Intuit Inc v. Samesurf Inc

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition Analysis

## 1. Case Identification
- Case #: [IPR2023-00341](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2023-00341)
- Patent #: [9,483,448](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/9483448)
- Filed: December 16, 2022
- Petitioner(s): [Intuit Inc](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/intuit-inc).
- Patent Owner(s): [Samesurf, Inc](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/samesurf-inc).
- Challenged Claims: 1-16

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Method and Apparatus for the Implementation of a Real-Time, Sharable Browsing Experience on a Host Device
- Brief Description: The ’448 patent relates to a system for enabling multiple users to share a synchronized web browsing session across different devices and locations. The system uses a host device to initiate the session, a synchronization server to manage communications and maintain session state, and one or more guest devices that join via an electronic invitation.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Claims 1-16 are obvious over Lebrun in view of Wang.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Lebrun](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2023-00341/doc/1005) (WO 00/48110) and [Wang](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2023-00341/doc/1006) (Application # 2005/0033656).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that Lebrun discloses the core functionality of a synchronized, collaborative browsing system as claimed. Lebrun teaches a "group-surfing" system where a "first web client" (the host) sends a "session-creation message" to a "group-surfing server" (the synchronization server). This message can include information to invite other "web clients" (invitees) to the session. The host client controls the "progression of pages," and the server ensures that invitee clients are presented with substantially the same content. Petitioner asserted that while Lebrun teaches sending an invitation with an "identifier," Wang explicitly supplies the use of a hyperlink for this purpose. Wang describes a collaborative system where an invitation contains a "dedicated URL address," allowing an invited user to simply click the link to join the session. Petitioner contended that the combination of Lebrun's foundational group-surfing architecture with Wang's specific hyperlink-based invitation method renders all limitations of independent claims 1 (method) and 11 (apparatus) obvious.
  - **Motivation to Combine:** Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Lebrun and Wang because both references are directed to solving the same problem of providing multiple users with simultaneous access to a sequence of websites. A POSITA seeking to improve the usability of Lebrun's system would naturally look to known, convenient methods for session initiation. Wang’s use of a hyperlink was a common and predictable solution for simplifying how users join an online session, and its incorporation into Lebrun’s system would have been a matter of applying a known technique to a similar system to yield predictable results.
  - **Expectation of Success:** Petitioner argued there would be a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Integrating a standard hyperlink invitation (from Wang) into a collaborative browsing system (like Lebrun's) was a straightforward application of conventional web programming techniques and would predictably result in a more user-friendly system without altering the fundamental principles of Lebrun's "group-surfing" operation.

#### Ground 2: Claims 1-16 are obvious over Prajapat in view of Wang.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Prajapat](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2023-00341/doc/1007) (Application # 2005/0021626) and Wang (Application # 2005/0033656).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that Prajapat, as an alternative to Lebrun, discloses a "peer-to-peer dynamic web page sharing" system that meets the key limitations of the challenged claims. Prajapat's system allows a user of a first browser (the host) to "co-browse one or more web pages" with a second browser (the invitee), using "web media servers" as the synchronization service. Prajapat describes a user initiating a session by sending a request that can specify other browsers to invite. The system then synchronizes browsing interactions, such as displaying the same web pages or viewing alterations to those pages. As in Ground 1, Petitioner argued that Wang supplies the obvious addition of a hyperlink-based invitation. The combination of Prajapat's co-browsing framework with Wang's "dedicated URL address" for joining a session was alleged to render the claims obvious.
  - **Motivation to Combine:** Petitioner contended that a POSITA would be motivated to combine Prajapat and Wang to improve the efficiency and convenience of the co-browsing system. Both references aim to solve problems related to sharing web pages among multiple users. A POSITA would have recognized that the invitation mechanism in Prajapat could be improved by incorporating the well-known and user-friendly hyperlink method taught by Wang. This combination would be a commonsense modification to make Prajapat's system more accessible to users.
  - **Expectation of Success:** Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have reasonably expected success in combining these references. Implementing a hyperlink invitation as taught by Wang into Prajapat's co-browsing system would involve using known methods to achieve the predictable result of a streamlined session-joining process, a common goal in the field of collaborative software.

## 4. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-16 of Patent 9,483,448 as unpatentable.

Intuit challenges sharable browsing patent on two obviousness grounds, citing Lebrun/Prajapat & Wang against all 16 claims over hyperlink invites.