Google Inc.v.SimpleAir, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

13018421 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 37
571-272-7822 Date: February 16, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

GOOGLE INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

SIMPLEAIR, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and TINA E. HULSE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

2

I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Google Inc. (“Google”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
seeking inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–17, 19–21, 24, 27, and
29–34 of U.S. Patent No. 8,601,154 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’154 patent”).
Patent Owner SimpleAir, Inc. (“SimpleAir”) filed a Preliminary Response.
Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Based on these submissions, we instituted trial as
to claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 29–31 of the ’154 patent. See
Papers 11 (“Dec. on Inst.”), 15 (noting SimpleAir filed a statutory disclaimer
of claims 19, 24, 27, 33, and 34 of the ’154 patent); Ex. 3002. SimpleAir
filed a Response. Paper 22 (“PO Resp.”). Google filed a Reply. Paper 26
(“Pet. Reply”).
An oral argument was conducted on December 15, 2015. A transcript
of the argument is entered in the record. Paper 36 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
A. Related Proceedings
The parties identify the following proceedings as affecting or being
affected by a decision in this proceeding: SimpleAir, Inc. v. Amazon.com
Inc., No. 2-14-cv-00679 (E.D. Tex.); SimpleAir, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No.
2-11-cv-00416 (E.D. Tex.); SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 2-13-cv-
00587 (E.D. Tex.); SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 2-13-cv-00937 (E.D.
Tex.); and SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 2-14-cv-00011 (E.D. Tex.).
Pet. 55; Paper 4, 1–2.

IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

3

B. The ’154 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’154 patent discloses wireless communication system 10. See Ex.
1001, 5:40–43. Internet and on-line information sources 12 provide data
feeds 16 to a network of servers 33 in central broadcast server 34 where data
feeds are parsed, compressed, encrypted, and packetized for broadcast. Id.
at 7:59–66. Central broadcast server 34 operates as a network operations
center. Id. at 6:29–30. Data parsed from plural incoming data feeds 16 from
information sources 12 is transmitted wirelessly by central broadcast server
34 through wireless network 36 to connected and non-connected computing
devices 14, as illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced below. Id. at 6:46–50.

Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of a communication network. Once
data is received at the user end, communications server 38 in message server
design 18 notifies user interface panel 50, which presents an icon that, when
clicked, notifies viewers 20 that are registered to display particular data on
user computer 14 and alerts users to incoming messages. Id. at 6:52–62.
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

4

Real time data feeds from information sources 12 are provided to a
network of servers 33 in central broadcast server 34, such as FTP server 102
and SMTP server 104, shown in Figure 2, reproduced below. Id. at 8:9–15.

Figure 2 is a block diagram of the wireless communication network of
Figure 1. Data, such as stock quotes, weather, lotto, and email, are parsed
by stock quote parser 106, weather parser 108, lotto parser 110, and mail
parser 112, and transmitted to content manager 114 in central broadcast
server 34. Id. at 8:16–21. Content manager 114 specifies priorities for
different types of information, determines what information is transmitted or
rejected, and also applies scheduling rules 132 to determine when messages
are transmitted to users and the format used. Id. at 8:42–51. Content
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

5

manager 114 communicates with information gateway 134, which builds
and addresses data blocks. Id. at 8:62–67, 22:13–18. Wireless gateway 136
packetizes, compresses, and encrypts data blocks for transmission over
wireless broadcast network 36. Id. at 9:18–20, 11:31–40.
C. Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
1. A method to transmit data from an information source via
a central broadcast server to remote computing devices, the
method comprising:
(a) generating data at the information source, wherein the
information source is associated with an online service
relating to the generated data;
(b) identifying one or more users that have subscribed to
receive a notification relating to the generated data;
(c) transmitting the generated data to a central broadcast
server configured to process the generated data using at
least one parser and transmit the processed data to
receivers communicatively coupled with remote
computing devices associated with subscribed users,
wherein the central broadcast server:
(i) comprises one or more servers associated with a
parser to parse the generated data received from the
information source;
(ii) is communicatively coupled to at least one
information gateway, the information gateway
configured to build data blocks from the parsed data
and assign addresses to the data blocks; and
(iii) is communicatively coupled to at least one
transmission gateway, the transmission gateway
configured to prepare the addressed data blocks for
transmission to the receivers and configured to cause
the addressed data blocks to be transmitted to the
receivers, and wherein the transmission is made
whether the remote computing devices are online or
offline from a data channel associated with the remote
computing devices.
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

6

D. Prior Art
Google relies on the following references:
Reference Patent/Printed Publication Date Exhibit
Kane WO 94/08419 A1 Apr. 14, 1994 1009
Verkler US 5,850,517 Dec. 15, 1998
(filed Aug. 31,
1995)
1040
Yan SIFT – A Tool for Wide-Area
Information Dissemination,
Proceedings of the 1995
USENIX Technical Conference,
177–186
Jan. 16–20,
1995
1042
Simon

The Windows 95 User
Interface, PC Magazine, Vol.
14, No. 13, 310–314
July 1995 1043
Reilly US 5,740,549 Apr. 14, 1998
(filed June 12,
1995)
1044
Olazabal US 5,323,148 June 21, 1994
(filed May 9,
1993)
1045
E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted proceedings as to claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 14, 16, 20,
21, and 29–31 of the ’154 patent on the following grounds:
References Basis Claim(s) Challenged
Yan, Kane § 103 1–3, 6, 8, 29
Yan, Kane, Verkler § 103 4
Yan, Kane, Reilly § 103 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, 21
Yan, Kane, Olazabal § 103 11
Yan, Kane, Reilly, Simon § 103 13
Yan, Kane, Verkler, Reilly § 103 30, 31
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

7

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Interpretation
In an inter partes review, claims of an unexpired patent are given their
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
which they appear. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1278
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly
adopted by PTO regulation”), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs.
LLC v. Lee, 84 U.S.L.W. 3218 (Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446); 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b). Claim terms are given their ordinary, customary meaning as
understood by a skilled artisan in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In co-pending litigation for U.S. Patent No. 7,035,914 B1 (“the ’914
patent”), a parent of the ’154 patent, the district court interpreted terms of
the ’914 patent. Ex. 1026. Google sets forth the district court’s construction
of seven limitations and asserts the Board may adopt a broader construction
but should not read identical claim terms more narrowly than the district
court did for the ’914 patent. Pet. 9–11; see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 73–74. SimpleAir
argues that the district court’s constructions are consistent with the broadest
reasonable interpretation of those terms. PO Resp. 8; see Ex. 2005 ¶ 73.
On April 27, 2015, the district court in co-pending litigation relating
to the ’154 patent construed terms of the ’154 patent. Ex. 3001. The district
court’s interpretations are largely the same as the interpretations proposed by
the parties and are set forth below. See id. at 8–70. Google agrees that the
district court’s interpretations also represent the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the terms for purposes of this proceeding. Tr. 9:9–20.
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

8

Claim Term Construction
“data channel” “one or more communication
channels or paths for accessing or
viewing a category or subcategory of
information that is provided by an
information source over a
communications network”
(Ex. 3001, 61)
“whether the remote computing
devices are online or offline from a
data channel associated with the
remote computing devices”
“whether the remote computing
devices are or are not connected via
the Internet or another online service
to a data channel associated with
each computing device at the time
the addressed data block is received
by the receivers, wherein the data
channel is for accessing information
from the information source that sent
the data” (Ex. 3001, 61–62)
“an information source” “one or more content or online
service providers that provide data to
the central broadcast server, such as
an online source of news, weather,
sports, financial information, games,
personal messages, or emails”
(Ex. 3001, 8–9)
“process the generated data using at
least one parser”
“using one or more computer
software programs, routines, or
functions to break or divide data
received from an information source
into components whose content or
format can be analyzed, processed or
acted upon” (Ex. 3001, 33)
“at least one information gateway,
the information gateway configured
to build data blocks from the parsed
data and assign addresses to the
data blocks”
“one or more software programs (or
a portion of a program) that act as an
interface between other software
resources and that build data blocks
from the parsed data and assign
addresses to the data blocks”
(Ex. 3001, 40–41)
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

9

Claim Term Construction
“at least one transmission gateway,
the transmission gateway
configured to prepare the addressed
data blocks for transmission to the
receivers and configured to cause
the addressed data blocks to be
transmitted to the receivers”
“one or more software programs (or
a portion of a program) that interface
with other resources used to transmit
the addressed data blocks and that
are configured to prepare the
addressed data blocks for
transmission to receivers and
configured to cause the addressed
data blocks to be transmitted to the
receivers” (Ex. 3001, 51)
“a central broadcast server” “one or more servers that are
configured to receive data from a
plurality of information sources and
process the data prior to its
transmission to one or more selected
remote computing devices”
(Ex. 3001, 29)
“contextual graphics” “graphics relating to the context of
the transmitted data that has been
receive[d]” (Ex. 3001, 70)

After considering the trial record, we determine that the constructions
set forth above are consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of
those terms and adopt these constructions for purposes of this Final Written
Decision.1

1 It appears that the ’154 patent will expire on January 24, 2017. Under the
facts developed during trial, our constructions of these terms would not vary
under the Phillips standard, which the district court applied. See Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1311–24 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Ex. 3001, 3.
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

10

B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
1. Claims 1–3, 6, 8, and 29
Obvious over Yan and Kane
a. Overview of Yan (Ex. 1042)
Yan describes an information dissemination service using a Stanford
Information Filtering Tool (SIFT) that filters large volumes of information
against a large number of user/subscriber profiles. Ex. 1042, Abstract, 178.
SIFT filtering engines operate on hardware such as a DECstation 5000/240.
Id. at 180. Figure 1 of Yan, reproduced below, illustrates this system.

Figure 1 provides an overview of SIFT. Id. at 179.
Users send subscription requests to a SIFT server via email or a World
Wide Web (“WWW”) graphical client interface specifying areas of interest,
such as underwater archeology. Id. at 179. As the SIFT server receives new
documents, the filtering engine processes them against stored subscriptions
and sends out notifications based on user-specified parameters. Id. A SIFT
server sends email messages with excerpts of a certain number of lines (as
specified by the user) of new, potentially relevant documents. Id. at 180.
After reading the excerpt, a user may access the SIFT server to retrieve the
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

11

entire document via an email interface or WWW viewer. Id. Thus, users
can access the Netnews SIFT server via email or the WWW. Id. Users may
access their local news host to access an article, or they may request that the
entire article be sent from the SIFT server. Id. at 181.
Yan discloses use of a SIFT server to disseminate tens of thousands of
Netnews articles daily to some 13,000 subscribers. Id. at 178. Yan discloses
another SIFT server disseminating Computer Science Technical Reports to
around 1,000 subscribers. Id. at 181. Yan discloses that limits to the load a
SIFT server can handle require SIFT servers to be replicated at other sites in
the United States and Europe to provide the same service. Id. at 180.
b. Overview of Kane (Ex. 1009)
Kane discloses electronic mail message delivery system 100, which
includes electronic mail network 113 and paging terminal 102 that receives,
stores, encodes, and transmits email messages over a paging communication
channel to remote selective call receiver 130. Ex. 1009, Abstract. Figure 1,
reproduced below, illustrates this system.

IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

12

Figure 1 is a block diagram of a communication system. System 100
includes encoder 120, communication path 122, and transmitters 124, 126,
to deliver messages to portable remote units (call receiver 130). Id. at 4:3–
13. Central terminal 102 has input sections 110 that interface with public
switched telephone network (PSTN) 107 so personal computers and other
computing devices 104 can access input sections 110 and central terminal
102 through PSTN 107 using a dial-up telephone line and modem. Id. at
4:7–18. Other input sections 112 of central terminal 102 receive requests
from local personal computers, a console, or other terminal device. Id. at
4:26–30. Controller 114 couples messages to paging encoder 120 over bus
116 for encoding the messages for transmission over a paging channel. Id.
at 6:1–3. Paging encoder 120 couples encoded messages to communication
path 122 and paging transmitter systems 124, 126, for transmission over a
paging communication channel and reception by one or more selective call
receivers 130. Id. at 6:3–6, Fig. 1.
c. Analysis
Regarding claim 1, Google asserts that Yan discloses a method to
transmit data from an information source via a central broadcast server, as a
SIFT server disseminates tens of thousands of Netnews articles daily and can
disseminate additional sources such as Computer Science Technical Reports.
Pet. 20. Google asserts that Kane discloses email delivery system 100 and
email network 113 that deliver messages from originating devices to remote
computing devices 130. Id. Google asserts that it would have been obvious
to use Kane’s email delivery system to deliver email notifications from
Yan’s SIFT server as a way to improve a similar system for predictable
results. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–94).
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

13

The dispositive issue with respect to claim 1 is whether Yan teaches
or suggests a “central broadcast server.” Under our interpretation set forth
above, a “central broadcast server” can be (1) a single server configured to
receive data from plural information sources or (2) multiple servers that are
collectively configured to receive data from plural information sources. As
set forth more fully below, Google has not established by a preponderance of
evidence that Yan teaches or suggests a single server configured to receive
data from multiple information sources, or multiple servers configured as a
central broadcast server to receive data from multiple information sources.
Single server receiving data from plural information sources
A central broadcast server can comprise a single server if that server is
configured to receive data from multiple information sources. We interpret
“an information source,” in part, as “one or more content or online service
providers that provide data to the central broadcast server.”
Google asserts that Yan discloses two SIFT servers, each of which
receives data from a single information source. See Pet. 20. Google asserts
that “Yan discloses an information source whose information is associated
with an online service, e.g., ‘Netnews is an extremely diverse source of
information.’” Pet. 22 (emphasis added). Google also asserts that Yan “set
up another SIFT server, disseminating Computer Science Technical
Reports.” Id. at 20 (quoting Ex. 1042, 181). However, Google asserts that a
single Netnews SIFT server is the central broadcast server. Id. at 23–24.
Google also contends that the Netnews system provides the articles from an
electronic bulletin board system. Id. at 22–23. Google’s contention that
Yan discloses a single SIFT server that disseminates Netnews articles and
another SIFT server that disseminates Computer Science Technical Reports
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

14

does not persuade us that Yan discloses a single SIFT server configured to
receive data from multiple information sources. See Pet. 20; Pet. Reply 3.
Google’s declarant, Vijay Madisetti, Ph.D., treats Netnews as an
information source. Ex. 1070 ¶ 4 (opining that Yan discloses a central
broadcast server as “a SIFT server distributing Netnews articles and a SIFT
server distributing computer science technical reports—that receive
information from two information sources, one for Netnews and one for
technical reports.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 96 (stating Netnews, an online information
source, “provides articles from an electronic bulletin board service”).
In its Reply, Google asserts that Yan’s Netnews SIFT server receives
information from a plurality of information sources. Pet. Reply 4. Google
asserts that Netnews is a network of News Servers or News Hosts and when
Yan’s SIFT server receives articles from a local news host, the articles
originate from Netnews servers around the world and each of these servers is
an information source. Id. at 4–5. Google thus contends that Yan’s SIFT
server receives data from multiple information sources indirectly through an
intermediate device, i.e., a local Netnews news host. Id. at 5.
We are not persuaded by this argument. Although Yan discloses that
the Netnews SIFT server receives tens of thousands of Netnews articles
daily, the articles come from a single electronic bulletin board (Pet. 23) or
Netnews Host, as Google acknowledges. See Ex. 1042, 177–79, 181–82,
Fig. 1; Pet. Reply 4. Thus, the Netnews SIFT server, which Google asserts
to be a central broadcast server (Pet. 23), is configured to receive all
Netnews data from a single information source – a local host. Ex. 1042, 182
(38,000 Netnews articles were received by “our department’s news host”
and filtered with subscriber profiles in the Netnews SIFT server); PO Resp.
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

15

18. SimpleAir’s declarant, James Knox, Ph.D., testified that Yan’s SIFT
server is configured to receive articles from a single information provider, a
Netnews news host. Ex. 2005 ¶ 103. Dr. Madisetti testified that Yan’s SIFT
server is configured for Netnews only and is connected to only one Netnews
server. Ex. 2006, 33:4–8, 51:19–52:12 (“There is just one Netnews server
that is connected to the Netnews SIFT server in Yan.”), 57:10–20; Ex. 1070
¶ 7 (testifying that users access Netnews articles through a newsreader that is
connected to a “local Netnews host,” although the articles originate from
Netnews servers around the world); Tr. 13:24–14:2 (acknowledging that the
“Netnews SIFT server . . . would be receiving from a Netnews server”
(emphasis added)). This testimony from the parties’ declarants is supported
by the disclosure of Yan itself, as explained above. Google therefore has not
established Yan’s Netnews SIFT server as being configured to receive data
from more than one information source.
Google also asserts that “Yan suggests that any of the SIFT servers
could have additional sources of information” by teaching that “[s]ifting
Netnews is just one application of SIFT” and “[w]e have set up another SIFT
server, disseminating Computer Science Technical Reports.” Pet. 20
(quoting Ex. 1042, 181). This portion of Yan does not disclose a single
SIFT server configured to receive data from multiple information sources,
however. Rather, Yan teaches that a second SIFT server is used to receive
and disseminate data from a second information source – Computer Science
Technical Reports. Ex. 1042, 181; PO Resp. 18–19; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 104–105.
Google further asserts that Dr. Knox agreed that an information
source need not provide the data directly to the central broadcast server. Pet.
Reply 5. This argument is not persuasive either. When asked whether a
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

16

Netnews server that was coupled to another server that was sending
information to users would be an information source, Dr. Knox testified, “I
don’t see any reason based just on what you said that it would be no.”
Ex. 1065, 27:8–9. Thus, Dr. Knox did not agree that a remote server
transmitting information to a user via a local server is an information source
as recited in claim 1. Even if he had, his testimony would be inapposite
because we interpret “information source,” in part, as “one or more content
or online service providers that provide data to the central broadcast
server.” The relevant inquiry is the provision of data to a central broadcast
server, not to a user. Dr. Knox testified that data travels over the Internet via
backbone routers, servers, and other things. Id. at 157:1–4. This testimony
does not support a finding that Yan’s Netnews SIFT server is configured to
receive data from more than one information source, however.
For all these reasons, Google has not established that a Netnews SIFT
server is a central broadcast server, which must be configured to receive data
from multiple information sources.
Plural servers receiving data from plural information sources
Google also asserts that Yan discloses a central broadcast server as a
SIFT server that distributes Netnews articles and another SIFT server that
distributes Computer Science Technical Reports. Pet. Reply 3 (citing Pet.
20). Google does not explain sufficiently how these two different SIFT
servers collectively comprise a central broadcast server configured to receive
data from more than one information source, rather than two individual
servers, each of which receives data separately from a single information
source, i.e., Netnews or computer science technical reports. Pet. 20; Pet.
Reply 3.
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

17

In the Petition, Google asserts that Yan discloses a method to transmit
data from an information source via a central broadcast server, as recited in
the preamble of claim 1, by a SIFT server disseminating Netnews articles
daily and another SIFT server disseminating Computer Science Technical
Reports. Pet. 20. Google did not assert that these two separate SIFT servers
together form a central broadcast server. Id. at 23–25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 98–100,
Claim Chart A, 1.3, 1.3a. Google relied on Yan’s Netnews SIFT server to
disclose a central broadcast server by asserting “Yan discloses a central
broadcast server which receives and parses data” and as “the SIFT server
receives new documents [from Netnews], the filtering engine will process
them against stored subscriptions.” Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1042, 179).
Dr. Madisetti also testified that a single Netnews SIFT server is the central
broadcast server that receives documents from a single information source –
Netnews – and parses the data. Ex. 1002 ¶ 98, Claim Chart A, 1.3.
Google asserts in the Petition that “Yan discloses parsing the received
data message where the processing involves parsing of the documents by the
SIFT server because a part of a document (a number of lines) is identified
and serves as the excerpt in an email message.” Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1042,
180) (emphasis added). This portion of Yan discusses a single SIFT server
that receives and disseminates only Netnews articles. Ex. 1042, 180. The
Petition does not explain how a Netnews SIFT server and a separate SIFT
server for Computer Science Technical Reports form a central broadcast
server, or how they are “associated with a parser,” as claimed. Google does
not assert that the separate SIFT servers work with the same parser or share
a single parser that parses for both servers. Tr. 49:1–24 (discussing the
shared functionality of a single parser “associated with” multiple servers).
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

18

Google and Dr. Madisetti illustrate Yan’s “Central Broadcast Server”
as a single SIFT engine receiving information from a single “Information
Source” with Kane’s Gateways, reproduced below. Pet. 19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 88.

Google’s figure above combines Figure 1 of Yan with Figure 1 of
Kane. Neither Google nor Dr. Madisetti explain how Yan’s separate SIFT
servers are configured as a central broadcast server to receive data from a
plurality of information sources. See Pet. 23–25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 88, 89, 95–98.
Google belatedly asserts in its Reply that a Netnews SIFT server that
receives data from one information source (Netnews) and a separate SIFT
server that receives data from another information source (Computer Science
Technical Reports) together form a central broadcast server (Pet. Reply 3–
5). See PO Resp. 19–20. This theory for how Yan allegedly teaches the
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

19

“central broadcast server” limitation of claim 1, however, was not set forth
in the Petition, and is inappropriate to raise for the first time in a reply. See
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14,
2012); Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule,
77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,620 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Oppositions and replies may
rely upon appropriate evidence to support the positions asserted. Reply
evidence, however, must be responsive and not merely new evidence that
could have been presented earlier to support the movant’s motion.”); see
also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“petition must specify where each element of
the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied
upon”); Pet. 23–25 (identifying only a single Netnews SIFT server as the
central broadcast server that “comprises one or more servers” as claimed).
Regardless, though, Google’s argument is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. PO Resp. 18–19. Google has not explained
sufficiently how two separate servers, each of which is configured to receive
data from a different single information source, disclose a central broadcast
server, which must be configured to receive information from multiple
information sources. In essence, Google would read the term “central” out
of “central broadcast server” so any two separate servers would be a central
broadcast server no matter how they are configured or related to one another.
Tr. 15:21–16:22. We, however, decline to do so. See Stumbo v. Eastman
Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim
constructions that render phrases in claims superfluous). Rather, we agree
with Patent Owner that two servers that are “separately configured to receive
and independently broadcast data from two different information sources”
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

20

do not constitute a “central broadcast server” as we have interpreted the
term. See PO Resp. 9.
Yan discloses each SIFT server as self-contained and independently
operated with separate subscriber lists. Ex. 1042, 181. A user “subscribes to
a SIFT server with one or more subscriptions.” Id. at 179 (emphasis added).
Each SIFT server processes data from a separate source. Id. at 180–81. The
Netnews SIFT server filters data from Netnews differently and separately
from the Computer Science Technical Reports SIFT server. Id. at 185.
Dr. Knox testifies that Yan does not disclose any connection between
the Netnews SIFT server and Computer Science Technical Reports SIFT
server. Ex. 2005 ¶ 108. Dr. Madisetti agrees that these two SIFT servers are
not connected. Ex. 2006, 51:9–17, 54:17–55:5; see PO Resp. 20. Dr. Knox
also testifies that Yan uses two separate SIFT servers to process data from
two different information sources independently using different filters, and
teaches away from a central broadcast server configured to receive data from
multiple information sources. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 103–14. Dr. Knox’s testimony is
supported by the evidence of record and is persuasive.
To characterize Yan’s two SIFT servers as a network of servers in a
central broadcast server because they are on the Stanford.edu network, as
Google asserts for claim 62 (Pet. Reply 18–19; Ex. 1070 ¶ 15), is tantamount
to saying any server on the stanford.edu network is part of the same network
and the same central broadcast server. Google has not pointed to persuasive
evidence that these two SIFT servers are interconnected or networked as a

2 Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, recites that “the central broadcast
server comprises a network of servers.”
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

21

central broadcast server, as claimed. See Tr. 24:10–14 (acknowledging that
Yan does not teach any communication between the Netnews SIFT server
and Computer Science Technical Reports SIFT server). Dr. Madisetti’s first
declaration does not address this issue. Ex. 1002 ¶ 121.
In his Rebuttal Declaration, Dr. Madisetti testifies that using the same
stanford.edu DNS suffix means that the two SIFT servers are on the same IP
subnet, which means the two servers are networked as a network of servers.
Ex. 1070 ¶ 15. Dr. Knox testifies that sharing the same email sub-domain
does not mean the two SIFT servers are on the same local network, let alone
that they are interconnected in any way. Ex. 2005 ¶ 115. Dr. Knox testifies
that the sub-domains indicate the two SIFT servers are both associated with
the Stanford database organizational group, not the same physical network.
Id. We agree with Dr. Knox’s analysis, and are not persuaded that Yan’s
Netnews and Computer Science and Technical Reports SIFT servers form a
network of servers or that they are networked together or interconnected to
form a central broadcast server.
Google also asserts that Yan teaches a network of servers because a
Netnews SIFT server or a Computer Science Technical Reports SIFT server
can be replicated. See Pet. 35; Pet. Reply 18–19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 121. Google,
however, does not explain how replication of a SIFT server to handle high
loads results in the original SIFT server and any replicated SIFT server(s)
forming a network of servers that together operate as a central broadcast
server configured to receive data from multiple information sources.
Yan discloses replicated SIFT servers as a way to handle loads that
are excessive for a single SIFT server. Ex. 1042, 180 (“Even though we
believe SIFT is efficient, there is a limit to the load that it can handle. It is
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

22

necessary to replicate the server . . . .”). Replication does not configure a
SIFT server to receive data from more than one information source. Instead,
the SIFT server and any replicated server(s) still receive data from a single
information source, e.g., Netnews. Id.; Pet. Reply 18–19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 121.
Nor has Google explained how replication results in a Stanford SIFT
server being networked with a replicated SIFT server as a central broadcast
server. Yan discloses that a replicated SIFT server may be operated at other
sites in the United States and Europe “that expressed interests in providing
the same service” for other subscribers who cannot be handled by the
Stanford Netnews SIFT server. Ex. 1042, 180. Thus, Yan replicates SIFT
servers at other sites to provide Netnews articles to different subscribers.
Yan does not network Stanford’s SIFT server to a replicated SIFT server or
configure both SIFT servers to operate together as a central broadcast server.
Dr. Knox testifies that Yan teaches that other organizations at other
sites in the United States and Europe may provide the same service as the
Stanford SIFT server by operating replicated SIFT servers independently for
different subscribers. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 243–47. Dr. Knox also testifies that Yan
teaches that the replicated servers function independently to provide the
same service as Stanford’s SIFT server and does not teach creating a central
broadcast server made up of multiple, networked servers. Id. Dr. Knox also
testifies that because Yan teaches “replicated” servers that each have all the
components necessary to function independently, there is no need to network
the SIFT servers to “provide[] the same service.” Id. ¶ 243–44. We agree.
We are not persuaded by Dr. Madisetti’s testimony that replication
requires some degree of interconnection or coordination (see Ex. 1070 ¶ 6)
because Yan teaches that the replication involves separate sites operated by
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

23

different entities “interest[ed] in providing the same service” for additional,
different subscribers. Ex. 1042, 180. Indeed, Dr. Madisetti testified in his
first declaration that the SIFT server can be replicated into multiple servers,
without indicating how the servers are networked together. Ex. 1002 ¶ 121.
Google has not established by a preponderance of evidence that Yan
discloses a central broadcast server comprising one or more servers that are
configured to receive data from multiple information sources. Google
therefore has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 1–3, 6, 8, and 29 would have been obvious over Yan and Kane.3
2. Claim 4 Obvious Over Yan, Kane, and Verkler
Google relies on Verkler to disclose features of dependent claim 4,
rather than to overcome the deficiencies of Yan for claim 1. Pet. 36–37.
Thus, Google has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claim 4 is unpatentable.
3. Claims 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, and 21 Obvious Over Yan, Kane, and Reilly
Google relies on Reilly to disclose features of dependent claims 9, 10,
14, 16, 20, and 21, rather than to overcome the deficiencies of Yan for claim
1. Pet. 37–40. Thus, Google has not established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claims 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, and 21 are unpatentable.
4. Claim 11 Obvious Over Yan, Kane, and Olazabal
Google relies on Olazabal to disclose features of dependent claim 11,
rather than to overcome the deficiencies of Yan for claim 1. Pet. 42–43.

3 Because we agree with Patent Owner as to the “central broadcast server”
limitation of claim 1, we need not address the other arguments made by
Patent Owner in its Response.
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

24

Thus, Google has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claim 11 is unpatentable.
5. Claim 13 Obvious over Yan, Kane, Reilly, and Simon
Google relies on Reilly and Simon to disclose features of dependent
claim 13, rather than to overcome the deficiencies of Yan for claim 1. Pet.
43–44. Thus, Google has not established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claim 13 is unpatentable.
6. Claims 30 and 31 Obvious over Yan, Kane, Verkler, and Reilly
Google relies on Verkler and Reilly to disclose features of dependent
claims 30 and 31, rather than to overcome any deficiencies of Yan for claim
1. Pet. 45–52. Thus, Google has not established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claims 30 and 31 are unpatentable.
7. Google’s Motion to Exclude
Google argues that SimpleAir’s Exhibits 2008, 2009, 2010, 2025,
2026, 2043, and portions of Dr. Knox’s declaration (Ex. 2005) that rely on
these exhibits, are inadmissible hearsay. Paper 29 (“Mot.”). Google argues
that SimpleAir offers this evidence as secondary considerations of
nonobviousness. Mot. 1. Because Google has not demonstrated that any of
the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we need
not consider SimpleAir’s evidence of secondary considerations of
nonobviousness. Google’s motion to exclude is thus dismissed as moot.
III. CONCLUSION
Google has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that any
of claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 29–31 of the ’154 patent are
unpatentable in this proceeding.
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

25

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Google’s request to cancel claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13,
14, 16, 20, 21, and 29–31 of U.S. Patent No. 8,601,154 B2 is denied;
FURTHER ORDERED that Google’s motion to exclude evidence is
dismissed as moot; and
FURTHER ORDERED that because this is a final written decision,
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.
IPR2015-00180
Patent 8,601,154 B2

26

For PETITIONER:
Michael V. Messinger
Joseph E. Mutschelknaus
mikem-PTAB@skgf.com
jmutsche-PTAB@skgf.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Charles F. Wieland III, Esq.
Robert G. Mukai, Esq.
charles.wieland@bipc.com
robert.mukai@bipc.com