Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 1 of 17
`Case 1:14-cv-02396—PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 1 of 17
`
`EXHIBIT G
`
`EXHIBIT G
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 2 of 17
`Case 1:14-cv-02396—PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 2 of 17
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 30
`Entered: June 20, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-00343
`
`Patent 8,640,179 B1
`
`  
`

` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ  ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ  ÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ
` !"#ÿ$%$ÿ%!ÿ%!#ÿ&%#'%&(ÿ)**"+ÿ
`,,,,,,,,,,,,ÿ
`-*)&ÿ.ÿ%!ÿ&"%/ÿ%!#ÿ%%/ÿ-)%&#ÿ
`,,,,,,,,,,,,ÿ
`1))1/ÿ"!+ÿ
`  
` ÿÿ ÿÿ
`!2)&(ÿ+.!)/)1"$ÿ"!+ÿ
`  ÿ)3 ÿ
`,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ÿ
`ÿ
`+ ÿ"&4ÿ
`  ÿ45ÿ-ÿ
`,,,,,,,,,,,,ÿÿÿ
`-6
` ÿ(7"!ÿ*ÿ &!&ÿ/8!!ÿÿ"1&2ÿ ÿÿ
`)!ÿ-ÿ)&!9 "$ÿ:;<=>=?@AB@=CDÿFB@D>@ÿGH;ID?ÿ
`ÿ &!&ÿ:;<=>=?@AB@=CDÿFB@D>@ÿGH;IDÿÿÿ
`*"!%/ÿ2&"!ÿ#+"$")!ÿ
`J>@DAÿFBA@D?ÿ& 3ÿ
`KLÿMNONPNÿQÿKRSTBUÿB>;ÿKVÿPNWNXNÿQÿYZNVKÿ
`ÿÿ
`"ÿ"!&)# +")!ÿ
`1
`
`

ÿ"\ÿ]^  
` _`ÿ6ÿ ÿ  
`ÿ]  ÿÿ^ _`ÿ a 

ÿ
`=>@DAÿbBA@D?ÿ  3ÿ
`6ÿ\ cÿdÿd4ÿÿ5ÿdÿ ÿ5dÿ
`6ÿ $ÿ
`  ÿ!
`ÿ45ÿ-ÿ]eÿÿ^ fÿg5ÿ  _`ÿÿ! 3
` hÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`35 USC. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Google Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
`
`inter partes review of claims 1—3, 6—14, 18, 19, 21—27, and 29—37 of US.
`
`Patent No. 8,640,179 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’179 Patent”). Network-1
`
`

`

`   ÿ
` 



ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`  ÿÿ 



ÿ ! "#$ÿ% &ÿÿ " '"(ÿ ) ÿ

ÿ

 ÿ
`



ÿÿ ) "ÿÿ " 'ÿ )#$ÿÿ* ÿ



+

&ÿ

 ÿ



ÿ

"ÿÿ,+ ÿ
` ÿ ÿ)+"+

ÿ

ÿÿ-./ÿ0ÿ ÿÿ ) "ÿÿ1 #$ÿÿ
`.+2 3+ 

(ÿ 



ÿ ! "ÿ% &ÿÿ ) ÿ ) "ÿÿ ÿ )#$ÿ
`&ÿ



 "ÿ% &ÿÿ )(ÿ ) "ÿ ÿ )(#$ÿÿ4+"

 "ÿ

ÿ+

"5

ÿ
`)"6& &ÿÿÿ% "  ÿÿ 



ÿ ! "ÿ% &ÿÿ)) "ÿ& 

%(ÿ
`  &(ÿ')") "ÿ"+' 

ÿÿ

 ÿ )(ÿ ) "ÿ $ÿ&ÿ



 "ÿ% &ÿÿ
`" ) ÿ

 "

ÿ ) "ÿ $ÿÿ "ÿ "ÿ!ÿ &ÿÿ7"ÿÿ ÿ&ÿ
`ÿ

"")

ÿ%ÿ

 ÿ "ÿ!ÿ 

" &ÿ

ÿ

 ÿ" "&ÿÿ ) "ÿ ÿ"#$ÿÿÿ
`* ÿ6 ÿ8+"&

ÿ+& "ÿÿ-./ÿ0ÿ$ÿÿÿ4ÿ*"

ÿ
`1 ÿÿ 

" &ÿ)+"+

ÿ

ÿÿ-./ÿ0ÿ$ÿ&ÿÿ/4ÿ0ÿ ÿÿ
`4"ÿ

 ÿ" ÿ

ÿ%"

ÿ2 !ÿ! ÿ&

"' ÿ



ÿ



 "ÿÿ

ÿ!ÿ
`2(ÿÿ)" )& " ÿ%ÿ

 ÿ 6&  ÿ



ÿ'ÿ%ÿ

 ÿ9ÿ 



ÿ" ÿ
`+)



2 ÿ+& "ÿÿ-./ÿ0ÿ$ÿÿ
`:;ÿ=>?@A>BÿDEFAGEHAÿIJKGAÿLGJH>>BEMNFÿ
` ÿ)"

 ÿ%"'ÿ+ÿ



ÿ

 ÿ9ÿ 



ÿÿ

 ÿ+28 

ÿ%ÿ

 ÿ
`%!ÿ!+

OÿP>AQJGRSTÿU>HVMJ?JNE>FWÿXMH;ÿY;ÿZJJN?>ÿXMH;ÿ@MBÿ
`[JKUK\>ÿ]]/ÿ/ ÿ^ÿO 6 ÿ.1^_$ÿÿ

ÿÿÿ_++2 ÿ]]/ÿ
`ÿÿ+2&"(ÿ%ÿ



 "ÿ&ÿÿ`! & &ÿÿÿ" ÿ)"

(

" 

ÿÿ
`XBÿÿÿ&&

ÿ

" ÿ&&

ÿ)



ÿ-.ÿ 



ÿ^ÿ  ÿ
`ÿ&ÿ ÿÿ+ÿ%"'ÿ))

ÿ" 

&ÿ

ÿ

 ÿ9ÿ
` 



ÿ" ÿ+28 

ÿ

ÿEMA>Gÿa@GA>Fÿ" 6 !ÿ' (ÿ   ÿ
`   ÿ&ÿ   ÿ" ) 

6 (ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ "ÿ%"ÿ

ÿ" 6 !ÿ&ÿ   ÿ   ÿ&ÿ
`   ÿ! " ÿ&

&ÿ
` ÿ
`
`ÿ
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 3 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 4 of 17
`Case 1:14-cv-02396—PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 4 of 17
`
`IPR2015-00343
`
`Patent 8,640,179 B1
`
`B. The ’1 79 Patent
`
`The ’ 179 Patent relates to identifying a work, such as a digital audio
`
`or Video file, without the need to modify the work. EX. 1001, 1:35—40,
`
`4:38—44. This identification can be accomplished through the extraction of
`
`features from the work, and comparison of those extracted features with
`
`records of a database or library. Id. at Abstract. Thereafter, an action may
`
`be determined based on the identification determined. Id. at 4:36—40.
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates the steps of the claimed computer-
`
`1mplemented methods:
`
`WORK @n
`
`WORK @t2
`
`122
`
`FEATURE
`EXTRACTION
`OPERAT'ONCS
`
`FEATURE
`(VECTOR) EXTRACTION
`OPERATION(S)
`
`140
`
`120
`
`FEATURE TO
`WORK ID
`TAGGING
`OPERATION(S
`DATABASE
`GENERATION
`OPERATIONCS)
`
`124
`
`FEATURE
`(VECTOR) LOOKUP
`OPERATION(S)
`
`150
`
`WID
`INFORMATION
`
`-.__
`
`   ÿ
` 



ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿÿ !"#"ÿ
`$% ÿ&ÿ 



ÿ' (

)ÿ

*ÿ+, 

+-.+/ÿÿ0*'1ÿ)23%ÿ)ÿÿ,+/+

(ÿ2,+*ÿ
`*'ÿ4+, *ÿ-+( ÿ0+

%*2

ÿ

% ÿ ,ÿ

*ÿ5*,+-.ÿ

% ÿ0*'16ÿÿ786ÿÿ9: ÿ
`
` 9: 6ÿÿ$%+)ÿ+, 

+-+3

+*ÿ3ÿ; ÿ33*5<(+)% ,ÿ

%'*2/%ÿ

% ÿ 8

'3

+*ÿ*-ÿ
`- 

2' )ÿ-'*5ÿ

% ÿ0*'1ÿ,ÿ3*5<'+)*ÿ*-ÿ

%*) ÿ 8

'3

,ÿ- 

2' )ÿ0+

%ÿ
`' 3*',)ÿ*-ÿÿ,

;) ÿ*'ÿ(+;''.6ÿÿ=>6ÿ

ÿ?;)

'3

6ÿÿ$% ' -

'ÿÿ3

+*ÿ5.ÿ
`; ÿ,

'5+ ,ÿ;) ,ÿ*ÿ

% ÿ+, 

+-+3

+*ÿ,

'5+ ,6ÿÿ=>ÿ

ÿ 9: 6ÿÿ
`@+/2' ÿÿ' <'*,23 ,ÿ; (*0ÿ+((2)

'

)ÿ

% ÿ)

<)ÿ*-ÿ

% ÿ3(+5 ,ÿ3*5<2

'
`+5<( 5 

,ÿ5

%*,)9ÿ
`@+/6ÿÿ*-ÿ

% ÿ&ÿ 



ÿ+((2)

'

+/ÿ

% ÿ3(+5 ,ÿ5

%*,ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`115
`114
`FEATURE(S) (VECTOR)
`$1 12
`
`—- 139
`DATABASE
`
`L
`
`~~~~_,
`
`“-
`
`160
`
`WORK—ASSOCIATED - GENERATION
`INEOHMAI ION LUUKUP
`OPERATION(S)
`OPERATION(S)
`WlD—ACTION
`1 3C]
`INFORMATION __
`
`ASSOCIATED INFORMATION (39., ACTION) ‘J‘T 132
`
`
`ACTION
`INITIATION
`OPERATION(S)
`
`170
`
`100
`
`FIGU RE 1
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’179 Patent illustrating the claimed method
`
`ÿ
`
`

`

`ÿ
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 5 of 17
`
`   ÿ
` 



ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ !ÿ#ÿ
`ÿ$%&'ÿÿ&(ÿ&) * ) 

ÿ%+,ÿ-&

.ÿ/%&'(ÿÿ)ÿ ÿ&(ÿ/+(&) 0 )ÿ
`0 *0 ( 



&1 ÿ+2ÿ

. ÿ/%&'(ÿ/.%% , )ÿ)ÿ&(ÿ0 *0+)3/ )ÿ4 %+-5ÿ
`6ÿ7ÿ/+'*3

0&'*% ' 

)ÿ'

.+)ÿ/+'*0&(&,5ÿÿ
`89ÿ'&

&&,ÿ4:ÿÿ/+'*3

0ÿ(:(

'ÿ&/%3)&,ÿ

ÿ% (

ÿ+ ÿ
`/+'*3

0ÿÿ)

4( ÿ/+'*0&(&,5ÿÿ
`89ÿ2&0(

ÿ % /

0+&/ÿ)

ÿ0 %

)ÿ

+ÿ&) 

&2&/

&+ÿ+2ÿ+ ÿ+0ÿ
`'+0 ÿ0 2 0 / ÿ % /

0+&/ÿ-+0;(<ÿ)ÿÿ
`8 9ÿ( /+)ÿ % /

0+&/ÿ)

ÿ0 %

)ÿ

+ÿ/

&+ÿ&2+0'

&+ÿ
`/+'*0&(&,ÿÿ/

&+ÿ

+ÿ* 02+0'ÿ/+00 (*+)&,ÿ

+ÿ /.ÿ+2ÿ
`

. ÿ+ ÿ+0ÿ'+0 ÿ0 2 0 / ÿ % /

0+&/ÿ-+0;(<ÿÿ
`849ÿ+4

&&,ÿ4:ÿ

. ÿ/+'*3

0ÿ(:(

'ÿ =

0/

)ÿ2 

30 (ÿ+2ÿÿ
`2&0(

ÿ % /

0+&/ÿ-+0;<ÿÿ
`8/9ÿ&) 

&2:&,ÿ4:ÿ

. ÿ/+'*3

0ÿ(:(

'ÿ

. ÿ2&0(

ÿ % /

0+&/ÿ
`-+0;ÿ4:ÿ/+'*0&,ÿ

. ÿ =

0/

)ÿ2 

30 (ÿ+2ÿ

. ÿ2&0(

ÿ % /

0+&/ÿ
`-+0;ÿ-&

.ÿ

. ÿ2&0(

ÿ % /

0+&/ÿ)

ÿ&ÿ

. ÿ)

4( ÿ3(&,ÿÿ>?>@
`!AB !ÿ>!CBD?ÿ!EB<ÿÿ
`8)9ÿ)

0'&&,ÿ4:ÿ

. ÿ/+'*3

0ÿ(:(

'ÿ

. ÿ/

&+ÿ&2+0'

&+ÿ
`/+00 (*+)&,ÿ

+ÿ

. ÿ&) 

&2& )ÿ2&0(

ÿ % /

0+&/ÿ-+0;ÿ4( )ÿ+ÿ
`

. ÿ( /+)ÿ % /

0+&/ÿ)

ÿ&ÿ

. ÿ)

4( <ÿ)ÿÿ
`8 9ÿ((+/&

&,ÿ4:ÿ

. ÿ/+'*3

0ÿ(:(

'ÿ

. ÿ)

0'& )ÿ/

&+ÿ
`&2+0'

&+ÿ-&

.ÿ

. ÿ&) 

&2& )ÿ2&0(

ÿ % /

0+&/ÿ-+0;6ÿ
`F=6ÿGÿ 5 H ÿ8 '*.(&(ÿ)) )96ÿ
`IÿJ?ÿKÿL!!MÿNO?>ÿ
`( )ÿ+ÿ

. ÿ&(

&

3

)ÿ,0+3)(ÿ

&

&+ 0ÿ0 %& (ÿ3*+ÿ

. ÿ2+%%+-&,ÿ
`*0&+0ÿ0

ÿ0 2 0 / (5ÿ
`PQRQSQTUQÿWSÿXQUYZSZ[\WTÿ
`]^_\`\[ÿaWbÿ
`c6d6ÿ 



ÿe+6ÿÿ8f$+- %%g9ÿ
`F=6ÿÿ
`c6d6ÿ 



ÿe+6ÿ ÿ8fh.&(g9ÿ
`F=6ÿÿ
`c6d6ÿ 



ÿe+6ÿÿ8f .&%:-g9ÿ
`F=6ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 6 of 17
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 6 of 17
`
`IPR2015-00343
`
`Patent 8,640,179 B1
`
`E. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Dec. 15):
`
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`1,—3 6, 8—14, 19, 21—26, 30, 31, and 34—37 §102 e Conwell
`§103
`Ghias andPhilyaw
`
` 1—,3 8, 10—14, 18, 19, 21—27, 29, 31, and
`
`34—37
`
`   ÿ
` 



ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ!"#$%$#&'('$)ÿ
`* ÿ+,

+

-

.ÿ

/ ÿ+,



ÿ

0+1ÿ2, .ÿ3ÿ

/ ÿ431135+6ÿ603-.,ÿ34ÿ
`-7



2+1+

8ÿ9: ;<ÿ=>ÿ
`?@ABCDÿ?FA@@GHIGJÿ
`KADBDÿLGMGNGHOGPDQÿ
`RÿÿR ÿÿ R ÿÿÿ.ÿ RÿSÿ 9 =ÿT35 11ÿ
`SÿÿU/+,ÿ.ÿ /+185ÿ
`RÿÿR ÿÿÿ R ÿ ÿÿ.ÿ
` Rÿ
`ÿ
`<ÿVWVXYZZÿ
`[ÿ\(#']ÿ\$^$'ÿ
`ÿÿ'$%ÿ"#$%ÿ0 _+ 5ÿ;1+`ÿ

0`,ÿ+ÿÿ- a7+0 .ÿ7



ÿ0 ÿ6+_ ÿ
`

/ +0ÿ203. ,

ÿ0 ,321 ÿ;3,

0-;

+3ÿ+ÿ1+6/

ÿ34ÿ

/ ÿ,7 ;+4+;

+3ÿ34ÿ

/ ÿ
`7



ÿ+ÿ5/+;/ÿ

/ 8ÿ77 0<ÿÿÿT<b<<ÿSÿ <92=cÿ\ddÿe"%%ÿf%^ghÿ
`ii\ÿjÿi%%ÿW3<ÿR ÿ,1+7ÿ37<ÿ

ÿÿ9k<Z<ÿl- ÿ ÿ =<ÿ
`ÿ3-0ÿ,

+

-

+3ÿ: ;+,+3ÿ5 ÿ;3,

0- .ÿ

53ÿ;1+`ÿ

0`,ÿ,7 ;+4+;118>ÿ
`?@ABCÿmGNCÿ
`?nHDoNpOoBnHÿ
`qÿ, 0;/ÿ

/

ÿ13;

,ÿÿ`

;/ÿ5+

/3-

ÿÿ;3`70+,3ÿ
`q3 a/-,

+_ ÿ
`34ÿ11ÿ73,,+21 ÿ`

;/ ,rÿ
`, 0;/rÿ
`q +6/230ÿ, 0;/rÿq+. 

+48+6ÿÿ;13, ÿ2-

ÿ3

ÿ ; ,,0+18ÿ a;

ÿ30ÿ
`;13, ,

ÿ`

;/<rÿ
`: ;<ÿR<ÿ 



ÿs5 0ÿ60 ,ÿ5+

/ÿ

/ ÿ.37

.ÿ;3,

0-;

+3,ÿ.ÿ `7/,+t ,ÿ
`

/

ÿÿ3 a/-,

+_ ÿ, 0;/ÿ`u ,ÿÿ;3`70+,3ÿ5+

/3-

ÿ11ÿ73,,+21 ÿ
``

;/ ,ÿ2-

ÿ.3 ,ÿ3

ÿ;3; 0ÿ+

, 14ÿ5+

/ÿ5/

/ 0ÿ11ÿ.

ÿ5+

/+ÿ11ÿ73,,+21 ÿ
``

;/ ,ÿ/_ ÿ2 ÿ;3`70 .<ÿÿ sÿ ,7<ÿ R<ÿÿ 



ÿs5 0ÿ1,3ÿ;3

.,ÿ
`

/

ÿ+4ÿÿ, 0;/ÿ ; ,,0+18ÿ+. 

+4+ ,ÿÿ a;

ÿ30ÿ

/ ÿ;13, ,

ÿ`

;/ÿ+

ÿ+,ÿ3

ÿÿ
` +6/230ÿ30ÿ 0ÿ +6/230ÿ, 0;/ÿ2 ;-, ÿ+

ÿ+,ÿ3

ÿÿ, 0;/ÿ

/

ÿ+. 

+4+ ,ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 CPR. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Lee, No. 15—446, slip op. at 13 (US. June 20, 2016).
`
`In our Institution Decision, we construed two claim terms specifically:
`
`
`Claim Term
`Construction
`
`“non-exhaustive
`search”
`“neighbor search”
`
`“a search that locates a match without a comparison
`of all possible matches”
`“identifying a close, but not necessarily exact or
`closest, match.”
`
`Dec. 6—8.
`
`Patent Owner agrees with the adopted constructions and emphasizes
`
`that a non-exhaustive search makes a comparison without all possible
`
`matches, but does not concern itself with whether all data within all possible
`
`matches have been compared. PO Resp. 2—7. Patent Owner also contends
`
`that if a search necessarily identifies an exact or the closest match, it is not a
`
`neighbor or near neighbor search because it is not a search that identifies a
`
`5
`
`

`

`   ÿ
` 



ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`

ÿ

ÿ  ÿ 

ÿÿ 

ÿ

 !ÿÿ"#!ÿ

ÿ$!ÿÿ



 ÿ
`%&

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ 

!ÿÿ &ÿ$!ÿÿ'

( ÿ) ÿ%( ÿ)

ÿ 



ÿ
`*) ÿ



ÿÿ ( ÿ  ÿ%ÿ

ÿ% 

+ÿÿ 

ÿÿ

ÿ 

ÿ
`

 ÿ%ÿ

ÿ ÿÿ ( ÿ  ÿ) ÿ %ÿ

ÿ%% ÿ



ÿ%



ÿ

ÿ
`%

 ÿ

ÿ ++ÿ+ÿ



 ,ÿ&++  %ÿ(%ÿ+ÿ&





!ÿÿÿ
`-&ÿ . )ÿ+ÿ

ÿ&

 ,ÿ



ÿ%ÿ

ÿ/& +

ÿÿ) ÿ
`ÿ

ÿ 

 ÿ %ÿ) ÿÿ% ÿÿ ÿ

ÿ%+ÿÿÿ
`



ÿ

ÿ

ÿ0

 !ÿÿÿ12ÿ4567869:;<ÿ>?ÿ@ABÿ
`Cÿ& .ÿÿ

ÿ  ( ÿ

ÿ

ÿ&





ÿ+ÿ

ÿÿ
`



 ÿ

ÿ&. ÿ&





ÿÿÿ& &%  ÿ+ÿ

ÿ .%  !ÿÿ
`ÿ-!/!D!ÿEÿF GHÿÿD!I!!ÿEÿ !F%G!ÿÿ'ÿÿÿ&



 ÿ% ÿ
`ÿ-!/!D!ÿEÿ ÿ+ÿÿ( ÿ&ÿ

ÿ +   ÿ & ÿÿ  

ÿ
`%  ÿ  ÿ%ÿ . ÿ



ÿ

ÿ+

ÿÿ

ÿ!ÿÿJ;;ÿ4;5568>7;ÿK2ÿ
`L;#686<ÿ4MA5N2ÿO>592ÿ  ÿI!%ÿÿÿFI %!ÿD!ÿ GHÿP;5#;QAA:ÿ
`15><2Rÿ"782ÿK2ÿS76>7ÿT6:ÿO>2ÿ>?ÿOA:2Rÿ ÿI! %ÿ ÿÿFI %!ÿD!ÿG!ÿÿÿ
`'%%

ÿÿ&



ÿÿÿ&



 ÿ% ÿÿ-!/!D!ÿEÿFGÿ
`+ÿ

ÿ%++   ÿ

) ÿ

ÿ %ÿ0 

ÿ

ÿ%ÿ

ÿ&ÿ

ÿ ÿ
` ÿ



ÿ

ÿ0 

ÿ

ÿÿÿ)  ÿ)%ÿ . ÿ ÿ.ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

 ÿ
`

ÿ. 

ÿ)ÿ% ÿ

ÿÿ& ÿ .(ÿ%ÿUÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ)  ÿ
`
`%ÿ0 

ÿ

ÿ& 

!ÿÿVJWÿ"7XY:ÿO>2ÿK2ÿZ;:;?:;[ÿ"78!ÿÿ-!/!ÿÿ
` ÿF G!ÿÿC ÿ\ 

ÿ+ÿ. ÿÿ . %ÿÿ

ÿÿ+ÿ
`
`% (ÿ+

ÿ%



ÿ%(]ÿÿFGÿ

ÿ& ÿ%ÿ



ÿ+ÿ
`

ÿ&ÿ

HÿF Gÿÿ%++   ÿ

) ÿ

ÿ %ÿ0 

ÿ

ÿ%ÿ

ÿ
`
`&ÿ

HÿFGÿ

ÿ . ÿ+ÿ%ÿUÿÿ

ÿ

Hÿ%ÿF Gÿ0 

. ÿ .%  ÿ
`ÿ
`
`ÿ ÿ
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 7 of 17
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 7 of 17
`
`IPR2015-00343
`
`Patent 8,640,179 B1
`
`close, but not necessarily exact or closest, match. Id. at 6—7. Petitioner
`
`disputes this latter assertion. Reply 3—5. Although we disagree with Patent
`
`Owner that a neighbor search could not identify an exact or the closest
`
`match and still be a neighbor search, we need not address that distinction to
`
`determine the efficacy of Petitioner’s proffered grounds of unpatentability.
`
`Upon review of the parties’ contentions and the Specification, as well
`
`as this entire record, we also discern no reason to modify our claim
`
`constructions at this juncture.
`
`B. Principles ofLaw
`
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims,
`
`Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently
`
`describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim. See Perricone v.
`
`Medicis Pharm. Corp, 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal
`
`Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. 0fCal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 Ged. Cir. 1987).
`
`Additionally, a patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a)
`
`if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are
`
`such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time
`
`the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. 398,
`
`406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
`
`underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
`
`6
`
`

`

`C. Anticipation by Conwell - Claims 1—3, 6, 8—14, 19, 21—26, 30, 31, and
`34—3 7
`
`   ÿ
` 



ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ ÿÿ !ÿ#$ÿ%& 'ÿ()))ÿ*&$ÿÿ+,ÿÿ-ÿ./ÿÿ
`ÿ

0

ÿ1 213ÿÿ ÿ45ÿ6 3ÿ

ÿ 7ÿ

ÿ81 9 ÿ

902ÿ
`31 9

3ÿ

ÿ

0 ÿ8 99ÿ: 9

ÿ;

1ÿÿ

0 ÿ9044 2 3ÿ94;ÿ1ÿÿ91

ÿ
`9ÿ

7 ÿ99

ÿÿ

0 ÿ 1 9 ÿ3ÿ91 

 ÿ

8ÿ

0

ÿÿ8 1ÿÿ
`1315ÿ744ÿÿ

0 ÿ1

ÿ<43ÿ ;845=ÿÿ>?@ÿÿ+,ÿ

ÿ AÿB'CD&EFGÿ
` ÿH3ÿ

ÿ ÿÿI ÿ45J ÿ

0 ÿ 1

3ÿ213ÿÿ8



4

5ÿÿ
`99139 ÿ<

0ÿ

0 ÿ 



3ÿ81984 ÿ
`*$ÿL'MFGFNMF&'ÿOPÿ*&'Q)DDÿRÿ*DF!CÿSTUVÿWVÿXTSYVÿSZVÿ[ST[WVÿU\VÿUSVÿ']ÿ
`UYTU^ÿÿ
`



 1ÿ12 ÿ

0

ÿ94;ÿ-ÿÿ- ÿÿ - ÿÿÿ3ÿ -
`ÿ1 ÿ

98

3ÿ5ÿ_< 44ÿÿ

ÿ - ÿÿ 



ÿ`< 1ÿ38

ÿ

0ÿ
`

98

ÿ122ÿ

0

ÿ_< 44ÿ3 ÿ

ÿ939

ÿÿ 201ÿ 190ÿ1ÿÿ
` a0

 ÿ 190ÿ8 1ÿ3 8 3 

ÿ94;ÿÿÿ3ÿ ÿÿ `ÿ 8ÿ-
` ÿÿ



 1ÿ9

1ÿ

0  ÿ12; 

ÿÿ 845ÿ- ÿÿbÿ39 3ÿ 4<ÿ
`< ÿ3

1; ÿ

0

ÿ



 1ÿ0ÿ

ÿ0<ÿ5ÿÿ81 83 19 ÿÿ

0 ÿ
` 3 9 ÿ

0

ÿ

0 ÿ: 9

ÿ94;ÿÿ

0 ÿcÿ 



ÿ1 ÿ

98

3ÿ5ÿ
`_< 44ÿ_< 44ÿÿ31 9

3ÿ

ÿÿ;

03ÿ1ÿ31 9

2ÿ 1ÿÿ32

4ÿ9



ÿ
`

ÿ< 

ÿ1 4

3ÿ

ÿ

0 ÿ9



ÿ 2ÿ845 3ÿÿdaÿÿb

19

ÿÿbÿ
`3 

 1ÿ9ÿ ÿ3 1 3ÿ1;ÿ

0 ÿ9



ÿ1ÿ a;84 ÿ5ÿ88452ÿÿ
`002ÿ421

0;ÿ

ÿ; ÿ1ÿ44ÿÿ

0 ÿ9



ÿ

ÿ2  1

ÿ

0 ÿ3 

 1ÿÿe]$ÿ
`

ÿf- fÿÿ_< 44ÿ4ÿ394 ÿ ÿÿ6002ÿ421

0;ÿ5ÿ<090ÿ
`;41ÿ1ÿ1 4

3ÿ

ÿ3 

94ÿ8

ÿ;8ÿ

ÿ

0 ÿ; ÿ00ÿ

8

=ÿÿ
`e]$ÿ

ÿ f -fÿÿd90ÿ3 

 1ÿÿ

1 3ÿÿÿ3

 ÿ42ÿ<

0ÿÿ
`9

3ÿ< ÿ331 ÿÿe]$ÿ

ÿf - ÿH2ÿ- ÿÿg0 ÿ 

1 ÿÿ

0 ÿ
`ÿ
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1—3, 6, 8—14, 19, 21—26, 30, 31, and 34—
`
`37 are anticipated by Conwell. Pet. 22—34. Patent Owner disputes this
`
`anticipation, arguing that Conwell does not conduct a neighbor search or a
`
`non-exhaustive search, per independent claims 1, 13, and 25. PO Resp. 7—
`
`32. Petitioner counters these arguments. Reply 5—12. As discussed below,
`
`we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence, that the subject claims of the ’179 Patent are anticipated by
`
`Conwell.
`
`Conwell is directed to a method for directing users of digital content
`
`to websites related to the content being played. EX. 1009, Abstract. An
`
`identifier can be derived from the content, for example, by applying a
`
`hashing algorithm to some or all of the content to generate the identifier. Id.
`
`at 1:60—2:3. Conwell also discloses use of “hashing algorithms by which
`
`similar or related, but non-identical, inputs map to the same hash outputs.”
`
`Id. at 4:64—5:3. Each identifier is stored in a database along with an
`
`associated web address. Id. at 3:43—45, Figs. 3—4. The entries in the
`
`ÿ
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 8 of 17
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 8 of 17
`
`IPR2015-00343
`
`Patent 8,640,179 B1
`
`of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere C0., 383 U.S. 1, 17—18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
`
`can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 US. at 418; Translogic,
`
`504 F.3d at 1259. We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in
`
`accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`

`

`   ÿ
` 



ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`

 ÿÿ ÿ

ÿÿ 

 ÿÿ

 ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ  ÿÿ
` 

  ÿÿ!"#ÿ

ÿ%& ÿ
` 



ÿ'( ÿ)* ÿ



ÿ

 ÿ +ÿ,+  ÿÿ-( ..ÿ ÿ

ÿ
` /*

0 ÿÿ 1* ÿÿ ,  

ÿ+.ÿÿÿÿ  ÿÿ 'ÿ , ÿ &
` ÿÿ 



ÿ'( ÿ)* ÿ



ÿ-( ..ÿ

+ ÿ 

)ÿÿ

+ÿ*)ÿÿ
`.*,ÿ

. ÿ*

ÿ

 ÿ,+ ÿÿ

ÿ+. ÿ

ÿ ÿ /*

0 ÿÿ!" ÿ

ÿ ÿ
`2+

)ÿ3/ ÿÿ% & ÿ%&ÿ4) ÿ5ÿ3/ ÿ ÿ66ÿ &7 ÿÿ 



ÿ
`'( ÿ

..ÿ)* ÿ



ÿ89(:. ÿ

  ÿ ÿ(ÿ

ÿ +ÿ

 ÿ.*,ÿ
`

. ÿ+. ÿÿ-( ..ÿ*)ÿÿ /*

0 ÿ,,+ÿ-( ..ÿ ÿ
`

ÿ+. ÿÿ*+ÿ /*

0 ÿ,,+ ;ÿÿ!" ÿ

ÿ ÿ2+

)ÿ3/ ÿ ÿ
`6ÿ7 ÿÿ< ÿ) ÿ



ÿ-( ..ÿ ÿ

ÿ /,.+

.ÿ+. ÿ



ÿ

 ÿ.*,ÿ
`ÿ,  ÿ /*

0 . ÿÿÿ
`4*

 ÿ 



ÿ'( ÿ)* ÿ



ÿ-( ..ÿ.ÿ ÿ

ÿ  

.ÿ
`+. ÿ*)ÿ

 ÿ.*,ÿ

. ÿ

ÿ+*+

ÿÿ /*

0 ÿ + ÿÿ!" ÿ

ÿ
` & ÿÿ 



ÿ'( ÿ+

* ÿ



ÿ8-( ..ÿ,0 ÿÿ

.ÿÿ

ÿ(ÿ
`
`

 ÿ /+



+ÿ +ÿ

( ÿ

 ÿ ÿ 

 ÿÿ

 ÿ(ÿ

ÿ ÿ
` 

 ÿÿ

 ÿ ÿ 

 ÿÿ

 ÿ   + ÿ

 ÿÿ+

*..ÿ
`,   ;ÿÿ!" ÿ

ÿ ÿ2+

)ÿ3/ ÿÿ% & 7 ÿÿ 



ÿ'( ÿ)* ÿ



ÿ
`-( ..ÿ

.ÿ(ÿ

ÿ

 ÿÿ

 ÿ*

ÿ ÿ

ÿ,0 ÿ, ++ÿ
`+.* ÿÿ

ÿ(ÿ

 ÿ

 ÿÿ +  ÿÿ!" ÿ

ÿ& ÿÿ< ÿ.ÿ) ÿ
`



ÿ-( ..ÿ ÿ

ÿ  

.ÿ+. ÿ



ÿ

 ÿ.*,ÿÿ,  ÿ
` /*

0 . ÿÿÿ
`



 ÿ ,ÿ



ÿ8

ÿ

 ÿ

 ÿ

 ÿ=ÿ,



ÿ(ÿ. ÿ

ÿ(ÿ
`

ÿ. 

ÿ>,. =ÿ



ÿ ÿ.. ÿÿ

 ÿ

ÿ(*.ÿ* ÿÿ /*

0 ÿ
`.*,ÿ

ÿ+*+

ÿÿ

 ÿ1* ;ÿÿ



ÿ89:

+,

ÿ ÿ

ÿ
` 1* ÿ?@A?AA?B?AÿCDEF?Aÿ +



ÿÿ+.ÿ.



 ;ÿÿ ,.ÿ ÿÿG( 0 ÿ
`ÿ
`
`ÿ
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 9 of 17
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 9 of 17
`
`IPR2015-00343
`
`Patent 8,640,179 B1
`
`database may be sorted by identifier and the system may be keyed by
`
`identifier. Id. at 5:58—64.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the search processes in Conwell are not non-
`
`exhaustive, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. PO Resp. 23—
`
`32. Patent Owner argues that Conwell teaches identifying a match using a
`
`look-up table, but the process is not disclosed to be non-exhaustive. Id. at 24
`
`(citing Ex. 1009, 3:43—44, 5:59—61, Fig. 3; Ex. 2005 1111 364—366). Patent
`
`Owner additionally argues that “[w]hile there are ways to search the lookup
`
`table disclosed in Conwell using a non-exhaustive approach, Conwell does
`
`not disclose any such non-exhaustive approach.” Id. at 26 (citing EX. 2005
`
`11 369). We agree that Conwell does not explicitly disclose that the look-up
`
`is performed non-exhaustively.
`
`Further, Patent Owner argues that Conwell also does not inherently
`
`disclose using the look-up table to conduct a non-exhaustive search. Id. at
`
`27—3 1. Patent Owner continues that “Conwell provides no details as to how
`
`the exact-match search between the hashed identifier of the work to be
`
`identified and the hashed identifiers in the reference database is actually
`
`performed.” Id. at 29 (citing EX. 1009, 3:43—62). Patent Owner argues that
`
`Conwell details how its database is maintained, but does not provide specific
`
`disclosures as to how the database is searched. Id. at 31—32. We also agree
`
`that Conwell does not inherently disclose that the look-up is performed non-
`
`exhaustively.
`
`Petitioner responds that “at the time the ’ 179 patent was filed, it was
`
`at least ‘probable’ that one skilled in the art would use a non-exhaustive
`
`lookup to conduct a database query,” and that “[a]nticipation does not
`
`require ipsissimis verbis recitation of claim limitations.” Reply 9. However,
`
`8
`
`

`

`   ÿ
` 



ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ

ÿ



ÿÿ 

ÿ 

ÿÿ



ÿ ÿÿÿ! ÿ"  

ÿÿ

 ÿ
`"ÿ

ÿÿ

ÿ 

ÿ

ÿ 

!ÿ

 ÿ  #ÿÿ



ÿ 

ÿÿ
`



$ÿÿ%&ÿ()ÿ*+,-.)(/0ÿÿ1$2ÿÿ ÿ31 2$ÿ4$ÿ5$ÿÿ67 ÿÿ
`

ÿ82ÿ7 ÿ! ÿ

7ÿ

ÿ" 9ÿ

 ÿ:"ÿÿ48 ÿ;ÿÿ
` <

7 ÿ" ÿÿÿ"! ÿ""

ÿ2 ÿ

ÿ2 9



ÿ



ÿ
`48 ÿ

 ÿ

 ÿ9 ÿÿ = 2ÿ

ÿ8ÿ

"

$ÿ
`



 ÿÿ; ÿ



ÿ! 2ÿÿ

 ÿ8#ÿ



ÿ

 ÿ7 

ÿÿ
`

 ÿ>ÿ 



ÿ  ÿ

ÿ2

! ÿ:"ÿ! ;ÿ" 9 2ÿ

;ÿ!#ÿ
`  ÿ48 >ÿ2 ÿÿÿ2

! ÿ= #ÿ2ÿ! ÿ2 

2ÿÿ
`ÿ <

7 ÿ $ÿÿ "#ÿÿ3

;ÿ6<$ÿÿ ?@ 5$ÿÿA ÿ2ÿ

ÿ
`; ÿÿ8 ÿ ÿ

ÿ" 2 2ÿ



ÿ

 ÿ7 

ÿ8ÿ2;ÿ



ÿÿ
`2

! ÿ:"ÿ ÿ

ÿ <

7 ÿ  ÿ$ $ÿÿ;!ÿ

!

ÿÿ
`2

! ÿ:"$ÿÿBÿ2 2ÿ

ÿÿ ;ÿ

 ÿ7 

>ÿ2ÿÿ
`! 2ÿÿ

 ÿ; ÿ9! ÿÿ 

 ÿ

 2ÿÿÿ2

! ÿ2ÿ



 ÿ
`ÿ"

2ÿ

ÿ

;ÿÿ48 ÿ

 ÿ



ÿ2 ÿÿ9! ÿÿ2

! ÿ
` 

 ÿÿ

 ÿ

#" ÿÿ ÿ 9"# 2$ÿÿC$ÿ @ $ÿ
`Bÿ8 ÿ



 ÿ; ÿ



ÿ

 ÿ; ÿÿ ;ÿÿ7 #ÿ9

2ÿ
`$ $ÿ <

7 ÿ2ÿ <

7 ÿ2ÿ



ÿD ÿ82ÿ7 ÿ 7; 2ÿÿ
`E <

7 >ÿ ÿÿ

 ÿF()GH+&&/ÿ9ÿÿE2

! ÿ= #>Iÿÿ
`



ÿ48 ÿ2 ÿ

 ÿ  9 

ÿÿ

 ÿ9ÿÿ!

 $ÿÿ "#ÿ@ ÿ
`3

;ÿ6<$ÿ ÿJÿKÿ%&ÿ()ÿLM)N)ÿÿ1$2ÿÿ ÿ@ÿ31 2$ÿ
`4$ÿ 55$ÿÿA ÿ2ÿ

ÿ; $ÿÿ

2ÿ8 ÿ2ÿ" 7 ÿ

 ÿ



9#ÿÿ
`O$ÿP#"ÿ



ÿ <

7 ÿ9

2ÿ9#ÿ! ÿ 9"# 2ÿ

ÿ" 9ÿ

 ÿ
`2

! ÿ:"ÿÿ48 ÿ2ÿ



ÿ48 ÿ2 ÿ

ÿ2 ÿ#ÿ
` <

7 ÿ""$ÿÿ6<$ÿ ÿJJÿ@$ÿÿB

;ÿ



 ÿ ; ÿ
`



ÿO$ÿP#">ÿ2 

ÿDÿ "

ÿ8

ÿ

 #ÿ;9 

ÿ"  

2ÿ
`ÿ
`
`ÿ


`
`(citing Ex. 2005 11 371; In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334, 1337—38 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009)). We do not agree. Instead, we find persuasive the testimony of
`
`Dr. Karypis that exhaustive methods may be employed to perform the
`
`database lookup in Conwell, and that Conwell does not disclose any non-
`
`exhaustive approach. Ex. 2005 1111 367—3 69. Although Petitioner alleges
`
`that Dr. Karypis’s declaration “is replete with attorney argument presented
`
`9
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 10 of 17
`Case 1:14-cv-02396—PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 10 of 17
`
`IPR2015-00343
`
`Patent 8,640,179 B1
`
`the fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the
`
`prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or
`
`characteristic. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Even if
`
`it would have been trivial to perform the look-up in Conwell using a non-
`
`exhaustive process, such a possible application does not demonstrate that
`
`Conwell teaches the same, as required to show anticipation.
`
`Petitioner also argues that based on the way that the inventor in
`
`the ’ 179 Patent refers to database lookups being performed through binary
`
`searches, Conwell’s disclosure of a database query should be understood as
`
`a non-exhaustive search. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 21 :37—42). We do not
`
`agree, as we are not persuaded that the inventor was disclosing that all
`
`database lookups are not exhaustive searches, i.e., a global attribute for
`
`database lookups. As discussed at oral hearing, the inventor’s discussion is
`
`based on the large number of entries contained in a database, and Petitioner
`
`has pointed to nothing in Conwell itself that discusses a number of database
`
`entries or the type of search employed. Tr. 21—22.
`
`As well, Petitioner argues that the genus of searching is very limited,
`
`i.e., exhaustive and non-exhaustive, and that “one would have envisaged a
`
`‘non-exhaustive’ search as the predominant form of ‘database query,”’ such
`
`that Conwell discloses the elements of the claims in substance. Reply 11—12
`
`

`

`   ÿ
` 



ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ

 ÿ ÿÿ  

ÿ



 !ÿ"ÿ

ÿ 



# "ÿ

ÿ#

# ÿ$ 

ÿ% # ÿ
`&ÿ$ ÿ"ÿÿ#

ÿ$

ÿÿ ''ÿ ( $ÿ"ÿ





ÿÿ)$ ##ÿ
`"ÿ$ ÿ ÿ " "ÿ



ÿ

ÿ" 



ÿ



ÿ

 ÿ#*ÿ'  ÿÿ
`)$ ##ÿ "ÿ

ÿ+ ÿ 

( ,ÿ
` "ÿÿ

 ÿ# ÿÿ"  " 

ÿ'#ÿÿÿ"ÿ ÿ$ ÿ ÿ
`#* $ ÿ " "ÿ



ÿ)$ ##ÿ#ÿ#ÿ

ÿ

'

ÿ'#ÿ ÿÿÿ- ÿ
` ÿÿ - ÿ ÿÿÿ"ÿ -ÿ+ ÿ(

 ÿÿ

 ÿ"  " ' ÿÿ

 ÿ
`"  " 

ÿ'#,ÿÿ.   ÿ$ ÿ ÿ

ÿ " "ÿ



ÿ



 ÿÿ
` 

+# "ÿ+ ÿÿ " ' ÿÿ

 ÿ (" ' ÿ



ÿ'#ÿ-ÿÿ- ÿÿ
` - ÿÿÿ"ÿ -ÿÿ

 ÿ/ÿ 



ÿ ÿ



+# ÿ" ÿÿ
`0,1,),ÿ2ÿ ÿÿ+ ÿ

'

"ÿ+ ÿ)$ ##,ÿ
`ÿ34ÿ6789:;<=><<ÿ68>@ÿAB9C<ÿC=DÿEB9FGCHÿIÿJFC9K<ÿLMNOÿPOÿLQMLROÿLPOÿLSOÿ
`TLMTUOÿTSOÿNLOÿC=DÿNRMNUÿ
`



 ÿ ÿ



ÿ'#ÿ-ÿÿ- ÿÿÿ - ÿ ÿÿ"ÿ
` -ÿ ÿ "  "ÿ+(ÿ( ÿVÿ"ÿ # $,ÿÿ

,ÿ -,ÿÿ 



ÿ
`W$ ÿ"

ÿ

ÿ"ÿÿ



ÿ

 ÿ'+

ÿÿVÿ"ÿ
` # $ÿ" ÿ

ÿ'"'

ÿÿ +ÿ 'ÿÿÿ 

( ÿ 'ÿ ÿ
`"  " 

ÿ'#ÿÿÿ"ÿ ,ÿÿ Wÿ ,ÿ -,ÿÿ



 ÿ'

ÿ
`

  ÿ 

,ÿÿ # ÿ -,ÿÿXÿ"' "ÿ+ #$ÿ$ ÿ"

 ÿ



ÿ
`



 ÿÿ

ÿ$ÿ+ ÿÿ " ' ÿÿ

 ÿ (" ' ÿ



ÿ

 ÿ
`+Y '

ÿ'#ÿÿ

 ÿ/ÿ 



ÿ ÿ "  "ÿ+(ÿ( ÿVÿ"ÿ
` # $,ÿÿÿVÿ #

ÿ

ÿ 'ÿÿ #" ,ÿÿZ,ÿÿX+

'

,ÿÿ. ÿ
` 

ÿÿVÿ ' ( ÿÿ #" ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿ' ÿ'( 

ÿ

ÿ
`

ÿÿ"

[ "ÿ   



ÿ+ "ÿÿ #

( ÿ

'ÿ"  ' ÿ+

$ ÿ
`ÿ
`
`D. Obviousness Over Ghias and Philyaw - Claims 1—3, 8, 10—14, 18, 19,
`21—27, 29, 31, and 34—37
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1—3, 8, 10—14, 18, 19, 21—27, 29, 31, and
`
`34—37 are rendered obvious over Ghias and Philyaw. Pet. 45—60. Patent
`
`Owner disputes this ground, arguing that the combination of Ghias and
`
`Philyaw does not conduct a neighbor search or a non-exhaustive search, per
`
`independent claims 1, 13, and 25. PO Resp. 32—51. Petitioner counters
`
`these arguments. Reply 12—18. As discussed below, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
`
`subject claims of the ’ 179 Patent are rendered obvious over Ghias and
`
`Philyaw.
`
`Ghias relates to searching for melodies. Ex. 1010, Abstract. The
`
`system of Ghias receives a melody input through a microphone, converts it
`
`into a digitized representation based on relative pitch differences between
`
`10
`
`ÿ
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 11 of 17
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 11 of 17
`
`IPR2015-00343
`
`Patent 8,640,179 B1
`
`in the guise of expert testimony,” and thus entitled to little weight (Reply
`
`19), we find no fault with his specific review and interpretation of Conwell,
`
`and we are persuaded that it demonstrates that the lookup processes in
`
`Conwell need not be non-exhaustive.
`
`Based on the analysis of independent claims 1, 13, and 25, we are
`
`likewise persuaded that Conwell also fails to anticipate claims 2, 3, 6, 8—12,
`
`14, 19, 21—24, 26, 30, 31, and 34—37, by virtue of their dependence on the
`
`independent claims. Therefore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1—3, 6, 8—14, 19,
`
`21—26, 30, 31, and 34—37 of the ’179 Patent are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Conwell.
`
`

`

`   ÿ
` 



ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`  ÿ

ÿÿ  ÿÿ

 ÿÿÿ   



ÿÿÿ
`
` !"

ÿ"

#ÿÿ$%#ÿÿ&ÿ'ÿ  ÿ



ÿÿ   ' 

ÿ ÿ
`

'  ÿ"(ÿ ÿ ' ÿ

ÿ

 ÿ #ÿÿ$%#ÿ

ÿ )*#ÿÿ+ ÿ '

ÿÿ

 ÿ
` ÿ ÿ   

ÿÿÿ, ÿ'

ÿÿ !"

'(ÿ"

-ÿ" ' ÿÿ
`'



'(ÿ.

ÿ ÿ 

ÿ"

#ÿÿ$%#ÿ

ÿ )*ÿ)*#ÿÿ&ÿ'ÿ
`' ÿ



ÿ

ÿÿ ' ÿ

ÿ "ÿ, ( -ÿ/

ÿ

 ÿ

 ÿ
`-ÿ0ÿ  

ÿ !"

ÿ 

ÿ"

-ÿ'-

"1ÿ/  ÿ  

ÿ
`'-

"ÿ ÿÿ-ÿ

" ÿ  

ÿÿ

 ÿ" ÿÿ 

 ÿÿ
`
`

 ÿ

 #ÿÿ$%#ÿ

ÿ)*ÿ) *#ÿÿÿ
`ÿ

ÿ



 ÿ

ÿ

ÿ '(/ÿÿ

ÿ' ÿÿ !



-ÿ
` 

(-ÿ"

ÿ "  ÿ

ÿÿ

ÿ-'ÿÿ 

-ÿÿ
`" 

ÿ

ÿ   ÿÿ '(ÿ  

ÿ 

ÿ"

ÿ ÿÿ
`
`

 ÿ 

(-ÿ"

ÿÿÿÿ 

 " 

#ÿÿ2!#ÿ ÿ3



ÿ
`)* )#ÿÿ+ÿ '(ÿÿ" ' ÿ(ÿ-ÿ

 ÿ" 

ÿ4 (ÿÿ
`3 

 ÿ    ÿ5  ÿ603517ÿ/ÿÿÿ

 ÿÿ 

ÿ
` ÿÿ

ÿ89ÿÿ

ÿÿ 

 :ÿ89ÿÿ '(#ÿÿ$%#ÿ
`

ÿ) * ÿ)*ÿ) *) #ÿ
`



 ÿ

 ÿ



ÿÿ ÿÿ(ÿ,''ÿÿ

 ÿ

ÿ/'ÿ
` ÿ ÿ"



ÿ

ÿ" ÿ&ÿÿ '(/ÿ  ÿ

ÿ''/ÿÿ

 ÿ
`
`   



ÿÿ0 

 " 

ÿ '

ÿ

ÿ



ÿ/



ÿ 

,-ÿ

 ÿ
`

" ÿ"-ÿÿ !  ÿ

ÿÿ " -ÿ 

(-ÿ"

ÿÿ
`



#1ÿÿ

#ÿ #ÿÿ+ ÿ

-ÿÿ&ÿÿ '(/ÿ/

ÿ  

ÿ

ÿ''ÿÿ
`

 ÿ ÿ ' " 

ÿÿ

 ÿ'' - ÿ'"ÿ ÿ   

ÿÿ



 :ÿ
`
`'"ÿ

#ÿÿ$%#ÿ

ÿ*#ÿÿÿ
` 



ÿ;/ ÿ- ÿ



ÿ&ÿ'ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿ !

 ÿ ÿ
` ÿ  

ÿ'"ÿÿÿÿ ÿ/  ÿ



 ÿ ' ÿ ÿ&ÿÿ
`ÿ
`
`ÿ
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 12 of 17
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-8 Filed 06/28/19 Page 12 of 17
`
`IPR2015-00343
`
`Patent 8,640,179 B1
`
`successive notes, and searches a database of such representations for an
`
`approximate match. Id. Ghias also provides that a preselected error
`
`tolerance may be applied to the search. Id. at 2:50—59. The results of the
`
`search are presented as a ranked list of approximately matching melodies, or
`
`alternately just one best match. Id. at 2:5 0—59, 6:60—63. Ghias also
`
`discloses that it is desirable to perform key-searching within the database
`
`using “an efficient approximate pattern matching algorithm,” where different
`
`algorithms have various running times dependent on the number of entries in
`
`the database. Id. at 6:7—11, 6:23—35.
`
`In addition, Petitioner cites to Philyaw for its disclosure of extracting
`
`identifying information embedded into a broadcast signal and directing a
`
`computer to receive and display appropriate product information based on
`
`the identifying information, such as an advertisement. Ex. 1014, Abstract,
`
`1:66—2:8. This display is accomplished by having the computer query an
`
`Advertiser Reference Server (“ARS”), which has a database of product
`
`codes and associated URLs, and returns an advertiser’s URL for display. Id.
`
`at 5:23—27, 5:50—58, 5:64—6:2.
`
`Petitioner continues that a person of ordinary