PTAB

IPR2023-00339

Intuit Inc v. Samesurf Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for the Implementation of a Real-Time, Sharable Browsing Experience on a Guest Device
  • Brief Description: The ’145 patent describes a system and method for enabling multiple users at different locations to share a synchronized internet browsing session. The system involves a host device initiating the session, a guest device joining via an invitation, and a synchronization server that manages and coordinates the browsing activity between the devices.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Lebrun in view of Wang.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lebrun (International Publication No. WO 00/48110) and Wang (Application # 2005/0033656).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lebrun, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses a collaborative “group-surfing” system that meets most limitations of the challenged claims. Lebrun’s system uses a “group-surfing server” (a synchronization server) to allow multiple web clients to simultaneously access a sequence of websites. A first client initiates a session and other clients (guest devices) can join. Lebrun discloses sending a session invitation that includes an “identifier.” Petitioner asserted that Wang remedies any potential deficiency in Lebrun by explicitly teaching an invitation that includes a “dedicated URL address” (a hyperlink) that the invited user can click to join the session. The combination, therefore, renders the claimed invention obvious. For independent claim 1, Lebrun was alleged to teach receiving a session invitation (limitation 1[a]), receiving web browsing interaction data (1[c]), and operating a browser based on that data (1[d]). The combination with Wang was argued to teach activating the invitation by clicking a hyperlink to join the session (1[b]).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine Lebrun and Wang because both references address the same problem of enabling synchronized, collaborative web browsing. A POSITA seeking to improve Lebrun’s session invitation mechanism would have looked to known techniques for joining web sessions, such as the hyperlink-based invitation taught by Wang. Petitioner asserted that incorporating a standard URL hyperlink into Lebrun’s invitation process was a predictable modification using conventional web technology to improve the user experience.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Implementing a clickable URL, as taught by Wang, into Lebrun’s existing client-server invitation framework was described as a straightforward application of well-understood web programming principles that would predictably result in a functional, combined system.

Ground 2: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Prajapat in view of Wang.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Prajapat (Application # 2005/0021626) and Wang (Application # 2005/0033656).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Prajapat, also not considered during prosecution, discloses a collaborative “co-browsing” system using “web media servers” that function as the claimed synchronization server. In Prajapat, a first browser (host device) can initiate a co-browsing session with a second browser (guest device) by sending an invitation. Petitioner alleged that Prajapat’s system meets the limitations of the claims, including the guest device receiving an invitation and activating it by using a URL provided by the host to request the same web content, thereby joining the synchronized session. Wang was asserted as a secondary reference to further support the obviousness of using an explicit hyperlink for the invitation. Further, Petitioner argued that if Prajapat was seen as limiting browsing to content from a specific web content server, Wang teaches the functionality of requesting web pages from any location, which would have been an obvious feature to add.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Prajapat and Wang as both are directed to improving the efficiency and functionality of collaborative browsing. Petitioner argued a POSITA would have found it obvious to enhance Prajapat’s system by incorporating Wang’s more explicit hyperlink invitation method to streamline the session-joining process. Furthermore, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Wang’s feature of general web navigation with Prajapat’s co-browsing architecture to create a more robust and flexible system, allowing users to browse the entire web together, not just pages from a single source.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have reasonably expected success in this combination. Integrating a standard hyperlink-based invitation from Wang into Prajapat’s co-browsing framework was described as a predictable application of known web technologies.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’145 patent as unpatentable.