Petitionerfishpostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/IPR2015-00464.pdf · 2017-04-22 · CLICKBOOTH.COM, LLC, Petitioner, v. ESSOCIATE, INC., Patent Owner. U.S. Patent No. 6,804,660 Issue

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

___________________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

___________________________

CLICKBOOTH.COM, LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

ESSOCIATE, INC.,

Patent Owner.

U.S. Patent No. 6,804,660

Issue Date: October 12, 2004

Title: SYSTEM METHOD AND ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE

FOR INTERNET BASED AFFILIATE POOLING

___________________________

Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-____

Attorney Docket No. 39BP-207011

___________________________

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,804,660

SMRH:435507077.5 i

39BP-207011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. - 1 -

II. MANDATORY NOTICES .............................................................................. - 2 -

A. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................ - 2 -

B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ......................................... - 2 -

C. Designation of Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R.

§ 42.8(b)(3)) ..................................................................................... - 2 -

D. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .................................. - 3 -

III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... - 3 -

IV. PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... - 3 -

V. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ..................................................... - 3 -

VI. ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................ - 3 -

VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... - 4 -

VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ...................................................... - 7 -

A. Ground 1: Claims 1-15, 23, 28, 36 Are Invalid as Obvious

Over Bezos and Messer in View of GeoCities, Reed, and

AAPA ............................................................................................... - 9 -

1. Independent claim 1 ............................................................... - 9 -

2. Dependent claim 2 ............................................................... - 19 -

3. Dependent claim 3 ............................................................... - 20 -

4. Dependent claim 4 ............................................................... - 20 -

5. Dependent claim 5 ............................................................... - 20 -

6. Dependent claim 6 ............................................................... - 21 -

7. Dependent claim 7 ............................................................... - 21 -

SMRH:435507077.5 ii

39BP-207011

8. Dependent claim 8 ............................................................... - 21 -

9. Dependent claim 9 ............................................................... - 22 -

10. Dependent claim 10 ............................................................. - 22 -

11. Dependent claim 11 ............................................................. - 22 -

12. Dependent claim 12 ............................................................. - 23 -

13. Dependent claim 13 ............................................................. - 23 -

14. Dependent claim 14 ............................................................. - 23 -

15. Independent claim 15 ........................................................... - 24 -

16. Dependent claim 23 ............................................................. - 25 -


18. Dependent claim 36 ............................................................. - 27 -

B. Ground 2: Claims 1-11, 13, 15, 23, 28, 36 are Invalid as

Obvious Over Messer in View of Reed and AAPA ....................... - 28 -

1. Independent claim 1 ............................................................. - 28 -



4. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, 13, 23, 36 ............................... - 33 -

5. Dependent claim 8 ............................................................... - 33 -

C. Ground 3: Claim 9 is Invalid as Obvious Over Messer in View

of Reed and further in View of El-Kadi and AAPA ...................... - 34 -

1. Dependent claim 9 ............................................................... - 34 -

D. Ground 4: Claims 12 and 14 are Invalid as Obvious Over

Messer in View of Reed and further in View of Bezos and

AAPA ............................................................................................. - 34 -

1. Dependent claim 12 ............................................................. - 34 -

SMRH:435507077.5 iii

39BP-207011

2. Dependent claim 14 ............................................................. - 35 -

E. Ground 5: Claims 1, 3-6, 13-15, 23, 28, and 36 are Invalid as

Obvious Over Graber in view of GeoCities and AAPA ................ - 35 -




4. Dependent claims 3-6, 13, 14, 23, 36 .................................. - 42 -

F. Ground 6: Claims 2, 7, 8, and 10-12 are Invalid as Obvious

Over Graber in View of GeoCities and further in View of

Messer and AAPA .......................................................................... - 43 -

1. Dependent claim 2 ............................................................... - 43 -

2. Dependent claim 7 ............................................................... - 43 -

3. Dependent claim 8 ............................................................... - 43 -

4. Dependent claim 10 ............................................................. - 44 -

5. Dependent claim 11 ............................................................. - 44 -

6. Dependent claim 12 ............................................................. - 44 -

G. Ground 7: Claim 9 is Invalid as Obvious Over Graber in View

of GeoCities and further in View of Messer and El-Kadi and

AAPA ............................................................................................. - 44 -

1. Dependent claim 9 ............................................................... - 44 -

H. Ground 8: Claim 14 is Invalid as Obvious Over Graber in View

of GeoCities and further in View of Bezos and AAPA ................. - 45 -

1. Dependent claim 14 ............................................................. - 45 -

I. Ground 9: Claims 1, 3-6, 13, 15, 23, 28, and 36 are Invalid as

Obvious Over Graber in view of Reed and AAPA ........................ - 45 -


SMRH:435507077.5 iv

39BP-207011



4. Dependent claims 3-6, 13, 23, 36 ........................................ - 49 -

J. Ground 10: Claims 2 and 7-12 are Invalid as Obvious Over

Graber in View of Reed and further in View of Messer and

AAPA ............................................................................................. - 50 -

1. Dependent claim 2 ............................................................... - 50 -

2. Dependent claim 7 ............................................................... - 50 -

3. Dependent claims 8 and 10-11 ............................................. - 50 -

4. Dependent claim 12 ............................................................. - 51 -

K. Ground 11: Claim 9 is Invalid as Obvious Over Graber in View

of Reed and further in View of Messer and El-Kadi and AAPA ... - 51 -

1. Dependent claim 9 ............................................................... - 51 -

L. Ground 12: Claim 14 is Invalid as Obvious Over Graber in

View of Reed and further in View of Bezos and AAPA ............... - 51 -

1. Dependent claim 14 ............................................................. - 51 -

M. Ground 13: Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15, 23, 28, and 36 are Invalid as

Obvious Over Lipin in view of GeoCities and AAPA ................... - 52 -




4. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, 23, 36 ................................... - 55 -

N. Ground 14: Claim 9 is Invalid as Obvious Over Lipin in View

of GeoCities and further in View of El-Kadi and AAPA .............. - 56 -

1. Dependent claim 9 ............................................................... - 56 -

SMRH:435507077.5 v

39BP-207011

O. Ground 15: Claim 14 is Invalid as Obvious Over Lipin in View

of GeoCities and further in View of Bezos and AAPA ................. - 56 -

1. Dependent claim 14 ............................................................. - 56 -

P. Ground 16: Claims 1-15, 23, 28, 36 Are Invalid as Obvious

Over Bezos and Messer in View of GeoCities, Reed, AAPA,

Gray, and ClickTrade ..................................................................... - 56 -




Q. Ground 17: Claims 1-11, 13, 15, 23, 28, 36 are Invalid as

Obvious Over Messer in View of Reed and AAPA and further

in View of Gray and ClickTrade .................................................... - 58 -

R. Ground 18: Claim 9 is Invalid as Obvious Over Messer in View

of Reed and further in View of El-Kadi and AAPA and further

in View of Gray and ClickTrade .................................................... - 59 -

S. Ground 19: Claims 12 and 14 are Invalid as Obvious Over

Messer in View of Reed and AAPA and further in View of

Gray and ClickTrade ...................................................................... - 59 -

IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. - 60 -

SMRH:435507077.5 vi

39BP-207011

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

72 FR 57526 (Oct. 10, 2007) ............................................................ 28, 35, 45, 51

PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc.

491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............... 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

Statutes

35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ..................................................................................................... 6

35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ...................................................................................................... 6

EXHIBIT LIST (37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e))

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION

CB1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,804,660 to Landau et al. (“‘660 Patent”)

CB1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,804,660

CB1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,029,141 to Bezos et al. (“Bezos”)

CB1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,991,740 to Messer (“Messer”)

CB1005 GeoCities Affiliates Program License and Services Agreement

(“GeoCities”)

CB1006 Declaration of Jonathan E. Hochman (“Hochman Decl.”)

CB1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,044,205 to Reed et al. (“Reed”)

CB1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,014,642 to El-Kadi et al. (“El-Kadi”)

CB1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,812,769 to Graber et al. (“Graber”)

CB1010 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0225558 to Lipin

(“Lipin 1”)

SMRH:435507077.5 vii

39BP-207011

CB1011 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/182,933 to Lipin

(“Lipin 2”) (Lipin 1 and Lipin 2 collectively, “Lipin”)

CB1012 Excerpt from Gray, Daniel. The Complete Guide to Associate and

Affiliate Programs on the Net. McGraw Hill, Nov. 30, 1999,

page 161 (“Gray”)

CB1013 Internet Archive printouts of website www.ClickTrade.com from

Feb. 29, 2000 – Mar. 1, 2000 (“ClickTrade”)

I. INTRODUCTION

Clickbooth.com, LLC (“Clickbooth” or “Petitioner”) hereby petitions for inter

partes review seeking cancellation of claims 1-15, 23, 28 and 36 of U.S. Patent

No. 6,804,660 (“the '660 patent”) (CB1001), which is owned by Essociate, Inc.

The '660 patent relates generally to e-commerce and, more particularly, to

Internet-based affiliate pooling. The patent purports to claim the advantage of

allowing “groups of Webmasters to participate in existing Merchant affiliate

systems without the need of joining those Merchant affiliate systems.” CB1001,

4:53-56. An affiliate system is a type of Internet-based referral network in which a

group of webmasters, or “affiliates,” direct traffic to a merchant. The specification

of the '660 patent makes clear that affiliate systems predate the alleged invention of

the '660 patent and were conventional fixtures on the Internet.

The claims of the '660 patent are directed to a system, method, and computer

program for providing “virtual affiliates” access to an existing affiliate system.

The access is provided by an “affiliate pooling system,” which the '660 patent

describes as a combination of two conventional affiliate systems—a merchant

affiliate system and a “virtual” affiliate system. The affiliate systems are the same,

structurally and functionally, as two conventional standalone affiliate systems,

except that the virtual affiliate system has the ability to correlate a “source”

webmaster ID that is functional in the virtual affiliate system to a “target”

SMRH:435507077.5 - 2 -

39BP-207011

webmaster ID that is functional in the merchant’s affiliate system when traffic is

sent to the merchant.

As is well known, the concept of correlating ID numbers between two

unique ID systems was nothing new to the Internet when the '660 patent was filed.

These facts render claims 1-15, 23, 28 and 36 invalid for obviousness.

II. MANDATORY NOTICES

A. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))

The real party-in-interest is Clickbooth.com, LLC, a Florida corporation

having a principal place of business in Sarasota, Florida.

B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))

The '660 patent is involved in the following district court proceedings:

(1) Essociate, Inc. v. Clickbooth.com, LLC., Case No. 8:13-cv-01886-JVS-DFM

(C.D. Cal.); (2) Essociate, Inc. v. 4355768 CANADA INC., Case No. 8:14-cv-

00679-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.); and (3) (2) Essociate, Inc. v. Integrate.com, Inc.,

Case No. 8:14-cv-00768-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.).

C. Designation of Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))

Lead Counsel Back-Up Counsel

Darren M. Franklin (Reg. No. 51701)

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90071-1422

Telephone: (213) 617-5498

Fax: (213) 620-1398

E-mail: [email protected]

Gary A. Clark (Reg. No. 28060)

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90071-1422

Telephone: (213) 617-4197

Fax: (213) 620-1398

E-mail: [email protected]

SMRH:435507077.5 - 3 -

39BP-207011

D. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))

Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the address above.

Petitioner consents to electronic service at the above e-mail addresses.

III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING

Petitioner certifies that (1) the '660 patent is eligible for inter partes review;

(2) Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review

challenging the claims of the '660 patent on the grounds in this Petition; (3) this

petition is filed within one year of the service of the original complaint against

Petitioner in the litigation identified above; and (4) Petitioner has not filed a civil

action challenging the validity of a claim of the '660 patent.

IV. PAYMENT OF FEES

The undersigned attorney for Petitioner authorizes the Patent and Trademark

Office to charge Deposit Account No. 19-1853 (Customer ID No. 113671) for the

fee required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this petition, and further authorizes

payment of any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.

V. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED

Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15, 23, 28

and 36 of the '660 patent based on the detailed statements presented in § VIII below.

VI. ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART

A person of ordinary skill in the art of designing Internet affiliate systems in

May 2000 had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or equivalent experience,

SMRH:435507077.5 - 4 -

39BP-207011

plus about three years of experience working with computers in a networked

environment. CB1006 ¶ 10.

VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

The claims of the '660 patent define a system, method, and computer

program for providing “virtual affiliates” access to an existing affiliate system.

Each independent claim has four main steps, code segments, or means-plus-

function elements: (1) configuring an existing affiliate system to receive referrals

from webmasters in an affiliate pool of webmasters; (2) receiving a user request for

a target merchant affiliate system URL from a website operated by a particular

referring webmaster; (3) correlating a received source webmaster unique identifier

to a target webmaster unique identifier corresponding to a unique identification

system of the requested merchant affiliate system; and (4) generating a URL for

the requested merchant affiliate system. The dependent claims add conventional

features of the Internet or affiliate systems, such as a website having a banner ad

for a merchant affiliate system.

Many of the terms used in the claims of the '660 patent were commonly

understood words having widely accepted and ordinary meanings as of the earliest

possible effective filing date of the application. CB1006 ¶ 36.

Under the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard, a person of

ordinary skill would have understood the terms used in the claims as follows:

SMRH:435507077.5 - 5 -

39BP-207011

1. “Virtual Affiliates” – webmasters who can send Internet traffic to an

existing target affiliate system without being enrolled in it. CB1006 ¶ 38.

2. “existing target affiliate system”; “existing affiliate system”;

“Merchant affiliate system” – a computer system that operates a merchant’s

affiliate program, including the tracking of transactions and commissions. CB1006

¶ 39.

3. “Webmasters” – the content providers of the Internet, who maintain

URLs in order to disperse information and links to other URLs. CB1006 ¶ 40.

4. “affiliate pool of source Webmasters”; “affiliate pool of Webmasters” –

a loose aggregation of webmasters with a quantity of Internet traffic. CB1006 ¶ 41.

5. “affiliate pooling system” – the source affiliate system from which a

transaction originates. CB1006 ¶ 42.

6. “source Webmaster unique identifier”; “unique identifier for each of a

first plurality of Webmasters”; – the unique identifying code assigned to each

webmaster by which that webmaster’s transactions are tracked in the source

affiliate system. CB1006 ¶ 43.

7. “web site” – a computer system that serves informational content over

a network using the standard protocols of the World Wide Web. CB1006 ¶ 44.

8. “URL” – a unique address which fully specifies the location of a file

or other resource on the Internet. CB1006 ¶ 45.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 6 -

39BP-207011

9. “target Merchant affiliate system URL” – the URL for the computer

system that operates a merchant’s affiliate program. CB1006 ¶ 46.

10. “target Webmaster unique identifier”; “Merchant unique identifier” –

a unique identifying code assigned to each webmaster that is functional within the

target Merchant’s home affiliate system and which corresponds to the unique

identification system of the merchant’s home affiliate system. CB1006 ¶47_.

Claim 15 is a “computer program” claim reciting similar limitations as

method claim 1, except that each element of claim 15 starts with “a code segment

for ….” Each “code segment for” element is a means-plus-function limitation

under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The corresponding structure is a software algorithm that

the specification of the '660 patent does not further describe.

Claim 28 is a “system” claim reciting similar limitations as method claim 1,

except that each element of claim 28 starts with “means for ….” (See '660 patent,

Certificate of Correction dated May 15, 2012.) Each “means for” element is a

means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The corresponding

structure is a software algorithm that the specification of the '660 patent does not

further describe.1

1 It is unclear to Petitioner from the patent specification what the corresponding

structure would be for the means-plus-function limitations in claims 15 and 28.

Petitioner reserves the right to assert the indefiniteness of claims 15 and 28 in an

appropriate proceeding where a defense under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) can be raised.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 7 -

39BP-207011

VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE

Petitioner seeks inter partes review on the grounds listed in the index below.

Copies of the references listed in the index below are filed with this petition. In

support, this petition is accompanied by the Declaration of Jonathan E. Hochman

(CB1006), an independent technical expert, who explains the disclosures of the

prior art references, compares the claims to the disclosures of the references, and

opines on the issue of obviousness.

GROUND 35 U.S.C. INDEX OF REFERENCE(S) CLAIMS

1 § 103(a) U.S. Patent 6,029,141 to Bezos et al.

(“Bezos”), U.S. Patent 5,991,740 to

Messer (“Messer”), U.S. Patent 6,044,205

to Reed et al. (“Reed”), GeoCities

Affiliates Program License and Services

Agreement (“GeoCities”), Applicant

Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”)

1-15, 23, 28, 36

2 § 103(a) Messer, Reed, AAPA 1-8, 10, 11, 13,

15, 23, 28, 36

3 § 103(a) Messer, Reed, U.S. Patent 6,014,642 to

El-Kadi et al. (“El-Kadi”), AAPA

9

4 § 103(a) Messer, Reed, Bezos, AAPA 12, 14

5 § 103(a) U.S. Patent 5,812,769 to Graber et al.

(“Graber”), GeoCities, AAPA

1, 3-6, 13-15,

23, 28, 36

6 § 103(a) Graber, Messer, GeoCities, AAPA 2, 7, 8, 10-12

SMRH:435507077.5 - 8 -

39BP-207011

7 § 103(a) Graber, Messer, GeoCities, El-Kadi,

AAPA

9

8 § 103(a) Graber, Bezos, GeoCities, AAPA 14

9 § 103(a) Graber, Reed, AAPA 1, 3-6, 13-15,

23, 28, 36

10 § 103(a) Graber, Reed, Messer, AAPA 2, 7, 8, 10-12

11 § 103(a) Graber, Reed, Messer, El-Kadi, AAPA 9

12 § 103(a) Graber, Reed, Bezos, AAPA 14

13 § 103(a) U.S. Patent Application Publication No.

2004/0225558 to Lipin (“Lipin”),

GeoCities, AAPA

1-8, 10-13, 15,

23, 28, 36

14 § 103(a) Lipin, GeoCities, El-Kadi, AAPA 9

15 § 103(a) Lipin, GeoCities, Bezos, AAPA 14

16 § 103(a) Bezos, Messer, Reed, GeoCities, AAPA,

Gray, ClickTrade

1-15, 23, 28, 36

17 § 103(a) Messer, Reed, AAPA, Complete Guide,

ClickTrade

1-8, 10, 11, 13,

15, 23, 28, 36

18 § 103(a) Messer, Reed, El-Kadi, AAPA, Complete

Guide, ClickTrade

9

19 § 103(a) Messer, Reed, Bezos, AAPA, Complete

Guide, ClickTrade

12, 14

Petitioner relies upon the Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) in

combination with the above prior-art references. The law is well established that

SMRH:435507077.5 - 9 -

39BP-207011

“[a]dmissions in the specification regarding the prior art are binding on the

patentee for purposes of a later inquiry into obviousness.” PharmaStem

Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1362, 83 USPQ.2d 1289, 1303

(Fed. Cir. 2007).

A. Ground 1: Claims 1-15, 23, 28, 36 Are Invalid as Obvious Over Bezos

and Messer in View of GeoCities, Reed, and AAPA

1. Independent claim 1

● “A method for providing Virtual Affiliates to an existing target

affiliate system, the method comprising the operations of:”

Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) states that “[m]ost Merchants

currently utilize some form of affiliate system.” CB1001, col. 2 ll. 8-9. AAPA

also teaches that an affiliate system has a tracking mechanism that lets the

merchant see where its traffic is coming from. CB1001, col. 2 ll. 1-7. CB1006

¶ 60. As such, AAPA admits that affiliate systems, any of which could be an

“existing target affiliate system,” are in the prior art. Bezos and Messer each

describe prior art affiliate systems, which will be discussed in greater detail below.

GeoCities teaches that virtual affiliates—webmasters that are not enrolled in

the existing target affiliate system—can be provided to the existing target affiliate

system. GeoCities defines an “Existing Program” as “an affiliates program (other

than the GeoCities Affiliates Program): established and operated by or on behalf

of a merchant prior to integration of the merchant into the GeoCities Affiliates

SMRH:435507077.5 - 10 -

39BP-207011

Program.” CB1005, p. 2. GeoCities states that the company “Be Free,” which sets

up affiliate programs for merchants, “may, from time to time, enter into

agreements with Merchants that are outside the scope of the GeoCities Affiliates

Program.” Id., pp. 7, 28-29. GeoCities teaches integrating merchants with existing

affiliate programs into the GeoCities Affiliates Program after execution of a

Merchant Agreement with GeoCities. Id., pp. 21, 45. Thus, GeoCities recognizes

how to integrate existing merchant programs and GeoCities Affiliates Programs.

CB1006 ¶ 61. In other words, the existing GeoCities affiliate program may

provide virtual affiliates to other existing merchant programs, or the existing

merchant programs may provide virtual affiliates to the GeoCities affiliate

program.

AAPA, Bezos, and Messer each disclose that affiliate systems existed in the

prior art. GeoCities teaches that a merchant can have its own (first) affiliate

system and be integrated into a (second) affiliate system. As such, a person of

ordinary skill in the relevant art would have recognized that GeoCities provides the

motivation for a merchant to implement a first affiliate system (e.g., Bezos) and

join a second affiliate system (e.g., Messer) as a virtual affiliate system.

Accordingly, to the extent that the preamble is limiting, the limitation is taught by

the cited prior art. CB1006 ¶ 62.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 11 -

39BP-207011

● “configuring an existing target affiliate system to receive

referrals from a first plurality of Webmasters in an affiliate

pool of source Webmasters”

As discussed above, AAPA, Bezos, Messer, and GeoCities each teach an

“existing target affiliate system.” For example, FIG. 1 of AAPA shows a “prior art

stand-alone affiliate system.” CB1001, col. 2, ll. 29-30. Bezos teaches that a

merchant web site can have other entities apply as “associates” (i.e., affiliates).

CB1003, col. 9, ll. 41-53. Messer teaches an affiliate system that “allows a portion

of [a] successful sale made by the Merchant as a credit to the Site Owner [i.e., an

affiliate].” CB1004, col. 4 ll. 47-59; col. 5 ll. 10-11. GeoCities defines its own

“GeoCities Affiliates Program” as a “network of participating Affiliates and

Merchants”; and also defines an “Existing Program” as “an affiliates program

(other than the GeoCities Affiliates Program): established and operated by or on

behalf of a merchant prior to integration of the merchant into the GeoCities

Affiliates Program.” CB1005, p. 2. Any of these affiliate systems can be an

“existing target affiliate system.”

Further, any of these prior-art affiliate systems receives referrals from a

“first plurality of Webmasters in an affiliate pool of source Webmasters.” Each

affiliate system has a plurality of webmasters. See, e.g., CB1001, col. 2, ll. 31

(AAPA affiliate system “includes a group of Webmasters 102”); CB1003, col. 10,

ll. 12, 53 (“associates have “Web Sites” and merchants can do business with “large

SMRH:435507077.5 - 12 -

39BP-207011

numbers (e.g., thousands) of associates”); CB1004, col. 5, ll. 10-11 (multiple “Site

Owners” brought “together into binding promotional arrangements”); and CB1005,

p. 2 (“GeoCities Affiliate Program” is a network of “participating Affiliates”).

Any of these references, either alone or in combination , teaches an existing target

affiliate system and an affiliate pool of source Webmasters.

GeoCities then teaches that these existing target affiliate systems can be

improved to receive virtual affiliates from another affiliate system. GeoCities

teaches that Be Free can “integrate Merchants with Existing Programs” into “the

GeoCities Affiliates Program.” GeoCities makes clear that integration of affiliates

from one affiliate system to another was a well-known technology. It would have

been known to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the patent filing that this is

accomplished through an abstraction layer placed between the virtual affiliates and

the existing target affiliate system, which is disclosed in GeoCities. CB1005, p. 19

(“This abstraction layer shields the affiliate link from the specific URL to which it

is directed.”); CB1006, ¶ 65.

● “such that the target Merchant affiliate system recognizes a

transaction as originating from a source Webmaster in an

affiliate pooling system,”

Messer teaches that a target merchant affiliate system recognizes a

transaction from a user as originating from a site owner so that the site owner may

be paid a commission for the transaction. See, e.g., CB1004, col. 5, ll 30-32

SMRH:435507077.5 - 13 -

39BP-207011

(“determine if and when the USER was involved in a purchase, and how to allocate

the purchase commission to the Site Owner.”); and id. col. 8 ll. 53-61; TABLE 1.

In fact, it would have been recognized that any one of these prior art affiliate

systems would recognize a transaction as originating from a source webmaster in

an affiliate pooling system, since the purpose of these affiliate systems was to

provide a commission to the source webmaster. CB1006, ¶ 66. This could only be

accomplished by recognizing the source webmaster. See, e.g., CB1001, col. 2 ll.

34-36 (“Generally, the Merchant’s affiliate system 100 includes the Merchant’s

back-end tracking mechanism, which keeps track of transactions and credits

affiliates.”) (emphasis added); CB1003, col. 6 ll. 48-52 (“the merchant Web site

106 includes software for automating the primary functions of doing business with

associates (such as associate enrollment, referral transaction processing, and

commission tracking and payment.”); CB1005, p. 2 (“‘GeoCities Affiliates

Program’…enables Affiliates to receive compensation.”) Prior-art affiliate

systems, as admitted by the AAPA, included the ability to recognize a transaction

as originating from a source webmaster in an affiliate pooling system.

● “including the step of: assigning a source Webmaster unique

identifier for each of said first plurality of Webmasters each

operating at least one website;

Messer teaches that each site owner is assigned a unique ID. CB1004, col. 7

ll. 56-59 (“Site Owner[s]… enter their respective IDs”); CB1006 ¶ 67. Bezos also

SMRH:435507077.5 - 14 -

39BP-207011

discloses a “unique identifier of the associate” (i.e., site owner). CB1003, col. 7, l.

27. In fact, it would have been understood that an affiliate system would have a

unique identifier for each source webmaster. CB1006 ¶ 67. Otherwise,

commissions and payouts could not be tracked. Id. Accordingly, Messer and

Bezos teach that affiliates have a source webmaster unique identifier when they act

as a referral source (e.g., when a visitor follows the affiliate link). CB1006 ¶ 67.

● “receiving a user request for a target Merchant affiliate system

URL from a web site operated by a particular referring

Webmaster of the first plurality of Webmasters, wherein the

user request includes the source Webmaster unique identifier

for the particular referring Webmaster, and”

AAPA teaches receiving user requests for merchant URLs. CB1001, col. 1

ll. 47-52 (“A Merchant therefore must make known, or advertise, its URL in order

to reach those users on the Internet that are interested in the goods and/or services

offered. Hypertext links … provide the user with a path or entry point to the

Merchant’s URL.”). CB1006 ¶ 68.

Messer teaches that, when a user clicks on a banner ad (a user request for a

merchant URL), the site owner’s ID is included in the generated URL query string.

CB1004, col. 8 ll. 53-61; TABLE 1. In the example of TABLE 1,

“anycompany.com” is the target merchant affiliate system URL; the banner ad is

placed on “content.com,” which is operated by the referring webmaster identified

by “content.com”; and the user request includes “content.com,” which is the

SMRH:435507077.5 - 15 -

39BP-207011

unique identifier for the site owner. CB1006 ¶ 69.

● “wherein the target Merchant affiliate system includes a unique

identification system for its own affiliated Webmasters;”

Once again, as discussed above, it would have been understood that any

affiliate system (including the target merchant affiliate system), would have a

unique identification system for its affiliated webmasters. CB1006, ¶ 70. This is

the only way that commissions could be tracked and paid for each webmaster. Id.

AAPA thus teaches merchant affiliate systems having unique identification

systems for their own affiliated webmasters. CB1001, col. 2 ll 34-36 (“Generally,

the Merchant’s affiliate system 100 includes the Merchant’s back-end tracking

mechanism, which keeps track of transactions and credits affiliates ….”).

Bezos illustrates an HTML catalog document detail page of amazon.com

(the merchant site). CB1003, FIG. 8. The URL includes the unique customer ID

800 (obtained from the customer’s cookie or URL information), the product ID

802 (shown as the ISBN of the Terrain Skiing book), the store ID 804 (shown as

the “skinet” Web site), and the associate commission ID 806 (the letter “A”). Id.,

col. 15 ll. 5-16. CB1006 ¶ 71.

Reed teaches using a unique system ID value for each unique

communications object. CB1007, p. 30; col. 18 ll. 44-48. Reed/Bezos teaches a

communications object that is an affiliate record. Thus, Reed/Bezos discloses a

system that includes a unique ID system for its own affiliated webmasters. (It

SMRH:435507077.5 - 16 -

39BP-207011

should be noted that the store ID 804 of Bezos is a unique identifier of the referring

website, which means that it could also be used as the primary key of a unique

identification system for its own affiliated webmasters.) CB1006 ¶ 72.

● “correlating the received source Webmaster unique identifier to

a target Webmaster unique identifier corresponding to the

unique identification system of the requested Merchant affiliate

system; and”

When importing virtual affiliates from a first affiliate pool into an existing

target affiliate system, it would have been known that the unique identifier used in

the first affiliate pool would have to be matched somehow to the unique identifier

system of the existing target affiliate system. This is due to the fact that the two

affiliate systems could have conflicting identifier systems, and there would be no

guarantee of unique IDs between existing affiliates and new Virtual affiliates,

which is necessary for any effective affiliate system. CB1006, ¶ 73. This would

have been known to a person of ordinary skill, and is disclosed in the abstraction

layer taught in GeoCities. Id.

GeoCities includes an abstraction layer shielding affiliates from merchants,

but enables affiliates to receive compensation for purchases. CB1005, p. 19 (“This

abstraction layer shields the affiliate link from the specific URL to which it is

redirected.”). GeoCities teaches providing the abstraction layer between an

affiliate and a merchant site, which can have its own unique identification system.

Id., p. 2, 28-29. Thus, the abstraction layer necessarily takes a first unique

SMRH:435507077.5 - 17 -

39BP-207011

identifier and correlates (abstracts) the first unique identifier into a second unique

identifier. (If the first and second unique identifiers were the same and uniquely

identified an affiliate, then the abstraction layer would not shield the affiliate link

from the specific URL to which it is redirected, in accordance with a “key

component” of Be Free in GeoCities.) CB1006 ¶ 74. This would have been

understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing the GeoCities

document. Id.

For example, Messer teaches a first format of a URL, which includes a

webmaster unique identifier (site (ID)). See, e.g., CB1004, TABLE 1. And Bezos

teaches a second format of a URL, which includes a webmaster unique identifier

(store ID 804). See, e.g., CB1003, FIG. 8. Because GeoCities introduces an

abstraction layer between two affiliate systems, such as Messer and Bezos, and the

first and second formats are known, the abstraction layer of GeoCities matches the

unique identifier of the first affiliate system, e.g., Messer, and the unique identifier

of the existing target affiliate system, e.g., Bezos, to ensure that the unique

identifiers are associated with the same referring website. Thus, GeoCities

correlates the unique identifiers. CB1006 ¶ 75.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 18 -

39BP-207011

● “generating a URL for the requested Merchant affiliate system,

wherein the URL includes the correlated target Webmaster

Merchant unique identifier, whereby the URL can be utilized to

access the requested Merchant affiliate system, and further

provide identification of the source Webmaster for requisite

tracking.”

Generating a URL to a Merchant’s web page that provides identification for

the source Webmaster (i.e., the referring Affiliate) was well known in the prior art.

Bezos teaches generating a URL for the Merchant affiliate system and also

includes an identifier to identify the referring Webmaster, i.e., the correlated target

webmaster unique identifier. See, e.g., CB1004, col. 8, lines 59-62 (“As will be

appreciated by those skilled in the art, the use of the URL-embedded referral

information to identify the associate allows the associate to be identified, and

properly credited for the referral…”); and col. 11, ll. 1-7 (“FIG. 4 illustrates a

preferred format of a URL 400 used by an associate to create a referral link to the

merchant Web site. … The URL 400 comprises the merchant Web server

information 402, the unique product ID 404, the unique store ID 406, and an

associate commission scheme ID 408.”) (emphasis added). The URL can be

utilized to access the merchant affiliate system in association with a unique

identifying code associated with the source webmaster within the affiliate system

for which a relationship has been correlated with a source webmaster identifying

code (the correlated target webmaster merchant unique identifier) and further

provide identification of the source webmaster (store ID/site ID) for requisite

SMRH:435507077.5 - 19 -

39BP-207011

tracking. CB1006, ¶ 76. As discussed above, GeoCities discloses an abstraction

layer that correlates the source webmaster unique identifier to the target webmaster

unique identifier. Once this is completed, the target webmaster unique identifier

would be used to generate a URL, as taught in Bezos.

Similarly, Messer also teaches generating a URL for the requested Merchant

affiliate system that includes a unique identifier to identify the source Webmaster.

CB1004, col. 8, ll. 61-64 (“Immediately thereafter, the Clearinghouse server places

onto the USER command line, the address for the Merchant (HTTP) directing

USER control to the Merchant’s web page…”) The URL is utilized to access the

requested Merchant affiliate system. Id., col. 8, ll. 64-67. The URL provides

identification of the source Webmaster for requisite tracking by including “source

information” identifying the source Webmaster. Id., col. 8, ll. 55-57. Once the

abstraction layer in GeoCities correlates the received source Webmaster unique

identifier to a target Webmaster unique identifier, the target Webmaster unique

identifier would be used by the affiliate system to generate a URL to the Merchant

website, which includes the target Webmaster unique identifier, as disclosed in

Bezos and Messer. CB1006, ¶ 77.

2. Dependent claim 2

● “A method as recited in claim 1, wherein the operation of

correlating the received source Webmaster unique identifier

and generating a URL for the target Merchant affiliate system

occur prior to the receipt of the user request for the target

SMRH:435507077.5 - 20 -

39BP-207011

Merchant affiliate system.”

Messer teaches web sites having banner ads. CB1004, col. 4 ll. 47-59; col. 5

ll. 17-33. The site ID (source webmaster unique identifier) is used in the banner ad

along with a pre-generated URL. Id., col. 8, TABLE 1. The source webmaster

unique identifier and the URL for the target merchant affiliate system are pre-

generated prior to a user clicking on the banner ad. CB1006, ¶ 76.


● “A method as recited in claim 1, further comprising the

operation of obtaining transaction information from the target

Merchant affiliate system for specified transactions.”

GeoCities discloses generating reports for specified transactions (e.g., sales).

CB1005, pp. 17-18; CB1006, ¶ 80.


● “A method as recited in claim 3, wherein the transaction

information includes a target Webmaster unique identifier, as

well as other relevant transaction data, such as a transaction

amount and a transaction date.”

GeoCities teaches detailed reports on revenue and daily sales. CB1005, p. 20.



information is obtained by granting an affiliate pooling system

access to a target Merchant affiliate system and allowing the

affiliate pooling system to retrieve stored transaction

information from said Merchant affiliate system.”

GeoCities discloses generating reports on demand to a variety of parties

(e.g., merchants, publishers, sites). CB1005, pp. 17-18; CB1006, ¶ 82.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 21 -

39BP-207011



information is obtained by granting the target Merchant

affiliate system access to an affiliate pooling system and

allowing said Merchant affiliate system to transfer the

transaction information to the affiliate pooling system.”

GeoCities teaches generating reports on demand to a variety of parties (e.g.,

merchants, publishers, sites). CB1005, pp. 17-18. GeoCities would naturally grant

access to a system to enable reporting and would wish to receive transaction

information to be reported from any party with the information. CB1006, ¶ 83.


● “A method as recited in claim 1, wherein the received user

request further includes an identifier for the target Merchant

affiliate system, and an identifier for a source affiliate pool of

the referring Webmaster.”

Messer teaches a banner ad that includes “anycompany.com” (an ID for the

target merchant affiliate system) and “ad.marketshare.com” (an identifier for a

source affiliate pool of the referring Webmaster, content.com). CB1006, ¶ 84.



correlating the source Webmaster unique identifier to the target

Webmaster unique identifier comprises the operation of

performing a lookup function utilizing the identifier for the

source affiliate pool of the referring Webmaster and the source

Webmaster unique identifier for the referring Webmaster.”

GeoCities teaches an abstraction layer that “shields the affiliate link from the

specific URL to which it is directed.” CB1005, p. 19. Because the affiliate link must

SMRH:435507077.5 - 22 -

39BP-207011

be shielded, GeoCities must determine the primary key to be used in association

with the affiliate for reporting purposes, and would have been motivated to do so for

the affiliate pool, just as it would for the referring webmaster. CB1006, ¶ 85.


● “A method as recited in claim 8, wherein the lookup function

provides the target Webmaster unique identifier from a block of

designated codes within the requested target Merchant affiliate

system.”

Messer teaches assigning a unique identifier to an affiliate upon enrollment

(MERC (I.D.)), which is limited to a format analogous to a “block” comprising all

possible permutations of the format, with each one selected once (to be unique)

from the designated codes. CB1004, p. 5; CB1006, ¶ 86.


● “A method as recited in claim 1, wherein at least one of the

plurality of Webmasters operates a web site having a banner ad

for a related Merchant affiliate system.”

Messer teaches web sites having banner ads for a related merchant.

CB1004, col. 4 ll. 47-59; col. 5 ll. 17-33; CB1006, ¶ 87.


● “A method as recited in claim 10, wherein the banner ad

utilizes a link that includes an identifier for the target Merchant

affiliate system whose banner is being displayed and a source

Webmaster unique identifier for at least one of the plurality of

Webmasters operating the web site.”

Messer illustrates a link with a URL (identifier) and “content.com” (source

SMRH:435507077.5 - 23 -

39BP-207011

webmaster unique identifier). CB1004, col. 8, TABLE 1; CB1006, ¶ 88.


● “A method as recited in claim 11, wherein the link further

includes a URL for a Virtual Affiliate pooling system.”

As discussed above for the preamble of claim 1, GeoCities provides the

“virtual” aspect of the pooling system through the use of an abstraction layer.

CB1006, ¶ 89.



configuring a Merchant affiliate system to receive referrals

from a first plurality of Webmasters, further includes the step

of: selecting at least one transfer mode by which transaction

information is transferred from the target Merchant affiliate

system to the affiliate pooling system.”

GeoCities teaches providing raw data on affiliate performance in a format to

be mutually agreed upon. CB1005, p. 18; CB1006, ¶ 90.


● “A method as recited in claim 13, wherein at least one transfer

mode is selected from the group consisting of electronic mail,

file transfer protocol, script call and manual entry.”

Bezos teaches email. CB1003, p. 6. It would have been obvious for the

parties of GeoCities to agree on a format like email. CB1005, p. 18; CB1006, ¶ 91.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 24 -

39BP-207011


● “A computer program embodied on a computer readable

medium for providing Virtual Affiliates to an existing target

affiliate system, the computer program code comprising the

operations of:”

To the extent that the preamble is limiting, Bezos and Messer in view of

GeoCities and Reed teach this limitation for the same reasons stated above for the

preamble of claim 1, plus the fact that these references all teach systems running

on computers, which requires computer program code to run. CB1006, ¶ 92.

● “a code segment for configuring an existing target affiliate

system to receive referrals from source Webmasters of an

affiliate pool of Webmasters, including: a code segment for

assigning a unique identifier for each of a first plurality of

Webmasters each operating at least one website;”

Bezos and Messer in view of GeoCities and Reed teach this limitation for

the same reasons stated above for the “configuring” step of claim 1, plus the fact

that these references all teach systems running on computers, which requires the

use of code segments to carry out the various subroutines. CB1006, ¶ 93.

● “a code segment for receiving a user request for a target

Merchant affiliate system URL from a web site operated by a

particular referring Webmaster of the first plurality of

Webmasters, wherein the user request includes the source

unique identifier for the particular referring Webmaster, and

wherein the target Merchant affiliate system includes a unique



the same reasons stated above for the “receiving” step of claim 1, plus the fact that

SMRH:435507077.5 - 25 -

39BP-207011

these references all teach systems running on computers, which requires the use of

code segments to carry out the various subroutines. CB1006, ¶ 94.

● “a code segment for correlating the received source Webmaster

unique identifier to a target Webmaster unique identifier

corresponding to the unique identification system of the

requested Merchant affiliate system; and”


the same reasons stated above for the “correlating” step of claim 1, plus the fact



● “a code segment for generating a URL for the requested

Merchant affiliate system, wherein the URL includes the

correlated target Webmaster Merchant unique identifier,

whereby the URL can be utilized to access the requested

Merchant affiliate system, and further provide identification of

the source Webmaster for requisite tracking.”


the same reasons stated above for the “generating” step of claim 1, plus the fact




● “A computer program as recited in claim 15, wherein at least

one of the plurality of Webmasters operates a web site having a

banner ad for a related Merchant affiliate system.”


the same reasons stated above for claim 10, plus the fact that these references all

SMRH:435507077.5 - 26 -

39BP-207011

teach systems running on computers, which requires the use of code segments to

carry out the various subroutines. CB1006, ¶ 97.


● “A system for providing Virtual Affiliates to an existing affiliate

system, the system comprising:”

To the extent the preamble is limiting, Bezos and Messer in view of GeoCities

and Reed teach this limitation for the same reasons stated above for the preamble of

claim 1, plus the fact that these references all teach systems. CB1006, ¶ 98.

● “a. means for configuring an existing affiliate system to receive

referrals from a referring Webmaster in an affiliate pool of

Webmasters, including means for assigning a source

Webmaster unique identifier for each of a first plurality of

Webmasters each operating at least one web site;”


the same reasons stated above for the “configuring” step of claim 1, plus the fact

that these references all teach systems having software algorithms to carry out the

various subroutines. CB1006, ¶ 99.

● “b. means for receiving a user request for a target Merchant

affiliate system URL from a web site operated by a particular

referring Webmaster of the first plurality of Webmasters,

wherein the user request includes the source Webmaster unique

identifier for the particular referring Webmaster, and wherein

the target Merchant affiliate system includes a unique




SMRH:435507077.5 - 27 -

39BP-207011

these references all teach systems having software algorithms to carry out the


● “c. means for correlating the received unique identifier to a

Merchant unique identifier corresponding to the unique

identification system of the requested Merchant affiliate system;

and”


the same reasons stated above for the “correlating” step of claim 1, plus the fact

that these references all teach systems having software algorithms to carry out the


● “d. means for generating a URL for the requested Merchant

affiliate system, wherein the URL includes the correlated




tracking.”



these references all teach systems having software algorithms to carry out the



● “A system as recited in claim 28, wherein at least one of the

plurality of Webmasters operates a web site having a banner ad

for a related Merchant affiliate system.”


the same reasons stated above for claim 10, plus the fact that these references all

SMRH:435507077.5 - 28 -

39BP-207011

teach systems having software algorithms to carry out the various subroutines.

CB1006, ¶ 103.

B. Ground 2: Claims 1-11, 13, 15, 23, 28, 36 are Invalid as Obvious Over

Messer in View of Reed and AAPA




AAPA and Messer were discussed above. As discussed above, both AAPA

and Messer disclose affiliate systems that can act as either one of the Virtual

Affiliates or the existing target affiliate system.

It was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that sharing of

information between separate database systems is a desirable way to quickly grow

a system, leading to improved efficiency and potentially greater revenues. For

example, this concept is discussed in the area of communications databases in

Reed, which relates to the transfer of content between databases. CB1007, col. 1,

ll. 8-14 (“The present invention relates to…the transfer and content of

data…between databases…”) This is analogous to the merging of affiliates from a

first affiliate system database (Virtual Affiliates) to an existing target affiliate

database. CB1006, ¶ 106. Existing affiliate systems would be motivated to merge

records, i.e., affiliates, so as to maximize profits and flexibility.

In accordance with KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 72 FR 57526

(Oct. 10, 2007), rationales in support of obviousness include combining prior art

SMRH:435507077.5 - 29 -

39BP-207011

elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Messer can use

the unique system ID as taught by Reed for affiliates of multiple merchants.

CB1007, p. 30. The predictable result would be the clearinghouse now includes the

affiliates of the merchant as “virtual affiliates,” with a unique identifier that

corresponds to the local identifier a merchant uses to identify its affiliates, such as

a URL.

As with Ground 1, AAPA and Messer each disclose that affiliate programs

existed in the prior art. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that it may be

desirable to join the information from the two affiliate program databases into a

single database. CB1006, ¶ 108. Accordingly, to the extent the preamble is

limiting, the limitation is taught by the cited prior art, as will be discussed in even

greater detail below.




As discussed above in Ground 1, prior art affiliate systems satisfy the

requirements for an “existing target affiliate system” and “an affiliate pool of

source Webmasters.” Given the motivation and predictable results of combining

affiliate systems by sharing affiliates between the two systems, it would have been

obvious to configure an existing affiliate system to receive affiliate referrals from

another affiliate system. CB1006, ¶ 109.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 30 -

39BP-207011




As discussed above in Ground 1, Messer teaches that a target

merchant affiliate system recognizes a transaction from a user as originating from a

site owner so that the site owner may be paid a commission for the transaction.

CB1004, col. 5, ll. 30-32; and col. 8, ll. 53-61.



operating at least one website;”

Again, as discussed above in Ground 1, Messer teaches that a site owner has

a unique identifier. Id., col. 7, ll. 56-59.






Again, as discussed above in Ground 1, Messer discloses when a user clicks

on a banner ad, the site owner’s ID is included in the generated URL query string.

CB1004, p. 16, col. 8 ll. 53-61; TABLE 1. In the example of TABLE 1,

“anycompany.com” is a target Merchant affiliate system URL; the banner ad is

placed on “content.com,” which is operated by the referring webmaster identified

by “content.com;” and the user request includes “content.com,” which is the

unique identifier for Site Owner.


SMRH:435507077.5 - 31 -

39BP-207011


As discussed above in Ground 1, it would be understood that any affiliate

system (including the target Merchant affiliate system), would have a unique

identification system for its affiliated Webmasters. CB1006, ¶ 113. This is the

only way that commissions could be tracked and paid for each Webmaster.

Reed also teaches using a unique system ID value for each unique

communications object. CB1007, p. 30; col. 18 ll. 44-48. It was known that

databases must have unique IDs for entries in order to separately keep track of

each entry. Id., col. 18, ll. 13-18 (“Because communications objects and their

component type definitions, elements, pages, and methods are exchanged among

multiple providers and consumers, the instances of these objects and components

need to be uniquely distinguishable in each provider database 11 and consumer

database 21.”); and col. 18, ll. 44-46 (“To achieve this objective, the present

invention assigns a unique system ID value to each unique communications object

and communications object component. This function is the equivalent of an

automatically-generated unique key field ID in conventional database management

systems.”)




system; and”

Messer teaches a first format of a URL, which includes a webmaster unique

SMRH:435507077.5 - 32 -

39BP-207011

identifier (site (ID)). See, e.g., CB1004, TABLE 1. Reed assigns a unique system

ID. CB1007, p. 30. Because Messer uses a URL from a banner ad and Reed

assigns a unique system ID, Messer/Reed correlates the received source webmaster

unique identifier (URL) to a target webmaster unique identifier (unique system ID)

corresponding to the unique identification system of the merchant affiliate system

(Reed/Messer). CB1006, ¶ 115






tracking.”

As was discussed above, in Ground 1, Messer teaches generating a URL for

the requested Merchant affiliate system that includes a unique identifier to identify

the source Webmaster. Messer/Reed correlates the site ID (now a correlated target

webmaster merchant unique identifier) to a unique system ID as taught by Reed.

The site ID is a URL that is found in the banner ad used to access the requested

Merchant affiliate system and further provide identification of the source

webmaster for requisite tracking. CB1004, p. 16, TABLE 1; pp. 9-10.


Reed and Messer, teach the limitations of claim 15 for the same reasons

provided above with reference to the corresponding limitations in claim 1, plus the

fact Reed and Messer teach systems running on computers, which requires the use

SMRH:435507077.5 - 33 -

39BP-207011

of code segments to carry out the various subroutines. CB 1006, ¶ 117.


Reed and Messer, to the extent the preamble is limiting, teach the limitation

for the same reasons provided above with reference to the preamble of claim 1,

plus the fact that Reed and Messer all teach systems.

Reed and Messer, teach the limitations of claim 28 for the same reasons


fact Reed and Messer teach systems running on systems with means to carry out

the various subroutines.

4. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, 13, 23, 36

The reasons for rejecting claim 1, from which claims 2-7, 9-11, 13, 15, and

28 depend, are provided above. The additional reasons for rejecting claims 2-7, 9-

11, 13, 23, and 36 are substantially similar to those provided above in Ground 1.

To the extent GeoCities is used to teach reporting, Reed can be used to provide a

teaching of reporting. See, e.g., CB1007, FIG. 15.


The reasons for rejecting claim 7, from which claim 8 depends, are provided

above. With respect to the additional limitations, Reed/Messer uses a banner ad as

taught by Messer and a unique identification system as taught by Reed. Thus,

Reed/Messer correlates the URL it receives in the banner ad with the unique

identification. To perform the correlation, Reed uses a database query (lookup

SMRH:435507077.5 - 34 -

39BP-207011

function). CB1007, p. 34, col. 25 ll. 35-41.

C. Ground 3: Claim 9 is Invalid as Obvious Over Messer in View of Reed

and further in View of El-Kadi and AAPA



above. With respect to the additional limitations, El-Kadi teaches storing a list of

records having unique identifiers with “said identifier being selected from a set of

identifiers.” CB1008, p. 12, col. 10, ll. 16-21; p. 9, col. 4 ll. 7-26. Reed/El-Kadi

teaches selecting unique identifiers (as taught by Messer/Reed) from a block of

designated codes (as taught by El-Kadi).

D. Ground 4: Claims 12 and 14 are Invalid as Obvious Over Messer in

View of Reed and further in View of Bezos and AAPA


The reasons for rejecting claim 11, from which claim 12 depends, are

provided above. With respect to the additional limitations, as discussed above in

association with claim 1, Messer/Reed uses a unique system ID for affiliates.

Bezos describes a merchant with an affiliate system (specifically, the affiliate

system of amazon.com). Reed can track the Bezos affiliates using the same unique

system ID as that of Messer/Reed.

AAPA supports this interpretation: If you replace the affiliate pooling

system 300 of FIG. 3 with the stand-alone affiliate system 100 of FIG. 1 (PRIOR

ART) or the affiliate hub system 200 of FIG. 2 (PRIOR ART), matching up group

SMRH:435507077.5 - 35 -

39BP-207011

of webmasters 102 or 202 with group of webmasters 302 and merchant affiliate

system 104 or 204 with merchant affiliate system 304, the unaccounted-for

elements of FIG 3 are the affiliate pool 306, virtual affiliates 308, and virtual

affiliate system 310. CB1001, pp. 2-4. The affiliate pool 306 is just an affiliate

pool (like affiliate pool 102, for example). Id. The only thing remaining in FIG. 3

is a correlation element 310, which Reed/Messer provides by assigning a unique

system ID to affiliate records across the two datastores (i.e., affiliate pool 302 and

affiliate pool 306), to make the affiliate pool 306 into virtual affiliates 308. Id.



provided above. With respect to the additional limitations, Bezos teaches email.

CB1003, p. 6. In accordance with KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 72 FR

57526 (Oct. 10, 2007), rationales in support of obviousness include combining

prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It

would be obvious for the parties of GeoCities to agree upon a format such as

email. CB1005, p. 18.

E. Ground 5: Claims 1, 3-6, 13-15, 23, 28, and 36 are Invalid as Obvious

Over Graber in view of GeoCities and AAPA




AAPA and GeoCities were described above. Graber also teaches an affiliate

SMRH:435507077.5 - 36 -

39BP-207011

system: “New subscribers are typically directed to an on-line service by

advertisements placed… by third party computer system marketers (referred to

hereinafter as co-marketers) of the on-line service.” CB1009, p. 10, col. 1 ll. 19-46.

Because Graber teaches a first affiliate system, GeoCities teaches a second

affiliate system, and GeoCities teaches a Merchant can have its own (first) affiliate

system and become a member of a (second) affiliate system, a person of ordinary

skill in the relevant art would recognize GeoCities provides the motivation for a

Merchant to implement the first affiliate system of Graber and join the second

affiliate system of GeoCities as a virtual affiliate system. Accordingly, to the

extent the preamble is limiting, the limitation is taught by the cited prior art.




As discussed above in Ground 1, the prior art, including Graber and

GeoCities, discloses affiliate systems, any of which may satisfy the “existing target

affiliate system” and “affiliate pool of source Webmasters”. GeoCities then

teaches that these existing target affiliate systems can be improved to receive

virtual affiliates from another affiliate system, i.e., the affiliate pool of source

Webmasters. As such, this limitation is satisfied.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 37 -

39BP-207011




Again, as discussed above in Ground 1, any affiliate system would recognize

a transaction as originating from a source Webmaster in an affiliate pooling

system, since the purpose of these affiliate systems was to provide commissions to

the source Webmaster. Graber illustrates in FIG. 1 an on-line service (OLS)

configured to receive referrals from co-marketers such that the OLS can recognize

transactions as originating from a source webmaster. CB1009, p. 3. This solution

addresses the problem Graber posed in the BACKGROUND OF THE

INVENTION section as “to be able to capture and track the co-marketing source

which directed each new subscriber to an on-line service.” Id., p. 10, col. 1 ll. 40-

42. GeoCities Affiliates Program “enables Affiliates to receive compensation.”

CB1005, p. 2. As such, this element is satisfied.

● "including the step of: assigning a source Webmaster unique



Graber illustrates in FIG. 1 an on-line service (OLS) configured to receive

referrals from co-marketers such that the OLS can recognize transactions as

originating from a source webmaster. CB1009, p. 3. This solution addresses the

problem Graber posed in the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION section as

“to be able to capture and track the co-marketing source which directed each new

SMRH:435507077.5 - 38 -

39BP-207011

subscriber to an on-line service.” Id., p. 10, col. 1 ll. 40-42. As discussed above, in

Ground 1, the only way that this can be accomplished is if each Webmaster has a

unique identifier. CB1006, ¶ 130. This also applies to the affiliate system

disclosed in GeoCities.






As discussed above in Ground 1, AAPA teaches receiving user requests for

merchant URLs. CB1001, col. 1, ll. 47-52.

This is also disclosed in Graber. Graber discloses assigning unique codes

for each affiliate (or “marketer”). When a user clicks on an advertisement to

request a target Merchant affiliate system URL, the URL contains both the target

Merchant URL and the unique affiliate code:

“…when the user of user station 102a clicks on the

advertisement for OLS 140 at WWW site 122a, WWW

site 122a forms a special destination URL having two

parts. The first part of the destination URL is formed of

the URL associated with OLS site 128 (e.g.,

WWW.OLS.COMM). The second part of the destination

URL is formed of a …UNIX symbolic link…The symbol

or code used to form the UNIX symbolic link…is

uniquely associated with co-marketer #1 in the system

100.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 39 -

39BP-207011

CB1009, col. 5, ll. 34-47. This limitation is disclosed by Graber.



Once again, as discussed above, it would be understood that any affiliate

system (including the target Merchant affiliate system), would have a unique

identification system for its affiliated Webmasters. Graber illustrates co-marketers

that are uniquely identified within the Graber system at least using symbols or

codes “uniquely associated” with each co-marketer. CB1009, p. 12, col. 5 ll. 25-55.




system; and”

As discussed above in Ground 1, it would have been known that when

importing Virtual Affiliates from a first affiliate pool into another target affiliate

system, the unique identifier used in the first affiliate pool would have to be

converted to the unique identifier system of the existing target affiliate system in

order to ensure unique identification of all affiliates, both Virtual and internal.





Affiliate and a Merchant site, which can have its own unique identification system.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 40 -

39BP-207011


identifier and converts (abstracts) the first unique identifier into a second unique


identified an affiliate, the abstraction layer would not shield the affiliate link from

the specific URL to which it is redirected, in accordance with a “key component”

of Be Free.)

It would be desirable for Graber to use its own unique identification system

to enable Graber to meet the intended solution of using a UNIX symbolic link

uniquely associated with each co-marketer as a tool for traversing a directory tree.

Moreover, Graber recognizes there can be multiple different channels on which to

receive co-marketing referrals. CB1009, p. 3, col. 1 ll. 27-32. So Graber recognizes

correlation between different channels is necessary. For example, a referring

magazine might not have a domain name (so the abstraction layer of GeoCities

must be able to provide a CM value that is not a domain name to accommodate the

co-marketers of Graber that are not websites). Graber/GeoCities would correlate

the domain name of the referring webmaster (prior to GeoCities shielding the

domain name from the merchant in the abstraction layer) or other relevant

identifier (e.g., a magazine owner) with the Graber UNIX symbolic link uniquely

associated with each co-marketer for the GeoCities and Graber systems to work

together for their intended purposes.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 41 -

39BP-207011






tracking.”

Graber teaches receiving a user request from a co-marketer, which has the

“UNIX symbolic link (e.g., \CM1) that is prepended to the beginning of the

destination filename by the co-marketer (co-marketer #1) associated with WWW

site 122a.” CB1009, p. 12, col. 5 ll. 25-55.

After the GeoCities abstraction layer correlates the source webmaster unique

identifier of Graber to the target Webmaster unique identifier corresponding to the

unique identification system of GeoCities, GeoCities teaches generating a URL

that includes the correlated target Webmaster unique identifier (co-marketer ID).

See, e.g., CB1009, p. 4. The URL can be utilized to access the merchant affiliate

system in association with a unique identifying code associated with the source

webmaster and functional within the affiliate system for which a relationship has

been correlated with a source webmaster identifying code (the correlated target

Webmaster Merchant unique identifier) and further provide identification of the

source webmaster for requisite tracking.


Reed and Graber, to the extent the preamble is limiting, teach the limitation


SMRH:435507077.5 - 42 -

39BP-207011

plus the fact that Reed and Graber all teach systems running on computers, which

requires computer program code to run.

Reed and Graber, teach the limitations of claim 15 for the same reasons


fact Reed and Graber teach systems running on computers, which requires the use

of code segments to carry out the various subroutines.




plus the fact that Reed and Graber all teach systems.



fact Reed and Graber teach systems running on systems with means to carry out


4. Dependent claims 3-6, 13, 14, 23, 36

The reasons for rejecting claim 1, from which claims 3-6, 13, 14, 23, and 36

depend, are provided above. The additional reasons for rejecting claims 3-6, 13,

14, 23, and 36 are substantially similar to those provided above in Ground 1.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 43 -

39BP-207011

F. Ground 6: Claims 2, 7, 8, and 10-12 are Invalid as Obvious Over

Graber in View of GeoCities and further in View of Messer and AAPA



above. With respect to the additional limitations, Messer teaches web sites have

banner ads. CB1004, col. 4 ll. 47-59; col. 5 ll. 17-33. The site ID (source

Webmaster unique identifier) is used in the banner ad along with a pre-generated

URL. Id., col. 8, TABLE 1. The source Webmaster unique identifier and the URL

for the target Merchant affiliate system are pre-generated prior to a user clicking on

the banner ad.



above. With respect to the additional limitations, Messer discloses a banner ad that

includes anycompany.com (an identifier for the target Merchant affiliate system)

and ad.marketshare.com (an identifier for a source affiliate pool of the referring

Webmaster, content.com).



above. With respect to the additional limitations, GeoCities teaches an abstraction

layer that “shields the affiliate link from the specific URL to which it is directed.”

CB1005, p. 19. Because the affiliate link must be shielded, GeoCities must

SMRH:435507077.5 - 44 -

39BP-207011

determine the primary key to be used in association with the affiliate for reporting

purposes, and would be motivated to do so for the affiliate pool, just as it would for

the referring Webmaster.




banner ads. CB1004, col. 4 ll. 47-59; col. 5 ll. 17-33.



provided above. With respect to the additional limitations, Messer illustrates a link

with a URL (identifier) and content.com (source Webmaster unique identifier).

CB1004, col. 8, TABLE 1.



provided above. With respect to the additional limitations, as discussed above in

association with the preamble of claim 1, GeoCities provides the “virtual” aspect

of the pooling system through the use of an abstraction layer.

G. Ground 7: Claim 9 is Invalid as Obvious Over Graber in View of

GeoCities and further in View of Messer and El-Kadi and AAPA



SMRH:435507077.5 - 45 -

39BP-207011

above. With respect to the additional limitations, as discussed above in Ground 3,

El-Kadi provides selecting unique identifiers from a block of designated codes.

H. Ground 8: Claim 14 is Invalid as Obvious Over Graber in View of

GeoCities and further in View of Bezos and AAPA







would be obvious for the parties of GeoCities to agree upon a format such as

email. CB1005, p. 18.

I. Ground 9: Claims 1, 3-6, 13, 15, 23, 28, and 36 are Invalid as Obvious

Over Graber in view of Reed and AAPA




AAPA, Graber, and Reed were described above. For reasons similar to those

provided previously in Grounds 2 and 5, to the extent the preamble is limiting, the

limitation is taught by the cited prior art.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 46 -

39BP-207011




As discussed above in Ground 5, prior art affiliate systems satisfy the

requirements for an “existing target affiliate system” and “an affiliate pool of

source Webmasters.” Given the motivation to combine affiliate systems described

in Ground 2, it would have been obvious to configure an existing affiliate system

to receive affiliate referrals from another affiliate system. CB1006, ¶ 154.




As discussed above in Ground 5, Graber teaches that a target

merchant affiliate system recognizes a transaction from a user as originating from a

site owner to “track the co-marketing source which directed each new subscriber to

an on-line service.” CB1009, col. 1 ll. 40-42.




Again, as discussed above in Ground 4 Graber assigns the source

Webmaster unique identifier for each webmaster. Id., col. 5 ll. 45-48; and col. 5, l.

56 – col. 6, l. 22.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 47 -

39BP-207011






As discussed above in ground 5, Graber receives a user request for a target

Merchant affiliate system that includes a source webmaster unique identifier for

each co-marketer. CB1009, p. 12, col. 5 ll. 25-55 (“The second part of the

destination URL is formed of a destination filename (e.g., INDEX.HTML) and a

UNIX symbolic link (e.g., \CMl) that is prepended to the beginning of the

destination filename by the co-marketer (co-marketer #1) associated with WWW

site 122a. The symbol or code used to form the UNIX symbolic link (e.g., \CMl)

inserted by co-marketer #1 at site 122a is uniquely associated with co-marketer #1

in system 100.”).



As discussed above in Ground 5, Graber illustrates co-marketers that are

uniquely identified within the Graber system at least using symbols or codes

“uniquely associated” with each co-marketer. CB1009, p. 12, col. 5 ll. 25-55.




system; and”

As discussed above in Ground 2, Reed discusses the need for correlating

unique identifiers from two different datasets in order to merge those datasets.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 48 -

39BP-207011

Further, it would be desirable for Graber to use its own unique identification

system to enable Graber to meet the intended solution of using a UNIX symbolic

link uniquely associated with each co-marketer as a tool for traversing a directory

tree. Moreover, Graber recognizes there can be multiple different channels on

which to receive co-marketing referrals. CB1009, p. 3, col. 1 ll. 27-32. So Graber

recognizes correlation between different channels is necessary. For example, a

referring magazine might not have a domain name. Graber/Reed would correlate

the domain name of the referring webmaster or other relevant identifier (e.g., a

magazine owner). See, e.g., CB1007, p. 30; col. 18 ll. 44-48.






tracking.”

As discussed above in Ground 5, Graber teaches receiving a user request

from a co-marketer, which has the “UNIX symbolic link (e.g., \CM1) that is

prepended to the beginning of the destination filename by the co-marketer (co-

marketer #1) associated with WWW site 122a.” CB1009, p. 12, col. 5 ll. 25-55.

Because Graber/Reed correlates the UNIX symbolic link to a unique identifier for

the affiliate, the UNIX symbolic link is a correlated unique identifier, which can be

utilized to access the requested merchant affiliate system. Graber tracks the

navigation path of a user from a co-marketer. See, e.g., CB1009, p. 16, TABLE II.

SMRH:435507077.5 - 49 -

39BP-207011




plus the fact that Reed and Graber all teach systems running on computers, which




fact Reed and Graber teach systems running on computers, which requires the use

of code segments to carry out the various subroutines.




plus the fact that Reed and Graber all teach systems.



fact Reed and Graber teach systems running on systems with means to carry out


4. Dependent claims 3-6, 13, 23, 36

The reasons for rejecting claim 1, from which claims 3-6, 13, 23, and 36


23, and 36 are substantially similar to those provided above in Ground 1. To the

SMRH:435507077.5 - 50 -

39BP-207011

extent GeoCities is used to teach reporting, Reed can be used to provide a teaching

of reporting. See, e.g., CB1007, FIG. 15.

J. Ground 10: Claims 2 and 7-12 are Invalid as Obvious Over Graber in

View of Reed and further in View of Messer and AAPA




banner ads. CB1004, col. 4 ll. 47-59; col. 5 ll. 17-33. The site ID (source

Webmaster unique identifier) is used in the banner ad along with a pre-generated

URL. Id., col. 8, TABLE 1. The source Webmaster unique identifier and the URL

for the target Merchant affiliate system are pre-generated prior to a user clicking on

the banner ad.



above. With respect to the additional limitations, Messer discloses a banner ad that

includes anycompany.com (an identifier for the target Merchant affiliate system)

and ad.marketshare.com (an identifier for a source affiliate pool of the referring

Webmaster, content.com).

3. Dependent claims 8 and 10-11

The reasons for rejecting claim 7, from which claim 8 depends, and the

reasons for rejecting claim 1, from which claims 10 and 11 depend, are provided

SMRH:435507077.5 - 51 -

39BP-207011

above. With respect to the additional limitations, Reed/Messer teach the limitations

as described above in Ground 2.



provided above. With respect to the additional limitations, Graber/Reed uses a

unique system ID for affiliates. Graber describes a merchant with an affiliate

system (specifically, the affiliate system of amazon.com). Reed can track affiliates

using the same unique system ID as that of Graber/Reed.

K. Ground 11: Claim 9 is Invalid as Obvious Over Graber in View of Reed

and further in View of Messer and El-Kadi and AAPA





L. Ground 12: Claim 14 is Invalid as Obvious Over Graber in View of

Reed and further in View of Bezos and AAPA







SMRH:435507077.5 - 52 -

39BP-207011

would be obvious to send the reports of Reed via email. See, e.g., CB1007, FIG.

15.

M. Ground 13: Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15, 23, 28, and 36 are Invalid as Obvious

Over Lipin in view of GeoCities and AAPA




AAPA and GeoCities were described above. Lipin teaches a primary site

that has associated merchants, affiliates, and sub-affiliates. CB1010, p. 4. At least

because sub-affiliates can be characterized as virtual affiliates of the primary site,

to the extent the preamble is limiting, the limitation is taught by the cited prior art.



pool of source Webmasters such that the target Merchant

affiliate system recognizes a transaction as originating from a

source Webmaster in an affiliate pooling system, including the

step of: assigning a source Webmaster unique identifier for

each of said first plurality of Webmasters each operating at

least one website;”

Lipin describes an existing affiliate system comprising merchants 52 and

affiliates 54. See, e.g., CB1010, p. 4; p. 14, [0031]-[0033]. Lipin explains how an

existing affiliate system can be configured to accept new sub-affiliates 56. Id. (“the

new affiliate becomes a sub-affiliate of the affiliate identified by the cookie”).

Lipin is properly characterized as an “existing program” with respect to GeoCities.

CB1005, p. 2. GeoCities teaches an “abstraction layer shields the affiliate link from

SMRH:435507077.5 - 53 -

39BP-207011

the specific URL to which it is directed.” CB1005, p. 19. GeoCities Affiliate

Links are uniquely associated with Affiliates. Accordingly, the Affiliates have a

source Webmaster unique identifier when they act as a referral source (e.g., when a

Visitor follows the Affiliate Link).






Lipin teaches “Each cookie stores various information including codes that

allow the server associated with the primary site 50 to identify the affiliate site

through which the user obtained access to the merchant-affiliate network. The

cookie is lodged in the user’s browser when the user clicks on a merchant’s banner

while visiting an affiliate Web site 54.” CB1010, p. 14, [0031].



Lipin also teaches a unique identification system for its own (affiliate)

webmasters.




system; and”




SMRH:435507077.5 - 54 -

39BP-207011


Affiliate and a Merchant site, which can have its own unique identification system.


identifier and converts (abstracts) the first unique identifier into a second unique


identified an affiliate, the abstraction layer would not shield the affiliate link from

the specific URL to which it is redirected, in accordance with a “key component”

of Be Free.)

Lipin also requires correlation between affiliate and sub-affiliate traffic

because compensation can be different for affiliates in a first (affiliate) network

than in a second (sub-affiliate) network. CB1010, p. 14, [0034]-[0036].






tracking.”

Lipin teaches generating a URL with a code that identifies the relevant

affiliate. CB1010, p. 14, [0031]. The URL can also be used to identify a sub-

affiliate. Id., [0033].


Lipin and GeoCities, to the extent the preamble is limiting, teach the

limitation for the same reasons provided above with reference to the preamble of

SMRH:435507077.5 - 55 -

39BP-207011

claim 1, plus the fact that Lipin and GeoCities all teach systems running on

computers, which requires computer program code to run.

Lipin and GeoCities, teach the limitations of claim 15 for the same reasons


fact Lipin and GeoCities teach systems running on computers, which requires the

use of code segments to carry out the various subroutines.


Lipin and GeoCities, to the extent the preamble is limiting, teach the

limitation for the same reasons provided above with reference to the preamble of

claim 1, plus the fact that Lipin and GeoCities all teach systems.

Lipin and GeoCities, teach the limitations of claim 28 for the same reasons


fact Lipin and GeoCities teach systems running on systems with means to carry out


4. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, 23, 36

The reasons for rejecting claim 1, from which claims 2-13, 23, and 36


and 36 are substantially similar to those provided above in Ground 1. To the extent

Messer teaches banner ads, Lipin also teaches banner ads. CB1010, p. 13, [0028].

SMRH:435507077.5 - 56 -

39BP-207011

N. Ground 14: Claim 9 is Invalid as Obvious Over Lipin in View of

GeoCities and further in View of El-Kadi and AAPA





O. Ground 15: Claim 14 is Invalid as Obvious Over Lipin in View of

GeoCities and further in View of Bezos and AAPA




CB1003, p. 6. It would be obvious for the parties of GeoCities to agree upon a

format such as email. CB1005, p. 18.

P. Ground 16: Claims 1-15, 23, 28, 36 Are Invalid as Obvious Over Bezos

and Messer in View of GeoCities, Reed, AAPA, Gray, and ClickTrade


Gray indicates FreeShop has 12,000 affiliate sites as of May 1999 and uses

two companies for affiliate program administration: LinkShare and ClickTrade,

both of which provide online reporting. CB1012, p. 2. ClickTrade describes an

advertising system utilizing banners that enables ClickTrade members to become

affiliates and that provides reporting in association with affiliates, as well as

management tools. CB1013, pp. 2-7. Because Gray teaches a single site can have

SMRH:435507077.5 - 57 -

39BP-207011

multiple affiliate pools, ClickTrade illustrates the advantage of managing all

affiliates in a universal fashion, and Reed teaches a primary key with which to

uniquely reference disparate records (see, e.g., CB1007, p. 30; col. 18 ll. 44-48),

Gray/ClickTrade/Reed provides a plurality of affiliate pools and a motivation to

manage the plurality of affiliate pools in a universal fashion. If a merchant has its

own affiliate system, such as GeoCities or amazon.com (Bezos), the merchant can

treat an outside affiliate pool, such as an affiliate pool provided by Be Free

(GeoCities) LinkShare (Messer), using a universal identifier (as taught by

Reed/FreeShop/ClickTrade).

Thus, Bezos, Messer, GeoCities, Reed, AAPA, Gray, and FreeShop, to the

extent the preamble is limiting, teach the limitation. Bezos, Messer, GeoCities,

Reed, and AAPA teach the limitations of claim 1 for the same reasons provided

above in Ground 1, plus Reed/Gray/ClickTrade provide an additional motivation to

use a primary key across multiple affiliate pools.


Bezos, Messer, GeoCities, Reed, AAPA, Gray, and ClickTrade, to the extent

the preamble is limiting, teach the limitation for the same reasons provided above

with reference to the preamble of claim 1, plus the fact that Bezos, Messer,

GeoCities, Reed, and AAPA all teach systems running on computers, which


SMRH:435507077.5 - 58 -

39BP-207011

Bezos, Messer, GeoCities, Reed, AAPA, Gray, and ClickTrade teach the

limitations of claim 15 for the same reasons provided above with reference to the

corresponding limitations in claim 1, plus the fact Bezos, Messer, GeoCities, Reed,

and AAPA teach systems running on computers, which requires the use of code

segments to carry out the various subroutines.


Bezos, Messer, GeoCities, Reed, AAPA, Gray, and ClickTrade, to the extent

the preamble is limiting, teach the limitation for the same reasons provided above

with reference to the preamble of claim 1, plus the fact that Bezos, Messer,

GeoCities, Reed, and AAPA all teach systems.

Bezos, Messer, GeoCities, Reed, AAPA, Gray, and ClickTrade teach the

limitations of claim 28 for the same reasons provided above with reference to the

corresponding limitations in claim 1, plus the fact Bezos, Messer, GeoCities, Reed,

and AAPA teach systems running on computers, which requires the use of code

segments to carry out the various subroutines.

Q. Ground 17: Claims 1-11, 13, 15, 23, 28, 36 are Invalid as Obvious Over

Messer in View of Reed and AAPA and further in View of Gray and

ClickTrade

Ground 17 applies the primary key for multiple affiliate pools taught by

Reed/Gray/ClickTrade (as discussed in Ground 16) to Messer, Reed, and AAPA

(as discussed in Ground 2) to provide a suggestion to use a primary key for

SMRH:435507077.5 - 59 -

39BP-207011

multiple affiliate pools.

R. Ground 18: Claim 9 is Invalid as Obvious Over Messer in View of Reed

and further in View of El-Kadi and AAPA and further in View of Gray

and ClickTrade





S. Ground 19: Claims 12 and 14 are Invalid as Obvious Over Messer in

View of Reed and AAPA and further in View of Gray and ClickTrade





SMRH:435507077.5 - 60 -

39BP-207011

IX. CONCLUSION

For the reasons provided above, inter partes review of claims 1-15, 23, 28,

and 36 of U.S. Patent No. 6,804,660 is requested.

Respectfully submitted,

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

By /s/ Darren M. Franklin Darren M. Franklin (Registration No. 51701)

Gary A. Clark (Registration No. 28060)

Andrew T. Kim (Registration No. 70203)

Attorneys for Petitioner

CLICKBOOTH.COM, LLC

Documents

Petitionerfishpostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/IPR2015-00464.pdf · 2017-04-22 · CLICKBOOTH.COM, LLC, Petitioner, v. ESSOCIATE, INC., Patent Owner. U.S. Patent No. 6,804,660 Issue