO 2008/130932).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1 to address dependent claim 17, which requires the claimed "intent tool" to comprise a "configurable widget." Petitioner argued that Sriver teaches implementing a rating tool, similar to Nickerson's, as a "widget"—a reusable graphical user interface (GUI) element that can be incorporated into a webpage. Sriver provides an example of a five-star rating widget that allows visitors to rate content. Therefore, implementing the Nickerson ranking tool from the primary combination as a widget, as taught by Sriver, would result in the "configurable widget" of claim 17.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to implement Nickerson's feedback tool as a widget to gain the benefits of reusability and standardization. As Sriver explains, widgets enhance site interactivity, usability, and functionality. This would allow the ranking tool to be easily and consistently deployed across many pages of the merchant website, providing a uniform look and feel for the user.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable application of known technologies. Both Sriver and Nickerson describe tools designed for easy incorporation into webpages, and implementing a known function as a reusable widget was a common practice for web developers.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • The "Same Webpage" Issue: Petitioner addressed a potential interpretation that different steps of the claimed method occur on different webpages. The petition argued that a POSITA would understand the recommendation displays in Gregov (e.g., Figures 5 and 6) as representing updated content on the same webpage. Alternatively, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to use a well-known technology like Ajax, as taught by Holzner, to update the recommendation content on a single page without requiring a full page reload. This would create a more seamless user experience and result in the claimed process steps occurring on a single webpage.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. It was contended that the co-pending district court litigation trial date was tentative and likely to be delayed due to the court's docket and the effects of COVID-19. Petitioner also asserted diligence, noting the petition was filed more than eight months before the one-year statutory bar and within one month of receiving the Patent Owner's infringement contentions.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-4 and 11-17 of the ’300 patent as unpatentable.