PTAB

IPR2021-00757

Chewy Inc v. IBM Corp

Title: System and Technique for Automatically Associating Related Advertisements to Individual Search Results Items of a Search Result Set
Brief Description: The ’443 patent discloses methods for internet marketing and e-commerce that involve automatically associating advertisements with individual items within a search result set. The technology is described as using the content of search results to target advertisements, rather than relying on user profiles.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Linden (Patent 6,266,649).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Linden, which discloses a recommendation service for e-commerce websites, teaches every element of the challenged claims. Linden describes generating recommendations for items (e.g., books, videos) based on a user's demonstrated interests, such as items placed in a personal shopping cart. Petitioner asserted that these "recommendations" are equivalent to the claimed "associated advertisements" and that items selected from a search to be placed in a shopping cart constitute "search result items." Linden's use of "item-to-item similarity mappings" and "content-based filtering," which analyzes item descriptions, was argued to meet the claim limitations of searching for and correlating advertisements based on the content of a search result. Petitioner contended that Linden also discloses the limitations of dependent claims, including providing recommendations "on demand" via user-selectable hyperlinks, displaying icons (e.g., a "More Recommendations" button), using an internet server architecture, and performing an "off-line batch process" to pre-calculate item correlations.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Bull (Patent 5,995,943).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bull, which describes an "Information Aggregation and Synthesization System," also anticipates all challenged claims. Bull's system analyzes the "text stream" of web pages a user views during a session to determine user interests and insert relevant advertisements ("promotions and specials") alongside the displayed data. Petitioner contended that a web page requested by a user from a search engine is a "search result item," and Bull's targeted ads are the "associated advertisements." Bull’s system uses "software text agents" and analyzes the user's "looking pattern" to match ads to the content of the viewed web page, which Petitioner argued meets the core limitations of the independent claims. For the dependent claims, Petitioner asserted that Bull discloses providing ads on demand when a user requests a web page, using an internet server for its system, displaying ads with "hot links" (which a POSA would understand as user-selectable icons), and performing an "off-line" analysis of user activity after a session concludes to customize future searches.

"using said at least one search result item": Petitioner argued this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which does not require "inputting a keyword" as proposed by the Patent Owner. Petitioner contended the Patent Owner's construction improperly imports a limitation from the specification, as the claims and specification do not restrict how a search result item may be "used" to find an associated advertisement.
"on demand by said user": Petitioner asserted this phrase has a clear meaning of a user interacting with a specific graphical element, such as a "product icon" or hyperlink, to trigger the display of an advertisement. Petitioner argued the Patent Owner’s proposed construction, requiring the user to select the entire graphical user interface (e.g., the whole browser window), is nonsensical and unsupported by the patent.
"a user identifier": Petitioner argued the Patent Owner's proposal to limit this term to a "session value" is contradicted by the specification, which describes using a URL as an identifier for an advertisement, not a user. Petitioner contended a "user identifier" is a broader, well-understood term of art distinct from a "user session identifier."

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 of the ’443 patent as unpatentable.