throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`494.272.7822
`
`
`Paper 54
`Entered: February 2, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORP., and TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Introduction
`
`On July 30, 2013, Facebook, Inc., LinkedIn Corp., and Twitter, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review
`
`of claims 18–20, 45, 48, 49, 51 and 54 of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494 (Ex.
`
`1201, “the ’494 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). On February 3, 2014, we
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`instituted trial on all challenged claims, on certain of the grounds of
`
`unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 18 (“Decision to Institute” or
`
`“Inst. Dec.”).
`
`After institution of trial, Software Rights Archive, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”), filed a Patent Owner Response (“PO Resp.”). Paper 31. Petitioner
`
`also filed a Reply. Paper 40 (“Reply”).
`
`A consolidated oral hearing for IPR2013-00478, IPR2013-00479,
`
`IPR2013-00480, and IPR2013-00481, each involving the same Petitioner
`
`and the same Patent Owner, was held on October 30, 2014. The transcript of
`
`the consolidated hearing has been entered into the record. Paper 53, “Tr.”
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims
`
`18–20, 45, 48, 49, 51 and 54 of the ’494 patent are unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner both indicate that the ’494 patent is
`
`involved in the following co-pending district court proceedings: Software
`
`Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-3970; Software
`
`Rights Archive, LLC v. LinkedIn Corp., Case No. 12-cv-3971; and Software
`
`Rights Archive, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-3972, each pending in
`
`the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Pet.
`
`1; Paper 9, Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice, 2.
`
`Petitioner filed another Petition seeking, and we instituted, inter
`
`partes review of other claims of the ’494 patent in Case IPR2013-00480. In
`
`addition, we instituted trial on Petitioner’s petitions on related patents
`
`including: (1) IPR2013-00478, which seeks inter partes review of U.S.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`Patent No. 5,544,352 (the “’352 patent”) and (2) IPR2013-00481, which
`
`seeks inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,571 (the “’571
`
`patent”). The ’352 patent issued from the parent of the application that
`
`issued as the ’494 patent. The ’571 patent issued from an application that
`
`was a divisional of the application that issued as the ’494 patent. The ’494
`
`patent was the subject of Reexamination No. 90/011,014.
`
`C.
`
`The ’494 patent
`
`The ’494 patent relates to computerized research on databases. Ex.
`
`1201, 1:11–13. The ’494 patent discloses that it improves search methods
`
`by indexing data using proximity indexing techniques. Id. at 3:20–31.
`
`According to the ’494 patent, proximity indexing techniques generate a
`
`quick-reference of the relations, patterns, and similarity found among the
`
`data in the database. Id. at 3:28–31.
`
`Figure 2 of the ’494 patent illustrates the high-level processing of
`
`software for computerized searching (Id. at 8:7–8) and is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts software system 60 comprising Proximity Indexing
`Application Program 62, Computer Search Program for Data Represented by
`Matrices (“CSPDM”) 66, and Graphical User Interface (“GUI”) program 70.
`
`
`Ex. 1201, 11:29–36.
`
`Processing of software system 60 begins with Proximity Indexing
`
`Application Program 62 indexing a database. Id. at 11:46–47. Then,
`
`CSPDM 66 searches the indexed database and retrieves requested objects.
`
`Id. at 11:49–53. CSPDM 66 relays the retrieved objects to GUI program 70
`
`to display on a display. Id. at 11:53–55.
`
`Software system 60 runs on a computer system comprising, for
`
`example, a processor of a personal computer. Id. at 10:11–15. The system
`
`comprises a display, which displays information to the user. Id. at 10:43–44.
`
`Exemplary displays include: computer monitors, televisions, LCDs, or
`
`LEDs. Id. at 10:44–46.
`
`The processor is connected to a database to be searched. Id. at 10:18–
`
`20. Data in the database may be represented as a node. Id. at 12:29–33.
`
`Exemplary nodes include an object or a portion of an object, a document or
`
`section of a document, and a World Wide Web page. Id. at 12:35–38.
`
`A cluster link generation algorithm may be used alone or in
`
`conjunction with other proximity indexing subroutines, and prior to
`
`searching. Id. at 21:30–33. The cluster link generation algorithm may
`
`generate candidate cluster links (Id. at 21:64–66) and then derive actual
`
`cluster links, which are used to locate nodes for display (Id. at 22:1–4).
`
`Actual cluster links are: “a subset of the candidate cluster links . . . which
`
`meet a certain criteria.” Id. at 22:1–4.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`D.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, only claim 18 is independent, whereas
`
`claims 19–20, 45, 48, 49, 51 and 54 depend directly or indirectly from claim
`
`18. Claim 18 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`18. A method of analyzing a database having objects
`and a first numerical representation of direct relationships in the
`database, comprising the steps of:
`
`generating a second numerical representation using the
`first numerical representation, wherein the second numerical
`representation accounts for indirect relationships in the
`database;
`
`storing the second numerical representation;
`
`identifying at least one object in the database, wherein
`the stored numerical representation is used to identify objects;
`and
`
`displaying one or more identified objects from the
`database.
`
`Ex. 1201, 53:27–39.
`
`
`
`E.
`
`The Prior Art References Upon Which Trial Was Instituted
`
`Colin F.H. Tapper, Citation Patterns in Legal Information Retrieval, 3
`
`DATENVERARBEITUNG IM RECHT 249–75 (1976) (“Tapper 1976”) (Ex.
`
`1204).
`
`Colin Tapper, The Use of Citation Vectors for Legal Information
`
`Retrieval, 1 J. OF LAW AND INFO. SCI. 131–61 (1982) (“Tapper 1982”) (Ex.
`
`1205).
`
`Edward A. Fox, Characterization of Two New Experimental
`
`Collections in Computer and Information Science Containing Textual and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`Bibliographic Concepts (Sept. 1983) (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell Univ.
`
`Dep’t of Comp. Sci.) (“Fox Collection”) (Ex. 1206).
`
`Edward A. Fox, Some Considerations for Implementing the SMART
`
`Information Retrieval System under UNIX (Sept. 1983) (Ph.D. dissertation,
`
`Cornell Univ. Dep’t of Comp. Sci.) (“Fox SMART”) (Ex. 1208).
`
`Edward A. Fox, Extending the Boolean and Vector Space Models of
`
`Information Retrieval with P-Norm Queries and Multiple Concept Types
`
`(Aug. 1983) (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell Univ. Dept. of Comp. Sci.) (“Fox
`
`Thesis”) (Ex. 1209).
`
`Edward A. Fox, et al., Users, User Interfaces, and Objects: Envision,
`
`a Digital Library, 44 J. AM. SOC. INF. SCI. 480–91 (Sept. 1993) (“Fox
`
`Envision”) (Ex. 1210).
`
`Tatsuki Saito, A Clustering method using the strength of citation, 16 J.
`
`INF. SCI. 175–81 (Jan. 1990) (“Saito Clustering”) (Ex. 1212).
`
`Thomas D.C. Little, Commerce on the Internet, IEEE Multimedia at
`
`Work 74–78 (1994) (“Little”) (Ex. 1216).
`
`The parties do not dispute the prior art status of the references.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`F.
`
`The Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims instituted
`
`Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and
`Fox Collection
`Tapper 1976 and Tapper 1982
`
`Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, Fox
`Collection, Saito Clustering, and
`Fox Envision
`Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, Fox
`Collection, Saito Clustering, Fox
`Envision, and Little
`
`
`§ 103
`
`18–20, 48, and 49
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`18–20, 48, and 49
`
`45 and 51
`
`§ 103
`
`54
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`1. Principles of Law
`
`Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that the ’494
`
`patent expired on June 14, 2013. Pet. 6. The Board’s interpretation of the
`
`claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review. See
`
`In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We, therefore, are
`
`guided by the principle that the words of a claim “are generally given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning,” as understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted).
`
`“In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look
`
`principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language
`
`itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.”
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). There is a “heavy
`
`presumption,” however, that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
`
`2. Overview of the Parties’ Positions
`
`In the Decision to Institute, we found it instructive to construe the
`
`claim terms direct relationships and indirect relationships. Inst. Dec. 10–
`
`11. Our constructions are set forth in the table below.
`
`Claim Term or Phrase
`
`Construction
`
`direct relationships
`
`indirect relationships
`
`
`
`“relationships where one object cites to
`another object” Inst. Dec. 11.
`“relationships where at least one
`intermediate object exists between two
`objects and where the intermediate
`object(s) connect the two objects through
`a chain of citations” Inst. Dec. 11.
`
`Petitioner does not challenge any of our constructions. Reply 1–2.
`
`Patent Owner appears to agree with many of our constructions, and states
`
`that it uses our constructions for the purpose of evaluating patentability of
`
`the challenged claims of the ’494 patent. PO Resp. 8–11. Based on the
`
`complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change our prior
`
`constructions.
`
` Additionally, Patent Owner addresses the terms computerized
`
`database and numerical representation of direct relationships which are
`
`evaluated below. PO Resp. 8–11. Petitioner’s Reply further addresses
`
`database and numerical representation. Reply 1–2.
`
`3. computerized database
`
`Patent Owner asks that we construe computerized database, and
`
`asserts that “the claims of the ‘494 patent are methods that are directed to
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`representing, analyzing, and searching objects in a computer database
`
`having direct and indirect relationships between objects in the database.”
`
`PO Resp. 8 (emphasis in original). The phrases computerized database or
`
`computer database, however, appear nowhere in the claims of the ’494
`
`patent that are subject to this trial.
`
`To the extent that the Patent Owner wishes for us to construe
`
`database, which does appear in the claims, Petitioner correctly notes that the
`
`specification of the ’494 patent states that the database “can be any device
`
`which will hold data” such as “any type of magnetic or optical storing
`
`device.” Ex. 1201, 10:18–21. We do not consider the term to need any
`
`additional construction.
`
`4. numerical representation
`
`Patent Owner asks for a construction of numerical representation of
`
`direct relationships, proffering the interpretation “a numerical value or set of
`
`values that represent direct relationships in a computer database.” PO Resp.
`
`11. Patent Owner distinguishes these numerical representations from
`
`“strings,” which may include letters. Id. at 7. At oral argument, Patent
`
`Owner confirmed that its construction of numerical representation is
`
`something “represented only by digits,” or in other words “expressed by
`
`numbers, not by letters.” Tr. 85.
`
`Petitioner responds that numerical includes “any representation of
`
`binary or digital data that can be processed and analyzed by a computer,”
`
`and means simply “of or relating to numbers.” Reply 1; Tr. 13. Petitioner’s
`
`construction is, therefore, not limited to representations consisting only of
`
`numbers. At oral argument, Petitioner argued that the inclusion of a single
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`number into a string is sufficient to make that string a numerical
`
`representation. Tr. 25.
`
`Petitioner’s proffered construction is overly broad and unsupported by
`
`the specification. While one dictionary definition of numerical is “of or
`
`relating to a number or series of numbers,” it may also refer to “expressed in
`
`or counted by numbers.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE
`
`ENGLISH LANGUAGE (2000) (Ex. 3001); see also COLLINS ENGLISH
`
`DICTIONARY (2000) (Ex. 3002) (“measured or expressed in numbers”).
`
`The specification of the ’494 patent uses numerical consistent with
`
`this latter interpretation. In the Initial Extractor Subroutine, the “full textual
`
`objects” of the database are numbered “with Arabic numbers from 1 through
`
`n.” Ex. 1201, 16:64–65. These numbers are used to create vectors and
`
`matrices, which are then run through various algorithms such as the Opinion
`
`Patterner Subroutine. Id. at 17:3–37. “Numerical factors” are then
`
`“calculated” to determine “values.” Id. at 17:34–37; 21:10–14. This
`
`emphasis on calculation, values, and on processing by computer algorithms,
`
`leads us to conclude that numerical representation, as used in the ’494
`
`patent specification, must refer to solely numbers, so that a computer can
`
`process the representations using mathematical algorithms.
`
`Petitioner’s attempt to link the numerical representation of the
`
`specification to the West “key number” system is unpersuasive. Reply 2.
`
`While the specification of the ’494 patent does discuss the key number
`
`system, and such “key numbers” include letters, there is no indication that
`
`the patentee intended to link the numerical representation of the claims to
`
`the West key number system discussed—and distinguished—in the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`background portion of the specification. Ex. 1201, 2:25–29 (“such a
`
`numbering process is subjective and is prone to error”).
`
`Nor do we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that numerical is
`
`somehow distinct from “numeric,” in that the latter term means only
`
`numbers but the former may encompass letters. Tr. 13. Not only was this
`
`argument advanced for the first time at oral hearing,1 but it is unsupported
`
`by any evidence of record. Indeed, the two terms are used interchangeably
`
`in dictionary definitions. See Ex. 3001 (entry for “numerical also numeric”);
`
`Ex. 3002 (entry for “numerical or numeric”).
`
`For these reasons, we construe numerical representation as
`
`“representation consisting exclusively of numbers or a set of numbers.”
`
`B. Obviousness of Claims 18–20, 48, and 49 Over the Fox Papers
`
`We instituted trial to determine whether claims 18–20, 48, and 49 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as having been obvious over the
`
`combined disclosures of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox Collection
`
`(collectively, “the Fox Papers”). Inst. Dec. 12–16. In support of the
`
`asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner sets forth the teachings of the
`
`cited prior art, provides detailed claim charts, and cites to the declaration of
`
`Dr. Fox (Ex. 1218 ¶¶ 182–210), explaining how each limitation is taught in
`
`the cited prior art combination. Pet. 8–18.
`
`We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, as well as
`
`the counterarguments in Patent Owner’s Response, and the evidence cited
`
`therein, and conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`
`
`1 Our Rules do not permit arguments to be raised for the first time at oral
`hearing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a) (permitting oral argument only on “an issue
`raised in a paper.”).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`evidence that each of claims 18–20, 48, and 49 of the ’494 patent is
`
`unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as having been obvious over the Fox
`
`Papers.
`
`1. Fox Thesis
`
`Fox Thesis describes improving query and document representation
`
`schemes for information retrieval. Ex. 1209, 261. In particular, useful types
`
`of bibliographic data are incorporated into a model to test clustering and
`
`retrieval functions. Id. at 164. Bibliographic connections between articles
`
`are illustrated for an exemplary set “O” of documents, which are represented
`
`by letters A through G. Id. at 165–66, Fig. 6.2. This exemplary set “O”
`
`includes direct and indirect citation references. Id. at 166–67, Table 6.2.
`
`Based on the reference pattern for a set of documents, Fox Thesis
`
`describes deriving various measures of the interconnection between the
`
`documents. Id. at 166. For example, weights are assigned “based upon
`
`integer counts” for bibliographically coupled documents. Id. at 167.
`
`Citation submatrices represent reference or citation information. Id. at 169–
`
`70. For example, submatrix bc represents bibliographically coupled
`
`reference information and submatrix cc represents co-citation reference
`
`information. Id. at 169–72, Figs. 6.3–6.5.
`
`2. Fox SMART
`
`Fox SMART describes the System for Mechanical Analysis and
`
`Retrieval of Text (SMART) as a project for designing a fully automatic
`
`document retrieval system and for testing new ideas in information science.
`
`Ex. 1208, 3. Fox SMART describes the computer system used to implement
`
`the experiments described in the Fox Thesis. Ex. 1218 ¶ 27. The software
`
`components of SMART are implemented in the C Programming Language
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`and run under the UNIX™ operating system on a VAX™ 11/780 computer.
`
`Ex. 1208, 1, 4.
`
`In SMART, an automatic indexing component constructs stored
`
`representations of documents. Id. at 3. Bibliographic information is used to
`
`enhance document representations. Id. at 29. The SMART system may
`
`process basic raw data, such as an exemplary “N” collection of articles and
`
`citation data describing which articles are cited by others. Id.at 29–30. Data
`
`is entered into the SMART system as a set of tuples {(di, dj)|di→dj} which
`
`describe the cited and citing documents, as well as the direction of citation.
`
`Id. at 29. The exemplary input data also includes indirect citation
`
`relationships, such as bibliographic coupled and co-citation relationships.
`
`Id. at 30–32. These relationships are used to create extended vectors which
`
`can then be clustered and searched to aid document retrieval. Id. at 29.
`
`3. Fox Collection
`
`Fox Collection describes collections of data which are said to be
`
`useful for investigating the interaction of textual and bibliographic data in
`
`retrieval of documents. Ex. 1206, 1. According to the testimony of Dr. Fox,
`
`Fox Collection was originally part of the same work as Fox Thesis and Fox
`
`SMART, and describes the manner in which the data sets were obtained and
`
`processed prior to their use in the Fox SMART experiments. Ex. 1218 ¶ 27.
`
`According to Fox Collection, the experiments were performed on a
`
`collection of bibliographic records (title, abstract, author, keywords, etc.)
`
`from the Communications of the ACM, termed the “CACM collection.” Ex.
`
`1206, 14.2 Two individuals then examined printed copies of the articles
`
`
`2 The Fox Collection also discusses an ISI Collection, but in his Reply
`Declaration Dr. Fox explains that he cites the ISI collection to “emphasize
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`referenced by the CACM bibliographic records, and citation data was
`
`obtained from the articles and entered into a set Raw_data. Id. The citation
`
`data contained pairs of identifiers (citing, cited) which were the document id
`
`numbers (“dids”) of the citing record and record it cites. Id. From this
`
`Raw_data matrix, secondary matrices such as bc (bibliographic coupling)
`
`and cc (co-citation) were derived computationally. Id. at 14–16.
`
`4. Claim 18
`
`Petitioner’s claim chart persuasively reads all elements of claim 18
`
`onto the combined teachings of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox
`
`Collection. Pet. 9–14 (citing Ex. 1206, 14–15, 45–46; Ex. 1208, 3, 11–13,
`
`23–24, 26–27, 29–32, 38, 41–54, 58–59; Ex. 1209, 17, 19, 173, 179, 181–
`
`83, 194, 201, 207, 211, 213; 1218 ¶¶ 71–108, 122–131, 182–184, 194–196).
`
`For instance, the combination of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox
`
`Collection teaches a database having objects, and a first numerical
`
`representation of direct relationships in the database, as recited in claim 26.
`
`In particular, Fox Collection teaches a database containing the CACM
`
`collection of bibliographic entries. Ex. 1206, 14. Printed copies of each
`
`article with a bibliographic entry in the CACM collection are then manually
`
`reviewed, to obtain bibliographic subvectors in the form “Raw_data (cited,
`
`citing),” and the results entered into the database Id. This is a first
`
`numerical representation of the direct relationship between the “cited,
`
`citing” pair.
`
`
`findings in the prior art about the value of using co-citation data (a non-
`semantic indirect relationship) in information retrieval, not to fully address
`all the elements of claims. . . . For the sake of simplicity, the Board should
`focus on the methodology given in Fox Papers, and the examples of their use
`with the CACM Collection.” Ex. 1233 ¶ 6.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`The combination of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox Collection
`
`also teaches generating a second numerical representation using the first
`
`numerical representation, wherein the second numerical representation
`
`accounts for indirect relationships in the database, as recited in claim 18.
`
`Fox SMART teaches that direct relationships may be represented by tuples
`
`called “CITED,” which contain a citing document, a cited document, and the
`
`direction of the citation. Ex. 1208, 29. These tuples are then processed to
`
`construct submatrices such as bc and cc, which contain numbers
`
`representing indirect relationships. Id. at 30–32 (“construct BC by counting
`
`the number of identical tuples of C”). Dr. Fox testifies that the CITED
`
`tuples of Fox SMART refer to the Raw_data derived from the CACM
`
`collection. Ex. 1218 ¶ 124. Because these bc and cc submatrices are
`
`numerical representations, are generated from the first numerical
`
`representations CITED which are based on direct relationships, and account
`
`for indirect relationships, we find that the Fox Papers together teach
`
`generating a second numerical representation.
`
`a. Combination of References
`
`As to whether Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for combining
`
`the teachings of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox Collection, we determine
`
`that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with a rational
`
`underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`
`the retrieval systems taught in Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox Collection.
`
`See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re
`
`Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Dr. Fox states that the three
`
`publications arose from the same thesis project, and were originally one
`
`document. Ex. 1218 ¶ 70. Furthermore, Dr. Fox notes that Fox Thesis
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`“explain[s] the method and experimental results of [his] information
`
`retrieval work,” Fox SMART “detail[s] the updated SMART computer
`
`system used to execute the experiments,” and Fox Collection “describes how
`
`the data sets were obtained and processed prior to being used in the
`
`experiments.” Id. We give Dr. Fox’s statement that one of skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to combine the references because they
`
`“describe a complete project with its underlying system and data” (id.)
`
`substantial weight, because it is consistent with the considerable overlap in
`
`the disclosures of the Fox Papers and their internal references to one another.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1209, 343 (Fox Thesis cites to Fox SMART); Ex. 1208, 84
`
`(Fox SMART cites to Fox Thesis).
`
`b. Patent Owner’s Counterarguments
`
`We have considered Patent Owner’s counterarguments and do not
`
`find them persuasive. Patent Owner contends that various elements of claim
`
`18 are not taught or suggested by the Fox Papers in combination. First,
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Fox Papers do not teach analyzing a database
`
`having objects and a first numerical representation of direct relationships in
`
`the database. PO Resp. 21. In particular, Patent Owner focuses on the fact
`
`that the first numerical representation of Raw_data was not derived from
`
`objects in the database, but rather from manually reviewing the full articles
`
`to which the objects pertain. Id. at 22. Patent Owner concludes that “there
`
`is simply no database disclosed with objects citing to other objects, and
`
`Raw_data cannot be based upon ‘an object’s direct relationships with other
`
`objects in the database.’” Id. at 23.
`
`There is no requirement in claim 18, however, that the first numerical
`
`representation be “based on” objects in the database. The preamble of claim
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`18 assumes a pre-existing database that contains two things: objects, and a
`
`first numerical representation of direct relationships. Once the Raw_data
`
`pairs were compiled and entered into the CACM database, as disclosed in
`
`Fox Collection (Ex. 1208, 14), these requirements were met.
`
`Even if claim 18 did require the objects of the database to have direct
`
`and indirect relationships, Petitioner persuasively argues this feature is
`
`suggested by the Fox Papers in combination. For example, Petitioner shows
`
`persuasively that that it would have been obvious to modify the databases of
`
`the Fox Papers to contain full text documents. Reply 4. Dr. Fox’s testimony
`
`supports this argument, noting that if storage resources allowed storage of
`
`the full text of documents, this would have been understood as preferable.
`
`Ex. 1218 ¶¶ 76, 89. We credit Dr. Fox’s testimony on this point, as it is
`
`consistent with the disclosure of Fox Thesis that “some [information
`
`retrieval] systems store the full text of the various documents.” Ex. 1209, 6.
`
`Fox Thesis adds that full text permits users to “locate documents of interest,”
`
`as well as “retrieve and/or examine paragraphs, passages, sentences, or
`
`single word occurrences (in context).” Id. These extra capabilities are
`
`described as “straightforward generalizations of document retrieval
`
`methods.” Id.
`
`Furthermore, if modified to include full text documents, Fox SMART
`
`teaches that it would be of “particular value” in such applications to compute
`
`vectors (a first numerical representation) for smaller items than just
`
`documents. Ex. 1208, 80. As an example, Fox SMART discusses
`
`computing vectors for verses and chapters of the Bible, subsets of the entire
`
`document. Id.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`We, therefore, conclude that the Fox Papers suggested to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention the modification of the
`
`Fox databases to include full text documents. With such a modification, the
`
`databases would contain, as objects, the full text documents—or even
`
`subsets of the full text documents—and these objects would have direct and
`
`indirect relationships due to their citation of one another. Patent Owner’s
`
`argument to the contrary is unpersuasive.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that the Fox Papers do not teach or suggest
`
`displaying one or more identified objects from the database, as claim 18
`
`requires. PO Resp. 25. Patent Owner emphasizes that the identifying and
`
`displaying steps of claim 18 must apply to objects in the same database. Id.
`
`Because, Patent Owner alleges, the identified objects of Fox SMART are the
`
`full articles which are not present in the database, the objects cannot be
`
`displayed. Id.
`
`Fox SMART, however, discloses an operation in which documents
`
`are retrieved, and then desired portions of the text of the retrieved documents
`
`are displayed to the user. Ex. 1208, 24, Fig. 6; see also id. at 11 (“display of
`
`portions of text from selected top-ranked documents”). Because, as noted
`
`above, we find that the Fox Papers suggest that the objects in the database
`
`can be both full text documents, as well as portions of those documents,3 we
`
`conclude that the displaying one or more identified objects requirement of
`
`claim 18 is met.
`
`Patent Owner’s remaining contentions relate to whether Petitioner has
`
`satisfied the requirements for combining the teachings of Fox Thesis, Fox
`
`
`3 “For example, a section, page, or paragraph of text taken from a longer text
`may be treated as a textual object.” Ex. 1201, 14:2–4.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`SMART, and Fox Collection. For example, Patent Owner contends that the
`
`systems disclosed in the individual Fox Papers are “narrowly tailored” and
`
`would not have been combined merely because of their common authorship.
`
`PO Resp. 16–21.
`
`As indicated above, we determine that Petitioner has articulated
`
`sufficient reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have combined the retrieval systems taught in Fox
`
`Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox Collection. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 398. For
`
`example, Dr. Fox wrote each of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox
`
`Collection. See Ex. 1209, i; Ex. 1208, 1; Ex. 1206, 1.
`
`Patent Owner also contends that the Raw_data relation of Fox
`
`Collection could not be combined with the CITED tuples of Fox SMART,
`
`because they are “fundamentally incompatible.” PO Resp. 17. In support of
`
`this argument, Dr. Jacobs testifies, for example, that CITED does not
`
`describe using document ids (“dids”) while Raw_data does. Ex. 2113
`
`¶¶ 124–125. Dr. Fox testifies to the contrary, stating that the CITED tuples
`
`of Fox SMART specifically refer to the “Raw_data” derived from the
`
`CACM collection. Ex. 1218 ¶ 124. We give Dr. Fox’s testimony on this
`
`point substantial weight, and do not credit Dr. Jacobs’ testimony. Our
`
`determination is not only due to Dr. Fox’s personal knowledge of the Fox
`
`Papers, but also supported by the descriptions of Raw_data and CITED in
`
`the references. The references indicate that both Raw_data and CITED
`
`contain pairs of document identifiers, with the sole difference being that
`
`CITED also contains a third data element that signifies the direction of the
`
`citation. Furthermore, while the description of CITED in Fox SMART is
`
`silent as to document ids, other portions of the document discuss dids which
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00479
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`are an “index in range 1 . . . N.” Ex. 1208, 36. We do not consider the
`
`combination of Raw_data with CITED, or the combination of the systems of
`
`Fox Collection, Fox SMART, and Fox Thesis, to be beyond the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Patent Owner further contends that using indirect relationships in a
`
`computerized search system would not have been predictable at the time of
`
`the invention of the ’494 patent. PO Resp. 48–50. In particular, Patent
`
`Owner contends that Google’s introduction of its algorithms took experts in
`
`the field by surprise and was considered a major breakthrough. PO Resp. 49
`
`(citing Ex. 2113 ¶ 431; Ex. 2114 ¶¶ 43–65). Patent Owner’s contention is
`
`based on its view that the combined teachings of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART,
`
`and Fox Collection are not sufficient because they do

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket