`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`AOL INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMPROVED SEARCH LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2017-00038
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,516,154
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i 
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv 
`EXHIBIT LIST .......................................................................................................... x 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II. 
`REQUIREMENTS OF PETITION AND MANDATORY NOTICES .......... 4 
`A. 
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 4 
`C. 
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ............................. 5 
`D. 
`Power of Attorney and Fees .................................................................. 5 
`III.  BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 5 
`A.  Overview of Cross-Language Search .................................................... 5 
`B. 
`The ’101 Patent ..................................................................................... 7 
`C. 
`The ’154 Patent ..................................................................................... 9 
`D. 
`The Delaware Action........................................................................... 11 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ....... 12 
`A.  Asserted Prior Art ................................................................................ 12 
`B. 
`Asserted Grounds ................................................................................ 13 
`V.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 13 
`A. 
`The ’154 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent. ..................... 13 
`1. 
`Claim 1 is directed to a method “for performing data
`processing or other operations used in the practice,
`administration, or management of a financial product or
`service financial product or service.” ....................................... 14 
`Claim 1 is not directed to a “technological invention.” ............ 16 
`2. 
`AOL Has Been Sued for Infringement and Neither AOL Nor
`Google Is Estopped From Bringing This Petition. .............................. 19 
`VI.  THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................... 20 
`VII.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ............................. 21 
`
`IV. 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`“dialectal standardization” / “dialectally standardizing” .................... 21 
`“content word” .................................................................................... 21 
`“advertising cues” ................................................................................ 22 
`“means for receiving from the user through an input device a
`query in the first language” ................................................................. 22 
`“dialectal controller for dialectally standardizing a content word
`extracted from the query” .................................................................... 23 
`“means to search the database of the advertising cues based on
`the relevancy to the translated content word” ..................................... 23 
`“means to send the search results and the matching advertising
`cues to the user’s computer screen” .................................................... 23 
`VIII.  GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1 AND 7 ARE INVALID UNDER § 112
`FOR LACK OF ENABLEMENT. ................................................................ 24 
`A. 
`The Patent Gives No Guidance On How To Perform Dialectal
`Standardization. ................................................................................... 25 
`A POSA Could Not Practice Dialectal Standardization Without
`Undue Experimentation. ...................................................................... 31 
`IX.  GROUND 2: CLAIM 7 IS INVALID FOR INDEFINITENESS. ................ 35 
`A. 
`“dialectal controller for dialectally standardizing a content word
`extracted from the query” .................................................................... 37 
`1. 
`The phrase “dialectal controller” invokes § 112, ¶ 6. ............... 37 
`2. 
`The ’154 patent discloses insufficient structure for the
`claimed “dialectal controller.” .................................................. 40 
`“means to search the database of the advertising cues based on
`the relevancy to the translated content word” ..................................... 46 
`X.  GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1 AND 7 ARE INVALID UNDER § 103 IN
`LIGHT OF THE ’101 PATENT AND SKILLEN. ....................................... 49 
`A. 
`Claims 1 and 7 Are Not Entitled to Their Claimed Priority Date
`of June 28, 2000. ................................................................................. 49 
`As of the Correct Priority Date, Claims 1 and 7 Would Have
`Been Obvious to a POSA in Light of the ’101 Patent and
`Skillen. ................................................................................................. 51 
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`XI.  GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1 AND 7 ARE INVALID UNDER § 101
`FOR LACK OF PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER. .............................. 60 
`A. 
`The Challenged Claims Are Directed to Abstract Ideas. .................... 62 
`B. 
`The Claims Do Not Recite Any Inventive Concept. ........................... 71 
`C. 
`The District Court’s Analysis Was Flawed. ........................................ 76 
`XII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 79 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`ABT Sys., LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 797 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................... 52
`
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d
`1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................... 73
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 38, 40, 44, 45
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ......................passim
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................................ 74
`
`American Express Co. v. MetaSearch Sys., LLC, CBM2014-00001,
`Paper 29 (PTAB March 20, 2014) ...................................................................... 15
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00127, Paper 7 (PTAB Nov.
`10, 2015) ............................................................................................................. 18
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 36, 37, 41, 47
`
`Automotive Techs. Int’l Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274
`(Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................. 30, 31
`
`Bancorp Svcs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) ................................................................................................................... 72
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Svcs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
`1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 74
`
`Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547 (Fed.
`Cir. 1989) ............................................................................................................ 52
`
`Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ..................................................................... 70
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir.
`2009) ....................................................................................................... 36, 43, 48
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................... 15
`
`Boku, Inc. v. Xilidev, CBM2014-00140, Paper 25 (PTAB Nov. 2,
`2015) ................................................................................................................... 36
`
`Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966) ................................................................ 24
`
`Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .................................................. 51
`
`Chi. Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. 5th Market, Inc., CBM2013-00027,
`Paper 33 (PTAB Dec. 17, 2014) ......................................................................... 36
`
`Cloud Satchel, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 553 (D. Del.
`2014) ............................................................................................................. 74, 75
`
`Cogent Medicine, Inc. v. Elsevier Inc., 70 F. Supp. 3d 1048 (N.D. Cal.
`2014) ............................................................................................................. 67, 68
`
`Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................... 37
`
`Coupa Software, Inc. v. Ariba, Inc., CBM2014-00061, Paper No. 11
`(PTAB July 25, 2014) ......................................................................................... 14
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir.
`2011) ............................................................................................................. 64, 68
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 72
`
`Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................... 62, 78
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............... 65, 66, 67
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ....... 24, 30, 31
`
`Google Inc. v. Improved Search LLC, Case IPR2016-00797 (PTAB
`filed March 25, 2016) ........................................................................................... 5
`
`v
`
`

`

`Google Inc. v. Zuili, CBM2016-00008, Paper 18 (PTAB April 25,
`2016) ................................................................................................................... 15
`
`Google Inc. v. Zuili, CBM2016-00021, Paper 11 (PTAB June 1, 2016) ................ 15
`
`Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S.
`147 (1950) ........................................................................................................... 53
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Intertainer, Inc., CBM2014-00053, Paper 11 (PTAB
`June 23, 2014) ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., 576 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`(Mayer, J., concurring) (per curiam) .................................................................. 75
`
`iHeartMedia, Inc. v. Impulse Radio, LLC, CBM2016-00010, Paper 10
`(PTAB May 9, 2016) .......................................................................................... 15
`
`In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................. 49
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................. 67
`
`In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................ 32
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 100 F. Supp. 3d 371,
`387 (D. Del. 2015) .............................................................................................. 75
`
`Intellectual Ventures I v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co., 76 F. Supp. 3d
`536, 551-53 (D. Del. 2014) ................................................................................. 74
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Networks Inc., 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................................ 62
`
`Interthinx, LLC v. CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, CBM2012-00007, Paper
`58 (PTAB January 30, 2014) .................................................................. 18, 20, 76
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................ 53
`
`Markem-Imaje Corp. v. Zipher Ltd., 2011 WL 5837087 (D.N.H. Nov.
`21, 2011) ............................................................................................................. 39
`
`Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ..................................................... 50
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289
`(2012) ............................................................................................................ 60, 71
`
`MonkeyMedia, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 2013 WL 12076550 (W.D. Tex.
`Feb. 22, 2013) ..................................................................................................... 40
`
`Morsa v. Facebook, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (C.D. Cal. 2014), aff’d
`without written opinion, 622 F. App’x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................. 70
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......... 41, 47, 48
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................. 49
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 886, 892 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................. 69
`
`Pi-Net Int’l Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 42 F. Supp. 3d 579, 593
`(D. Del. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 30
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299 ........................................ 50
`
`Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................... 52
`
`Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 753 F.3d 1375
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 36
`
`Tuxis Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 13-1771, 2015 WL
`1387815 (D. Del. Mar. 25, 2015) ................................................................. 70, 71
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-715 (Fed. Cir.
`2014) ................................................................................................. 69, 71, 74, 78
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............. 15, 16
`
`Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................. 50
`
`Versata Development Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................................ 14
`
`Via Vadis, LLC v. Buffalo Americas, Inc., 2016 WL 5239626 (W.D.
`Tex. Sept. 20, 2016) ............................................................................................ 39
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00018, Paper 8
`(PTAB Oct. 24, 2013) ......................................................................................... 15
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................. 38
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................passim
`
`WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) ................................................................................................................... 36
`
`Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 720 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir.
`2013) ............................................................................................................. 31, 34
`
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................ 12, 13, 51
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................ 4, 13, 49, 52
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`
`America Invents Act § 18(d)(1) ............................................................................... 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) .............................................................................................. 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ....................................................................................... 13, 14, 16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ................................................................................................... 19
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2181 ...................................................... 37
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14,
`2012) ................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Transitional Program Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................ 14
`
`viii
`
`

`

`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 ................................................................ 20
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,098,065 ........................................................................................ 13
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,604,101 .................................................................................passim
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,516,154 .................................................................................passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EX.
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,516,154 (“the ’154 patent”)
`
`1002 Declaration of Douglas W. Oard, Ph.D.
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,604,101 (“the ’101 patent”)
`
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,098,065 (“Skillen”)
`
`1005
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,516,154
`
`1006
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,604,101
`
`1007
`
`File History of U.S. Patent App. No. 10/449,740
`
`1008 Declaration of Douglas W. Oard, Ph.D., Google Inc. v. Improved Search
`LLC, IPR2016-00797, Paper 2 (March 25, 2016)
`
`1009
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Google Inc. v. Improved Search
`LLC, IPR2016-00797, Paper 8 (June 28, 2016)
`
`1010 Complaint, Improved Search LLC v. AOL Inc., No. 15-cv-262 (D. Del.
`filed March 25, 2015) [ECF No. 1]
`
`1011 Memorandum Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss, Improved Search
`LLC v. AOL Inc., No. 15-cv-262 (D. Del. March 22, 2016) [ECF No. 21]
`
`1012
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Improved Search LLC v.
`AOL Inc., No. 15-cv-262 (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2016) [ECF No. 54]
`
`1013 Declaration of Dr. Jaime Carbonell in Support of Improved Search
`Opening Claim Construction Brief, Improved Search LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-262 (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2016) [ECF No. 56]
`
`x
`
`

`

`1014 Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Jaime Carbonell, Improved Search LLC
`v. AOL Inc., No. 15-cv-262 (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2016) [ECF No. 62-1, pp.
`1-69]
`
`1015 Defendant AOL Inc.’s Answering Claim Construction Brief, Improved
`Search LLC v. AOL Inc., No. 15-cv-262 (D. Del. Dec. 6, 2016) [ECF
`No. 62]
`
`1016
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, Improved Search LLC v.
`AOL Inc., No. 15-cv-262 (D. Del. Dec. 27, 2016) [ECF No. 68]
`
`1017 Declaration of Dr. Jaime Carbonell in Support of Improved Search’s
`Reply Claim Construction Brief, Improved Search LLC v. AOL Inc., No.
`15-cv-262 (D. Del. Dec. 27, 2016) [ECF No. 70]
`
`1018 Amended Joint Claim Construction Statement, Improved Search LLC v.
`AOL Inc., No. 15-cv-262 (D. Del. Jan.26, 2017) [ECF No. 75]
`
`1019 Christian Fluhr et al., “Multilingual Database and Crosslingual
`Interrogation in a Real Internet Application: Architecture and Problems
`of Interpretation,” Cross-Language Text & Speech Retrieval: Papers
`from the 1997 AAAI Spring Symposium, Technical Report SS-97-05, at
`32 (AAAI Press 1997)
`
`1020 Christian Fluhr et al., “Distributed Cross-Lingual Information
`Retrieval,” Cross-Language Information Retrieval, at 41 (Gregory
`Grefenstette, ed., Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998)
`
`1021 Kiyoshi Yamabana et al., “A Language Conversion Front-End for
`Cross-Language Information Retrieval,” Cross-Language Information
`Retrieval, at 93 (Gregory Grefenstette ed., Kluwer Academic Publishers,
`1998)
`
`1022 Guo-Wei Bian & Hsin-Hsi Chen, “Integrating Query Translation and
`Document Translation in a Cross-Language Information Retrieval
`System,” Machine Translation and the Information Soup: Third
`Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas,
`AMTA’98, Langhorne, PA, USA, October 28-31, 1998 Proceedings, at
`250 (David Farwell et al., eds., Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,
`1998)
`
`xi
`
`

`

`1023 Gregory Grefenstette, “The Problem of Cross-Language Information
`Retrieval,” Cross-Language Information Retrieval, at 1 (Gregory
`Grefenstette, ed., Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998)
`
`1024
`
`Joanne Capstick et al., “A System for Supporting Cross-Lingual
`Information Retrieval,” Information Processing & Management: An
`International Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, at 275 (2000)
`
`1025 K.L. Kwok, “Employing Multiple Representations for Chinese
`Information Retrieval,” Journal of the American Society for Information
`Science, Vol. 50, No. 8, at 709 (1999)
`
`1026 Wanying Jin, “Chinese Segmentation Disambiguation,” Proceedings of
`the 15th Conference on Computational Linguistics, Vol. 2, p. 1245
`(1994)
`
`1027 Gina-Anne Levow et al., “Dictionary-Based Techniques for Cross-
`Language Information Retrieval,” Information Processing &
`Management, Vol. 41, No. 3, at 523 (2004)
`
`1028
`
`“Make Sure Search Engines Find Your Site,” PR News, Vol. 52, No. 19
`(May 6, 1996)
`
`1029 Daniel C. Fain and Jan O. Pedersen, Bulletin of the American Society
`for Information Science & Technology, December/January 2006
`
`1030 David Yarowsky, “Word-Sense Disambiguation Using Statistical
`Models of Roget’s Categories Trained on Large Corpora,” COLING
`’92: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Computational Linguistics,
`Vol. 2, pp. 454-460
`
`1031 Lisa Ballesteros et al., “Phrasal Translation and Query Expansion
`Techniques for Cross-Language Information Retrieval,” SIGIR ’97:
`Proceedings of the 20th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference
`on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, at 84 (Nicholas
`J. Belkin, et al. eds., ACM, 1997)
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,516,154 (“the ’154 patent”) (Ex. 1001) claims methods
`
`and systems for providing advertisements to a computer user undertaking a “cross-
`
`language” search, i.e., a search for information in a language other than that of the
`
`user’s query. The claims are directed to a form of cross-language search where
`
`documents in a foreign language are identified by translating the user’s query into
`
`that language and then using the query to perform a search of the foreign language
`
`documents, as well as targeted advertising. The patent does not claim to have
`
`invented this general technique—nor could it, for query translation is an age-old
`
`concept that long predated the patent’s filing. The supposedly new aspect of the
`
`patent’s cross-language search method—the only basis on which the applicant
`
`distinguished prior art in prosecution—was a feature called “dialectal
`
`standardization.”
`
`The ’154 patent claims that “dialectal standardization” improves translation
`
`and search by taking words in the user’s query that have multiple “dialectal
`
`variations” and “standardizing” them “to a commonly known word” prior to
`
`translating that word and using it to conduct a search. Ex. 1001 at 1:45-47. For
`
`example, the patent explains, the following “dialectal variations” might be
`
`standardized: “centre vs. center, lorry vs. truck, queue vs. line and petrol vs.
`
`gasoline[,] etc.” Id. at 5:1-3. According to the patent, dialectal standardization is
`
`1
`
`

`

`“essential” to good translations because “[o]therwise, a single inconsistency may
`
`result in a wrong translation and ruin the entire search process.” Id. at 5:12-14.
`
`Yet despite the supposed importance of dialectal standardization to the
`
`patent, there is no disclosure in the specification of how to carry out the process
`
`with the claimed computer technology. The patent does not describe any software,
`
`algorithms or process steps for performing dialectal standardization. It does not,
`
`for example, explain how its “dialectal controller” is supposed to identify words
`
`from different dialects, identify other words with “one consistent meaning,” or—
`
`most importantly—determine which of two competing dialectal variations is more
`
`common or “standard.” The patent merely describes the result it would like to
`
`achieve, without describing how to achieve that result.
`
`This lack of disclosure is fatal to claims 1 and 7 of the ’154 patent. The
`
`scant written description fails to inform persons of ordinary skill in the art how to
`
`practice the patent’s purely functional claims without undue experimentation,
`
`rendering claims 1 and 7 invalid for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, and
`
`it similarly fails to disclose any definite structure associated with the function of
`
`“dialectally standardizing,” rendering claim 7, a means-plus-function claim,
`
`indefinite under § 112, ¶¶ 2 and 6.
`
`Moreover, even were the concept of “dialectal standardization” enabled by
`
`the specification (and it is not), the ’154 patent would still be invalid because the
`
`2
`
`

`

`exact concept was disclosed in an earlier, related, patent. United States Patent No.
`
`6,604,101 (“the ’101 patent”)—of which the ’154 patent is a continuation-in-
`
`part—disclosed the precise “dialectal standardization” of the ’154 patent years
`
`earlier. Although the patent holder claimed that the ’154 patent is entitled to the
`
`same priority date as the ’101 patent, it is not. When the patent holder filed the
`
`application that led to the ’154 patent, it added entirely new subject matter to the
`
`specification, namely, the concept of search-based advertising, which it used to
`
`support the advertising elements of the claims. Thus, years before the correct
`
`priority date of the ’154 patent, the concept of dialectal standardization had already
`
`been disclosed, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to
`
`combine that disclosure with search-based advertising, a financial concept well
`
`known by the true priority date of the ’154 patent.
`
`Finally, because the patent lacks any disclosure of how one might actually
`
`go about implementing the claimed invention on a computer, the patent is left
`
`claiming nothing more than the abstract function of taking a word, replacing it with
`
`a more common word from a different dialect, translating that standardized word
`
`and using it to conduct search and targeted advertising. All of that could be—and
`
`has been for years—done by the human mind alone. Accordingly, because the
`
`claims are directed to only the abstract ideas of standardization, translation,
`
`searching, and search-based advertising, and because they lack any inventive step
`
`3
`
`

`

`beyond the recitation of generic computer functionality, claims 1 and 7 are invalid
`
`for lack of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. Pty.
`
`Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
`
`For these reasons, and for the additional reasons recited in this petition and
`
`the accompanying Declaration of Dr. Douglas Oard, Ex. 1002, AOL Inc.
`
`respectfully requests that the Board institute Covered Business Method (“CBM”)
`
`review of claims 1 and 7 of the ’154 patent, which are directed to the management
`
`and administration of a financial product or service—advertising. The challenged
`
`claims are invalid under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103, and 112.
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS OF PETITION AND MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`AOL Inc. and Google Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The following matters would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
`
`proceeding: Improved Search LLC v. AOL Inc., Civ. No. 15-262 (D. Del. filed
`
`March 25, 2015) (“the Delaware Action”), in which patent owner Improved Search
`
`LLC has asserted the ’154 patent against AOL Inc.; and Improved Search LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., Civ. No. 16-650 (D. Del. filed July 29, 2016), in which Improved
`
`Search has asserted the ’154 patent against Microsoft Corp. Google Inc.
`
`previously challenged certain claims of the ’101 patent (which is related to the
`
`4
`
`

`

`’154 patent) in Google Inc. v. Improved Search LLC, Case IPR2016-00797 (PTAB
`
`filed March 25, 2016), on different grounds than those presented in this
`
`proceeding. The Board denied institution of that proceeding on September 6,
`
`2016.
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead counsel is Aaron Maurer (Reg. No. 44,911). Backup counsel is David
`
`Krinsky (Reg. No. 72,339). Messrs. Maurer and Krinsky are attorneys at Williams
`
`& Connolly LLP, 725 12th St. NW, Washington, DC 20005; 202-434-5000 (tel.);
`
`202-434-5029 (fax). AOL consents to service by e-mail at amaurer@wc.com and
`
`dkrinsky@wc.com.
`
`D.
`
`Power of Attorney and Fees
`
`A Power of Attorney and Exhibit List are filed with this petition. The
`
`Director is authorized to charge the fees specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) to
`
`Deposit Account No. 506403.
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview of Cross-Language Search
`
`Searching for information in a language different from the user’s query—
`
`i.e., cross-language information retrieval (CLIR)—is not a new concept.
`
`Librarians and journalists have been searching for materials in foreign languages
`
`for decades or more. The 1990s saw an increase in research into computer-
`
`5
`
`

`

`automated techniques for performing CLIR and associated advertising in an
`
`electronic context, spurred by the growth of electronic information available in
`
`many languages. Ex. 1002 (Oard Decl.) ¶¶ 32-36.
`
`As explained in the Declaration of Dr. Oard, a leading expert in cross-
`
`language information retrieval, prior art systems for performing computer-
`
`automated CLIR involved sophisticated software technology. See generally id.
`
`¶¶ 34-57. This is because, unlike mathematics, tasks involving human language
`
`are not natural for computers to perform. Id. ¶¶ 39, 106-107. Thus, advances in
`
`the field of CLIR involved the application of both cutting-edge linguistics and
`
`sophisticated algorithms for processing text.
`
`For example, in order to translate the words of a query into a different
`
`language, a system would first have to identify each separate word within a query
`
`string. Id. ¶¶ 38-45. A human being literate in the language would have little
`
`difficulty performing this task. But, as Dr. Oard explains, identifying words is not
`
`so simple for a computer. See id. The simplest approach—segmenting words at
`
`“white space” such as spaces or other punctuation—may fail to identify multi-word
`
`expressions that should be translated as a unit, such as high school. Id. ¶ 40. And,
`
`in languages like Chinese and German, words and concepts are not always clearly
`
`delimited by spaces or other punctuation, making even the simplest form of word
`
`identification inapt. Id. ¶¶ 41-43. Thus, researchers training computers to identify
`
`6
`
`

`

`words in those language had to develop more complex approaches for extracting
`
`words from longer unsegmented character strings. Id.
`
`Processes for translating queries from one language to another were also the
`
`subject of considerable design and experimentation work. See id. ¶¶ 46-57. For
`
`example, in the area of dictionary-based cross-language information retrieval,
`
`researchers worked with pre-compiled translation resources such as bilingual
`
`dictionaries, multilingual thesauri, and machine translation lexicons. Id. ¶ 47. In
`
`order to make use of these resources, researchers had to develop tools for matching
`
`words in