Opinion ID: 4099051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Representative Claim

Text: Claim 11 is representative and is reproduced below: 11. A method of providing demographically- targeted advertising to a computer user, comprising the steps of: providing a server that is accessible via a computer network, permitting a computer user to access said server via said computer network, acquiring demographic information about the us- er, said demographic information including information specifically provided by the user in response to a request for said demographic infor- mation, 6 B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C. v. GOOGLE, INC. providing the user with download access to com- puter software that, when run on a computer, dis- plays advertising content, records computer usage information concerning the user’s utilization of the computer, and periodically requests additional advertising content, transferring a copy of said software to the computer in response to a download request by the user, providing a unique identifier to the computer, wherein said identifier uniquely identifies information sent over said computer network from the computer to said server, associating said unique identifier with demo- graphic information in a database, selecting advertising content for transfer to the computer in accordance with the demographic in- formation associated with said unique identifier; transferring said advertising content from said server to the computer for display by said pro- gram, periodically acquiring said unique identifier and said computer usage information recorded by said software from the computer via said computer network, and associating said computer usage information with said demographic information using said unique identifier. Id. col. 22, l. 41 – col. 23, l. 7 (emphases added). Although numerous petitioners, including Google, Inc., Microsoft Corp., and Facebook, Inc. filed separate IPR petitions against various claims of the ’314 patent, we agree with Microsoft that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable based on anticipation by Guyot and obviousness in view of Guyot, Robinson, and RFC 1635. Microsoft Writ- B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C. v. GOOGLE, INC. 7 ten Decision, at . We briefly review Guyot, Robinson, and RFC 1635, before discussing claim construction, anticipation, obviousness, and B.E.’s contingent motion to amend.