Facebook, Inc.v.Rembrandt Social Media, L.P.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2015

09144655 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 33
571-272-7822 Entered: June 22,2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

FACEBOOK, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

REMBRANDT SOCIAL MEDIA, L.P.,
Patent Owner.

Case IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Facebook, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
review of claims 1, 4, 17, 18, 20, and 26 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
Patent No. 6,415,316 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’316 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
Rembrandt Social Media, L.P. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On July 7, 2014, we instituted an
inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’316 patent on the alleged
grounds of unpatentability. Paper 9 (“Dec. to Inst.”).
After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
(Paper 17, “PO Resp.”) to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 20,
“Reply”). Patent Owner filed its Observations on the testimony of
Petitioner’s Expert, Mr. Ed Tittel (Paper 25) to which Petitioner responded
(Paper 28). Patent Owner also filed a Statement Concerning Petitioner’s
New Argument (Paper 29) to which Petitioner responded (Paper 30).
Oral hearing was held on April 6, 2015.1
The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any
challenged claim of the ’316 patent is unpatentable.
A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’316 patent is involved
in one co-pending district court case: Rembrandt Social Media, L.P. v.
Facebook, Inc., Case No. 13‐CV‐00158 TSE (E.D. Va.), filed February 4,

1 A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record as Paper 32
(“Tr.”).
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

3
2013, and served on February 6, 2013. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2. The case is
currently stayed pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2.
B. The ’316 Patent
The ’316 patent relates generally to computer networks and,
specifically, to a method and apparatus for implementing a diary of web
pages on a computer network. Ex. 1001, 1:19–22. According to the ’316
patent, there was a need for a way for users to keep track of locations that
they have visited in a more visual and memorable way. Id. at 1:65–67.
To address this need, the ’316 patent discloses a method and apparatus
for implementing a web page diary. Id. at Title. The diary allows a diary
owner to organize information, including links to websites and other content,
like a book. Id. at 4:62–64. A diary has a book design that determines the
graphics and layout of content within pages of a diary. Id. at 5:9–10. The
book design includes page designs. Id. at 5:11. Page designs define the
visual and audible appearance of the page, provides slots for content entries
or objects, and determines the size and location of such slots within the page.
Id. at 5:14–17. Diary owners can insert content objects into pages. Id. at
5:18. When a content object is inserted into a page, it is displayed in one of
the slots provided by the page design of the page. Id. at 5:19–20. A content
object can be any type of object, including text, bookmarks, images,
programs, movies, etc. Id. at 5:20–22. The book design and book content
are independent. Id. at 5:26–27. Diary software dynamically combines the
diary’s book design and book content to present a cohesive view of the
“book.” Id. at 5:32–34. The diary may enforce privacy rules on any part or
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

4
level of the book—i.e., book, section, page, or individual content object. Id.
at 5:55–57.
Figure 1(b) is reproduced below.

Figure 1(b) is a block diagram of a computer network in accordance with an
embodiment of the invention of the ’316 patent that illustrates how a diary is
viewed or edited. Ex. 1001, 6:30–32. The system comprises user system
102, diary server 104, and one or more content providers 106. Id. at 6:32–
34. User system 102 can be the system of the owner of the diary or of a
person who wishes to view the diary. Id. at 6:34–36. User system 102
includes browser 110, which is shown executing diary applet 112
downloaded from diary server 104, and diary information 114, which
contains information about the diary of this diary owner. Id. at 6:36–40.
Diary applet 112 generates HTML 111 for the web pages of the user’s diary,
which are preferably displayed by browser 110. Id. at 6:40–43.
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

5
Diary server 104 includes diary information 122 (including diary
information for a plurality of users’ diaries), diary software 124, an original
copy of diary applet 112, and the HTML needed to display an initial web
page. Ex. 1001, 6:44–48.
A user begins viewing or editing a diary by viewing web page 113
available from diary server 104. Id. at 6:56–59. Web page 113 allows the
user to indicate that he wishes to view or edit a specified diary. Id. at 6:59–
60. This indication begins execution of diary applet 112, which sends a
request 116 to diary server 104 for the contents of the specified diary. Id. at
6:60–62. When diary software 124 receives request 116 from browser 110,
it sends information 118, including diary information, appropriate for the
specified diary to the user system. Id. at 6:63–67. Diary applet 112 reads
diary information 114 received from diary server 104 and generates HTML
111 for one or more diary pages in accordance with diary information 114.
Id. at 7:1–3. Diary applet 112 instructs browser 110 to display the diary
page(s) in the browser window. Id. at 7:3–5.
C. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A method of organizing information for display,
comprising:
sending from a diary server to a user system, a diary
program capable of being executed by a browser in the user
system;
sending diary information from the diary server to the
user system, the information comprising content data including
an associated time, a page design to specify the presentation of
the content data, and configuration information for controlling
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

6
behavior of a cohesive diary page, the configuration
information including privacy level information;
assembling the cohesive diary page by dynamically
combining the content data and the page design in accordance
with the configuration information for the cohesive diary page
to be displayed by the diary program running in the browser;
receiving by the diary server at least one request for at
least one change concerning the diary information, from the
diary program in the user system; and
sending, by the diary server to the user system, new diary
information for changing the cohesive diary page.
Ex. 1001, 23:44–65.
D. Prior Art Supporting the Instituted Challenges
Petitioner relies upon the following references:
Salas US 6,233,600 B1 May 15, 2001
(filed July 15, 1997)
Ex. 1005
ED TITTEL & STEPHEN N. JAMES, MORE HTML FOR DUMMIES,
xv‐xxv, 57–84, 153–180, 341–364 (2d ed. 1997)
(“Tittel (1997)”)
Ex. 1006
Parker US 5,729,734 Mar. 17, 1998 Ex. 1011
Angles US 5,933,811 Aug. 3, 1999 Ex. 1012

E. The Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted inter partes review on the following grounds:
References Basis Claims Challenged
Salas, Tittel (1997), and Parker § 103 1, 4, 17, 18, and 26
Salas, Tittel (1997), Parker, and Angles § 103 20
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

7
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281–82 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (“Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
PTO regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim
terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
In the Decision to Institute, we interpreted various claim terms of the
’316 patent as follows:
Claim Term (Claims) Interpretation
“cohesive diary page”
(1 and 17)
a page in which the content data and the
page design are fully integrated for display
“configuration information”
(1 and 17)
information that determines what
information will be displayed to a user who
is viewing a cohesive diary page
See Dec. to Inst. 8–9. The parties do not dispute these interpretations in their
Patent Owner Response and Reply. We adopt the above claim constructions
based on our previous analysis, and, based on the complete record now
before us, see no reason to deviate from those constructions for purposes of
this decision.
In our Decision to Institute, we also construed “privacy level
information” to mean “configuration information that describes or specifies
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

8
at least one user or category of users permitted to view particular content on
a cohesive diary page.” Dec. to Inst. 9–10.
Patent Owner argues that our construction “is too broad because it
covers information that merely specifies whether a particular individual user
has access to certain content, and does not specify a level of access—the
universe of users that have access to certain content.” PO Resp. 50.
According to Patent Owner, “privacy level information” should be construed
to mean “configuration information that describes or specifies the universe
of one or more users or categories of users permitted to view particular
content on a cohesive diary page.” Id. at 49 (emphasis added).
Petitioner counters that (1) the Specification does not use the word
“universe;” (2) the claims themselves are written from the perspective of a
single “user” system; (3) Figure 4(d) describes an unclaimed feature that
should not be read into the claims; and (4) the claims use “level” in singular
form and, therefore, information about only one user falls squarely within
the broadest reasonable construction of privacy level information. Pet.
Reply 1–4.
Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence, we are
persuaded that our initial construction of “privacy level information” is
incorrect. We are not persuaded, however, that a “privacy level” describes
or specifies a “universe” or “category” of users permitted to view particular
content. Specifically, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the
examples of privacy levels disclosed in the ’316 patent reflect a universe, or
level, of permitted users (PO Resp. 51–52 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 4d, 10:36–
41 (“world, friend, close friend, best friend, and owner”), 18:8–29 (“various
classes of persons”))). Patent Owner’s construction requires that a “privacy
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

9
level”—e.g., “owner”—specify a universe or category of users—e.g., user1.
The ’316 patent, however, describes a “privacy level” as a characteristic of
the diary page, not as a group of users/viewers of the diary page. Ex. 1001,
10:37–39 (“Window 450 allows a user of the diary to set a privacy level at
which the diary is operating.”) (emphasis added). As described in the ’316
patent, the “privacy level” at which the diary page is operating does not
depend upon the identity of the user/viewer of the diary page. For example,
the ’316 patent discloses:
Button 438 allows any user to change the privacy level on
which the diary is operating, provided that the user is able to
authenticate himself at the desired level. Authentication is
preferably performed by requiring the user to enter a password
required to change the privacy level to a certain level.
Ex. 1001, 10:29–33 (emphasis added). The ’316 patent further discloses that
“[a]ny user can change the privacy level, provided that he is able to
authenticate himself, e.g., via a password supplied in area 456.” Id. at
10:41–43 (emphasis added). In both passages, the user is required to enter
only a password, not a username. The ’316 patent also describes the
following example: “If the user selects the owner privacy level (button 455)
and can supply a correct password in area 45[6], after clicking OK button
45[7], buttons 440, 442, 444, and 446 of FIG. 4(a) become available to the
owner.” Id. at 10:45–48. Thus, any user that can provide the “correct
password” can view the diary at the “owner” privacy level. This is
consistent with the disclosure that the password required to access a given
privacy level does not depend upon the identity of the viewer/user of the
diary page:
Button 473 [of Fig. 4(f)] allows the owner to change passwords
for the five privacy levels that are shown in FIG. 4(d). All users
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

10
must enter an appropriate password before diary applet 112 will
generate HTML (for content objects) or otherwise reveal the
existence of objects having those privacy levels (e.g., for named
sections in the named section list 404).
Ex. 1001, 11:24–29 (emphases added); see also id. at 17:22–23 (“the
passwords required for users to access the different privacy levels”
(emphasis added)), 18:25–27 (“The diary applet of the described
embodiment asks for a password to determine a privacy level of a person.”
(emphasis added)).
Under our initial construction of Patent Owner’s proposed
construction, a particular “privacy level” would be available only to a
particular user, or users, within the “universe” or “category” of users
specified for that privacy level. That is inconsistent, though, with the ’316
patent’s teaching that a diary page can be set to a privacy level by any user
that enters the correct password for that privacy level. Accordingly, neither
our construction nor Patent Owner’s construction can be correct.
The ’316 patent uses the term “privacy level” in two contexts: it
describes a diary page “operating” at a privacy level (Ex. 1001, 10:37–41),
and it describes content objects “having” a privacy level (id. at 11:25–29).
The “privacy level information” being claimed is part of “configuration
information for controlling behavior of a cohesive diary page.” Ex. 1001,
Claims 1, 17. The ’316 patent discloses that an owner can assign a “privacy
level” to pages, sections, and content objects to control whether they are
visible at the privacy level at which the diary page is operating. Ex. 1001,
18:12–15 (“[T]he owner of the diary can control what is presented to various
classes of persons via his diary” by “identify[ing] various pages, sections, or
content objects as having a certain privacy level.”). Only content data with a
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

11
privacy level lower than or equal to the privacy level at which the diary page is
operating is displayed. Id. at 18:17–20 (“[T]he diary applet generates HTML
only for those portions of the diary that have a privacy level lower than or equal
to the privacy level of the viewer who is viewing the diary.”).2 Specifically,
“[t]he person viewing a diary page can only view that content marked as
appropriate for him and other people at his privacy level.” Id. at 18:23–25.
Similarly, “[a]ll users must enter an appropriate password before diary applet
112 will generate HTML (for content objects) or otherwise reveal the existence
of objects having those privacy levels (e.g., for named sections in the named
section list 404).” Id. at 11:25–29. The privacy level information for a content
object, therefore, specifies the privacy level at or above which the diary page
must be operating in order for that content object to be displayed.
Accordingly, we construe “privacy level information” to mean
“configuration information that describes or specifies a level at, or above,
which particular content data is displayed as part of a cohesive diary page.”
B. Claims 1, 4, 17, 18, and 26 –
Obviousness over Salas, Tittel (1997), and Parker
Petitioner argues that claims 1, 4, 17, 18, and 26 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Salas, Tittel (1997), and Parker.
Pet. 24–56. In support of this ground of unpatentability, Petitioner relies
upon the Declaration of Edward R. Tittel. Id. (citing Ex. 1002).

2 Although these passages refer to the “privacy level of the viewer,” the ’316
patent clarifies that the “privacy level” at which the diary page operates
depends solely upon the password entered, not upon the identity of the viewer.
Id. at 18:25–27 (“The diary applet of the described embodiment asks for a
password to determine a privacy level of a person.”).
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

12
Patent Owner argues that (1) neither Salas’s access control
information nor Parker’s modified icons teach “privacy level information,”
as it was construed in the Decision to Institute (PO Resp. 9–17, 46–47);
(2) neither Salas nor Parker teach sending “privacy level information,” as
properly construed (id. at 55); (3) Salas’s access control information is not
sent to the user system, as required by claims 1 and 17 (id. at 18–43);
(4) Parker’s access privileges are not sent to the user system, as required by
claims 1 and 17 (id. at 43–45); and (5) a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have combined Salas and Parker because “in Salas every member
of the e-room has viewing permission, both of the underlying files and the
icons themselves” (id. at 56–60).
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 4, 17, 18, and 26 are
unpatentable as obvious over Salas, Tittel (1997), and Parker.
1. Salas (Exhibit 1005)
Salas describes a system and method for providing a collaborative
work environment that includes servers and client workstations. Ex. 1005,
Abstract. Client workstations receive data objects from one or more servers
and combine the received data objects with stored templates to render
HTML pages representing at least a portion of a common project. Id. Users
may view, edit, and create common documents for the projects and upload
them to the server using a drag-and-drop interface. Id.
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

13
Figure 4 of Salas is reproduced below.

Figure 4 depicts an embodiment of eRoom page 60 that a user might
encounter while using a browser program. Ex. 1005, 5:21–23. The eRoom
page has five major elements: page element 402, navigation bar 404,
graphical identifier 406, item box 408, and shortcut list 410. Id. at 5:24–27.
Page element 402 may include sub-elements. Id. at 5:28. In the
embodiment depicted, discussion 420 is embedded within page element 402
and facility 422 allows a viewer to contribute to discussion 420. Id. at 5:28–
31. Embedded discussion 420 and contribution facility 422 may be
implemented as ActiveX controls, a JAVA applet, or other means. Id. at
5:31–34.
Graphical identifier 406 is used to pictorially identify the viewed
page—e.g., a corporate logo or other organizational identifier. Id. at 5:54–
56. Graphical identifier 406 may be static or dynamic (such as a javascript
or ActiveX control). Ex. 1005, 5:56–58.
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

14
Item box 408 collects and displays items associated with the project
represented by page 402. Id. at 5:60–61. In the embodiment shown in
Figure 4, item box 408 contains folder of items 482, notes file 486,
spreadsheet file 488, and word processing file 490, each of these being links
to other eRoom pages or files. Id. at 5:61–65. Item box 408 may also
include version organizers, discussion, links, vote/poll pages, a facility for
creating new items 492, and icons that control how items are displayed in
item box 408. Id. at 5:65–6:4. In Figure 4, three icons are provided: “icon
display” icon 494 (currently selected) which causes items to be displayed as
large icons with identifying text underneath; “list display” icon 496 which
causes items to be displayed as small icons with identifying text to one side
of the icon; and “report display” icon which causes items to be displayed as
a list. Id. at 6:4–10. The displayed list may be alphabetized, ordered by size
of item, ordered by creation date, ordered by modification data, or ordered
by some other data field associated with each item. Id. at 6:10–13.
When a user requests the URL for an eRoom, the server returns an
HTML file, called a “wrapper” file, that contains an object ID that is used by
the client workstation to look up the object in the local database stored on
the client workstation. Id. at 6:40–52. The local database includes
information about the object, including which eRoom template to use and
information regarding any “children” the object may have—e.g., items
contained in item box 408. Id. at 6:52–56.
Generation, display, and management of an eRoom are controlled by a
“page builder” application residing on the client workstation. Id. at 6:57–59.
In some embodiments, the page builder application may be an ActiveX
control or a COM object. Id. at 6:61–63.
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

15
2. Tittel (1997) (Exhibit 1006)
Tittel (1997) describes the use of style sheets and ActiveX
components. Ex. 1006, 58, 176, 341. Tittel (1997) describes how ActiveX
components are automatically downloaded from a server if the object is not
already on a user’s machine. Id. at 341. Tittel (1997) also describes how
style sheets define a set of layout parameters for a document to ensure that
similar elements in the document appear uniformly. Id. at 176.
3. Parker (Exhibit 1011)
Parker describes a file service administration method in a computer
network having an administrator account and a user account. Ex. 1011,
Abstract. The computer network includes at least one sharepoint that is
selectively accessible through the user account. Id. Parker uses the term
“sharepoint” to mean an item—e.g., file, folder, volume, hard disk—that is
capable of being shared by network users. Id. at 2:24–26. The sharepoint is
displayed in accordance with the user’s privileges by being represented in a
first state when the access privilege for the user is enabled and being
represented in a second state when the access privilege for the user is not
enabled. Id. at Abstract.
Figure 7 of Parker is reproduced below.

IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

16
Figure 7 shows a graphical user interface window in which two sharepoints
are displayed in accordance with a user’s access privileges. Id. at 5:29–32,
11:20–22. As depicted in Figure 7, “test folder-1” (417) is shown as
accessible to the user by open lock icon 487 and because it is not ghosted,
grayed out, or hidden. Id. at 11:40–44. In contrast, “test folder-2” (419) is
in a ghosted state indicating that the user does not have access rights to “test
folder-2.” Id. at 11:44–46. In other embodiments, “test folder-2” (419) may
be grayed out, shaded, or hidden altogether. Id. at 11:46–47.
4. Analysis
Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that claims 1, 4, 17, 18, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over Salas, Tittel
(1997), and Parker. Pet. 24–56.
Independent claim 1 recites “sending diary information from the diary
server to the user system, the information comprising content data including
an associated time, a page design to specify the presentation of the content
data, and configuration information for controlling behavior of a cohesive
diary page, the configuration information including privacy level
information.”
For “content data including an associated time,” Petitioner relies upon
entries under “Announcements,” and the representations of items in item box
408. Id. at 32–33. The entries are time-stamped, and the representations of
items include a creation date and a modification date; both, therefore,
“includ[e] an associated time,” as recited. Id. at 33–35.
For “page design,” Petitioner relies upon the “wrapper” file sent by
the eRoom server to the user system. Id. at 35–36. The “wrapper” file
“specif[ies] the presentation of the content data,” by specifying an eRoom
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

17
template to be used to assemble the page. Id. at 35–37. Petitioner also
argues that it would have been obvious to modify the “wrapper” file of Salas
to include a URL identifying an eRoom template stored on the eRoom
server. Id. at 37–39 (citing Ex. 1002 (Tittel Decl.) ¶¶ 20–23, 73–75).
For “configuration information including privacy level information,”
Petitioner relies upon Salas’s teaching of entries in a database schema
including three separate groups (see, e.g., Ex. 1006, 14:30–54) and upon file
metadata. Pet. 40–41. Petitioner further relies upon Salas’s teaching that
file metadata includes “access information such as which users may open,
view and edit the file” and is sent to client workstation 12 when
synchronizing “local database metadata.” Id.
Patent Owner argues that Salas’s “access information” is not “privacy
level information,” as that term was construed in our Decision to Institute,
because it does not relate to whether the user may view content on a
cohesive diary page. PO Resp. 9. As Patent Owner explains, the “content
data” relied upon by Petitioner are the “Announcements” and displayed file
icons and associated file information, but not the underlying files
themselves. Id. at 12–14 (citing Dec. to Inst. 15; Ex. 2013 (Tittel
Deposition), 18:14–19:5, 22:25–23:6). According to Patent Owner, Salas’s
“access information” file metadata—“such as which users may open, view,
and edit the file” (Ex. 1006, 13:54–55)—pertains only to the files
themselves, and does not concern the whether the user may view the recited
“content data”—i.e., the Announcements and the file icons and associated
file information. Id. at 14–15.
Petitioner counters that Salas discloses “privacy level information” in
the form of file metadata that includes “access information such as which
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

18
users may open, view, and edit the file.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (quoting Ex. 1005,
13:52–57).
We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. As discussed above,
we construe “privacy level information” to mean “configuration information
that describes or specifies a level at, or above, which particular content data
is displayed as part of a cohesive diary page.” Salas teaches that file
metadata includes “access information such as which users may open, view,
and edit the file.” Ex. 1005, 13:54–55 (emphasis added). As Patent Owner
correctly points out, the file is not “particular content on a cohesive diary
page,” as our construction requires; the only “content on a cohesive diary
page” related to the file is an icon. Even if the file was “content on a
cohesive diary page,” Salas’s access information would still not be “privacy
level information” because it does not describe or specify a level at, or
above, which the file is displayed as part of a cohesive diary page. In that
regard, Petitioner relies upon Parker’s teaching of visually indicating a
user’s access level by ghosting out, greying out, shading, or hiding a folder
icon and name. Pet. 43–46. According to Petitioner,
This would predictably result in the eRoom system of Salas in
which the ActiveX control running in the web browser obtains
the file metadata identifying the access privileges of the user
(Salas, 13:52‐57), and then uses it to generate the eRoom page
with an item box (408) listing each file with a visual indication
consistent with the viewing user’s access privileges (e.g.[,] fully
visible, ghosted, grayed out, with a “lock icon,” etc.). (Tittel
Decl. ¶ 88.)
Pet. 46. Thus, Petitioner contends that by specifying a category of users
permitted to open/view/edit non-content (i.e., a file), Salas’s access
information also specifies a level (e.g., users-with-view-privileges level) at,
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

19
or above, which the file is displayed as part of a cohesive diary page. For
example, the technique of Parker may be used to hide the icon of a file
whose file metadata specifies that the user does not have view privileges
(i.e., is not at, or above, the users-with-view-privileges level). Ex. 1011,
Figs. 6, 7, 11:4-47.
As an initial matter, Salas’s user-based privileges are inconsistent with
the description of a “privacy level” in the ’316 patent. As discussed above
when construing “privacy level information,” neither the privacy level at
which a content object is viewable nor the the privacy level at which a diary
is operating depend upon the identity of a particular user. Ex. 1001, 10:29–
33, 10:41–43, 11:24–29, 17:22–23, 18:25–27. The “privacy level
information” for a content object specifies a level at which, not a user to
whom, the object becomes visible. Id. Salas’s access information, in
contrast, specifies users to whom the file is openable, viewable, and/or
editable. Ex. 1005, 13:52–57.
Even assuming that the group of users who can view a file constitutes
a “privacy level,” Salas’s access information still would not be “privacy
level information” because it would describe only a level at which non-
content (i.e., a file)—not content (i.e., the icon associated with that file)—is
displayed.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Salas, Tittel
(1997), and Parker teaches “privacy level information,” as recited in
independent claims 1 and 17.
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

20
a. Alternative construction of “privacy level information”
Even if we were to modify our construction of “privacy level
information” in the Decision to Institute only slightly to mean “configuration
information that describes or specifies at least one user or category of users
permitted to view particular content on a cohesive diary page,” we would
still not be persuaded that the combination of Salas and Parker teaches
“privacy level information.” Such a construction would be appropriate
because our construction of “privacy level information” in the Decision to
Institute is too broad. We agree with Patent Owner that “privacy level
information” must be more than a password specific to a single user/viewer.
As Patent Owner points out, the ’316 patent distinguishes a “privacy level”
from a user-specific password. PO Resp. 50 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:2–4 (“The
configuration information, such as privacy level, passwords, or the full name
of the user, is user-specific.”)); see also id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:29–
33, 17:21–23). Thus, although a privacy level may include only one user—
e.g., “owner”—it must be capable of including multiple users, which a user-
specific password is not. The use of “level” in the singular does not suggest
otherwise. The fact that information relating to only one level, as opposed to
a plurality of levels, meets the claim limitation does not imply, as Petitioner
suggests, that a single user may be a “level.”
Even under this alternative construction, we would still be persuaded
by Patent Owner’s arguments that Salas and Parker do not teach “privacy
level information.” Salas teaches that file metadata includes “access
information such as which users may open, view, and edit the file.”
Ex. 1005, 13:54–55 (emphasis added). As Patent Owner correctly points
out, the file is not “particular content on a cohesive diary page,” as our
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

21
construction requires. The only “content on a cohesive diary page” related
to the file is an icon and metadata (e.g., filename). The question, then, is
whether Salas’s access information describes or specifies at least one
category of users permitted to view the icon representing the file and/or the
file’s metadata. In that regard, Petitioner relies upon Parker’s teaching of
visually indicating a user’s access level by ghosting out, greying out,
shading, or hiding a folder icon and name. Pet. 43–46. According to
Petitioner,
This would predictably result in the eRoom system of Salas in
which the ActiveX control running in the web browser obtains
the file metadata identifying the access privileges of the user
(Salas, 13:52‐57), and then uses it to generate the eRoom page
with an item box (408) listing each file with a visual indication
consistent with the viewing user’s access privileges (e.g.[,] fully
visible, ghosted, grayed out, with a “lock icon,” etc.). (Tittel
Decl. ¶ 88.)
Pet. 46. Thus, by specifying a category of users permitted to open/view/edit
non-content (i.e., a file), Salas’s access information also specifies the
category of users permitted to view particular content (i.e., the icon
representing that file) on a cohesive diary page. For example, the technique
of Parker may be used to hide the icon of a file whose file metadata specifies
that the user may not view it.
In the proposed combination, however, the file metadata determines
only indirectly which icons (“content”) the user is permitted to view. The
file metadata itself describes/specifies access privileges only of non-
content—i.e., the files themselves. It is not enough that that information
may be used, in the assembling step, to determine what content (e.g., icon)
the user is permitted to view because our construction requires that the
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

22
“privacy level information” describe or specify at least one category of users
permitted to view particular content. Moreover, it is not enough for the file
metadata to determine the appearance of icons, small icons, or lists in item
box 408 (e.g., the visual appearance of items in item list box 408 based upon
file metadata such as filename, creation date, modified date, and which
application should be used to open and edit the file (see, e.g., Ex. 1005,
Fig. 4, 6:4–13)), because that information does not describe or specify a
category of users permitted to view those icons or lists.
Accordingly, even under this alternative construction, we are not
persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the combination of Salas, Tittel (1997), and Parker teaches
“privacy level information,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 17.
5. Conclusion
Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that claims 1, 4, 17, 18, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over Salas, Tittel
(1997), and Parker.
C. Claim 20 – Obviousness over Salas, Tittel (1997), Parker, and Angles
Petitioner argues that claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Salas, Tittel (1997), Parker, and Angles. Pet. 56–
59. Claim 20 depends indirectly from independent claim 17. Petitioner has
not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent
claim 17 is unpatentable as obvious over Salas, Tittel (1997), and Parker for
the reasons discussed above. Petitioner relies upon Angles only for the
additional limitation recited in claim 20. Id. Because Angles does not cure
the deficiency noted above with respect to “privacy level information,”
Petitioner also has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence,
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

23
that claim 20 is unpatentable as obvious over Salas, Tittel (1997), Parker,
and Angles.
III. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 1, 4, 17, 18, 20, and 26 of the ’316 patent are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED claims 1, 4, 17, 18, 20, and 26 are not held unpatentable;
and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the Decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
IPR2014-00415
Patent 6,415,316 B1

24
For PETITIONER:

Heidi L. Keefe
Mark R. Weinstein
COOLEY LLP
hkeefe@cooley.com
mweinstein@cooley.com
zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Robert H. Hillman
Lawrence K. Kolodney
John S. Goetz
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
hillman@fr.com
kolodney@fr.com
goetz@fr.com
IPR2014-00415@fr.com