Case 1:15-cv-00262-SLR-SRF Document 70 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1573
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
` )
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 15-cv-262-SLR-SRF
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`IMPROVED SEARCH LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AOL INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DECLARATION OF JAIME CARBONELL, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`IMPROVED SEARCH’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`I, Jaime Carbonell, Ph.D., do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM TERMS
`
`A.
`
`Second language
`
`1.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand translation as
`
`including both translation among languages and translation among dialects. In my deposition, I
`
`responded that “[w]hen we talk about translation, we include translation among languages and
`
`translation among dialects,” “we” being those of ordinary skill in the art. Carbonell Dep. at
`
`28:23-29:2. It is my opinion that persons having ordinary skill in the art, as well as professional
`
`translators, would agree that translating between Cantonese and Mandarin (dialects of Chinese),
`
`between Serbian and Croatian (dialects of Serbo-Croatian) and other such dialects are also
`
`instances of “translation.”
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`AOL Ex. 1017
`Page 1 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00262-SLR-SRF Document 70 Filed 12/27/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1574
`
`
`B.
`
`Dialectal standardization / dialectally standardizing / dialectally standardized
`
`2.
`
` In my opinion, the ’101 patent and the ’154 patent specifications give explicit
`
`examples of dialectal standardization including both standardization within a dialect and across
`
`dialects of a language. For example, the specification describes:
`
`“Such a query may either be a standard term or a non-standard
`term. For instance, different variants of the word “auto” including
`automobile and transportation vehicle are permitted to be input by
`the user as part of the dialectal standardization process.” (’101 at
`5:62-67; ’154 at 5:21-25.)
`
`
`“Such a query,” in the context of this portion, describes a second query submitted by the user
`
`after having previously submitted a first query containing a word that the dialectal controller was
`
`unable to recognize. However, the above-quoted passage in the specification unequivocally
`
`describes the terms “auto,” “automobile,” and “transportation vehicle” as examples of a query
`
`that may either be a “standard term” or a “non-standard term” permitted to be input as part of the
`
`“dialectal standardization process.” Since the purpose of dialectal standardization is to produce
`
`standard and less ambiguous keywords, this example is consistent with the remainder of the
`
`disclosure.
`
`3.
`
`As I explained in the deposition, dialectal standardization uses statistical and
`
`syntactic analyses to select the standard and less ambiguous form of a keyword. See Carbonell
`
`Dep. at 53:7-54:14. Another example of keywords needing to be dialectally standardized
`
`disclosed in the ’101 patent specification is “shrimp caviar” and “shrimp roe.” The background
`
`of the specification describes a problem with searching for “shrimp caviar” in a Chinese search
`
`engine, which returned no results. ’101 at 2:32-44. Instead, the Chinese equivalent of “xiazi”
`
`(meaning, “shrimp roe”) was used to effectively search the Chinese search engine. One of these
`
`terms, “shrimp roe,” is more widely accepted and used, which is ascertained by statistical
`
`analysis (frequency of use in texts) and by syntactic analysis: both candidates “caviar” and “roe”
`
`2
`
`AOL Ex. 1017
`Page 2 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00262-SLR-SRF Document 70 Filed 12/27/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1575
`
`
`are corresponding main nouns in their noun phrases, modified by the adjective “shrimp.” The
`
`dialectical standardization process would select “shrimp roe” in this case for an American
`
`English speaker, as it is more common in American English than “shrimp caviar” and thus likely
`
`to produce more and better search results. Here, both “roe” and “caviar” are in the dialect of
`
`American English.
`
`4.
`
`There is no ambiguity in using “to map” in describing dialectal standardization.
`
`As I explained in the deposition, “to map” is an equivalent way of saying to standardize, to
`
`convert, or otherwise to substitute. Carbonell Dep. at 51:2-10. In other words, to substitute a
`
`more standard and less ambiguous word in place of a less standard keyword, as is described in
`
`the ’101 patent and the ’154 patent specifications. To be clear, as I also explained, the dialectal
`
`standardization may also leave the keyword alone if it is already in standard form. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the terms are interchangeable in this
`
`context.
`
`C. Means for receiving from the user through an input device a query in the
`first language
`
`5.
`
`The structure for “means for receiving from the user through an input device a
`
`query in the first language” is provided by “a keyboard or its equivalents.” One skilled in the art
`
`would know that a keyboard converts physical motion (keystrokes) into electronic impulses
`
`(character codes) and sends these in a serial manner via a serial line, a USB port, or a blue-tooth
`
`connection to the computer – hence a “keyboard” is both the physical device and the means for
`
`inputting and transmitting the user’s query.
`
`D.
`
`Dialectal controller for dialectally standardizing a content word extracted
`from the query
`
`6.
`
`A controller in electrical engineering and in computer science refers to a device or
`
`software that controls and/or modifies the flow of information. Contrary to Dr. Oard’s
`
`3
`
`AOL Ex. 1017
`Page 3 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00262-SLR-SRF Document 70 Filed 12/27/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1576
`
`
`contentions, it is my opinion that “controller” is well understood in server and search engine
`
`technology, and well taught in articles and textbooks. A dialectal controller, therefore, controls
`
`the flow of query words, modifying them to the most frequent and least ambiguous via statistical
`
`methods and syntactic analysis. The ’101 and ’154 patent consistently use the term “dialectal
`
`controller” with such an understanding. ’101 at 7:9-16; ’154 at 4:37-40, 4:56-63. That is, the
`
`controller is part of a server, coupled to a search engine though the Internet, that has processing
`
`logic that utilizes statistical data in conjunction with syntactic analysis. Anyone of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would well understand that apparatus.
`
`7.
`
`The ’101 and ’154 patents also explicitly describe the particular steps executed by
`
`the dialectal controller to perform the function of dialectally standardizing a content word
`
`extracted from the query. For example, the ’154 patent discloses that the “input is received by a
`
`dialectal controller in the server which processes the query input, identifies the user’s input
`
`language, and extracts a content word or keyword out of the query input,” and that “the dialectal
`
`controller at the server backend picks up the keyword and standardizes it to a commonly known
`
`word or term.” ’154 at 4:56-62. The processing, identifying, extracting, and standardizing steps
`
`comprise the algorithm which performs the claimed function, which ensures that the received
`
`query is converted into a dialectally standardized content word before being translated.
`
`8.
`
`The specification further discloses how the dialectal standardization step is
`
`performed. In particular, syntactic analysis determines permissible alternatives to the query
`
`words and statistical analysis identifies the most frequently used of the identified alternatives.
`
`Together this comprises dialectal standardization. There is only one way in which a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would use syntactic analysis (what roles the words play, and
`
`4
`
`AOL Ex. 1017
`Page 4 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00262-SLR-SRF Document 70 Filed 12/27/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1577
`
`
`which may be substitutable) and statistical analysis (which are most frequently used) to
`
`standardize keywords as described in the specification.
`
`E. Means to search the database of the advertising cues based on the relevancy
`to the translated content word
`
`9.
`
`Electronic databases running on computers such as a servers store and search
`
`electronic records, such as advertisements and other advertisement cues. These databases
`
`inherently provide a data base management system (a DMBS) which searches the database for
`
`information stored therein. The LACE system disclosed in the ‘154 patent contains a database
`
`and its DBMS for searching. Commercial databases such as ORACLE or MYSQL also contain a
`
`DMBS – no one would buy them or use them if they were incomplete without the DBMS for
`
`storing and searching. The inherency of a DBMS for such electronic databases running on
`
`servers would be well known to a POSITA. The translated content word would be matched
`
`against a database key in the search for relevant advertisement cues.
`
`10.
`
`Search results from a database are sent to the process which requested the search.
`
`That process may be a browser, as in the context of the ‘154 patent, which in turn displays the
`
`results to the user on his or her screen. The inherent function of a browser is to serve as an
`
`interface to a user, including centrally displaying information such as search results – which can
`
`be seen via Google and Bing search results today, for instance, and which also was the practice
`
`in the late 1990s.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
`
`true and correct. Executed on December 27, 2016 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jaime Carbonell, Ph.D.
`JAIME CARBONELL, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`AOL Ex. 1017
`Page 5 of 5
`
`