PTAB

IPR2021-00416

Quantum Metric Inc v. Content Square Israel Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Generating Comparable Visual Maps for Browsing Activity Analysis
  • Brief Description: The ’737 patent discloses methods for generating and displaying multiple "visual maps" (e.g., heatmaps) that represent user browsing activity on a webpage. The core invention involves presenting these maps side-by-side for comparison and "scaling" the underlying data so that user interactions across different datasets can be compared using a consistent visual representation, such as a common color code.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Zambonini and Butler - Claims 1, 4, 6-12, and 15-20 are obvious over Zambonini in view of Butler.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zambonini (WO 2007/113573) and Butler (Application # 2008/0046562).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zambonini taught the foundational system for generating visual heatmaps of user website interactions based on user-selectable parameters like URL and date ranges. However, Zambonini focused on displaying a single map at a time. Butler was alleged to cure this deficiency by explicitly teaching techniques for visual web page analytics that enable analysts to "easily compare the effectiveness of site designs and layouts" by displaying statistics and heatmaps "side-by-side for easy comparison," particularly for A/B testing. The combination was argued to teach generating a "plurality of comparable visual maps" as required by independent claim 1. Butler further taught scaling heatmap images to fit the display dimensions for side-by-side viewing, addressing the patent's "resizing" aspect of scaling.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Zambonini and Butler to improve the utility of Zambonini's system. Both references addressed A/B testing, and Butler provided a well-known solution (side-by-side display) to a known need (comparing different website versions). Applying Butler's comparison interface to Zambonini's heatmap generation system was presented as a simple combination of known elements for a predictable purpose.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as both systems produced similar visual representations of user interaction data. Incorporating Butler's display technique into Zambonini's system was argued to be a routine modification that would predictably yield the benefit of easier comparison.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Zambonini, Butler, and Li - Claims 2, 3, 5, 13, and 14 are obvious over Zambonini and Butler further in view of Li.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zambonini (WO 2007/113573), Butler (Application # 2008/0046562), and Li (WO 2012/000801).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Zambonini/Butler combination by adding Li, which taught a security model for providing granular and temporary access to data resources using access tokens. Petitioner argued that the user browsing data collected by the Zambonini/Butler system is sensitive. Li disclosed generating temporary data access tokens to authenticate requests and secure data retrieval from a database. This combination was alleged to render obvious the limitations of claim 2, which required that the datasets be "retrieved from a database in a secured manner," and dependent claims 3 and 14, which added the generation and use of tokens.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Li's teachings to the base combination to improve data security. The importance of securing sensitive user data was well-known. A POSITA seeking to protect the interaction data described in Zambonini and Butler would have looked to known security solutions, like the temporary access tokens taught by Li, to solve this known problem.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as the application of a standard security solution to a data analytics system, which would predictably result in a more secure system without altering the core heatmap generation or comparison functions.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Zambonini, Butler, and Abshear - Claims 1, 4, 6-12, and 15-20 are obvious over Zambonini and Butler further in view of Abshear.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zambonini (WO 2007/113573), Butler (Application # 2008/0046562), and Abshear (Application # 2007/0195092).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically targeted the "scaling" limitation of the independent claims, arguing it required displaying data across multiple maps according to the same color scale to ensure comparability. Petitioner asserted that Abshear taught generating "Overlap Density (OD) Heatmaps" to visualize overlaps between multiple data sets. Critically, Abshear disclosed displaying values across these datasets using the same color code, such that a specific color would consistently represent the "region of highest overlap" across all maps. This was argued to be precisely the "scaling" or "calibrating" of data values described in the ’737 patent to make visual maps truly comparable.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Abshear's method into the Zambonini/Butler system to provide a more meaningful comparison. By ensuring that the "hottest" color represents the maximum interaction value across both datasets (rather than just the maximum within each individual set), a user could more quickly and accurately determine which webpage version performed better. This modification addressed a known challenge in data visualization with a known technique.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in applying Abshear's color-scaling logic to the heatmaps generated by the base combination, as it was a predictable data processing enhancement to improve the clarity of the final visual output.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 2B) against claims 2, 3, 5, 13, and 14 based on the combination of Zambonini, Butler, Abshear, and Li, relying on the combined teachings and motivations detailed in the grounds above.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The petition asserted that the companion district court litigations were in their earliest stages, with no scheduling orders entered, no contentions exchanged, and no discovery conducted. Therefore, institution would increase the likelihood of a stay and conserve judicial resources. Petitioner further argued that the Board’s Final Written Decision (FWD) would issue many months before any potential trial date, and that Petitioner had stipulated not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if the IPR was instituted, ensuring the PTAB's work would not be duplicative.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’737 patent as unpatentable.