•
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Bo• 1450
`AloJIBndria. Virginia 22313-1450
`www.usplo.gov
`
`APPLICA noN NO.
`
`901011,010
`
`FILING OAT£
`
`0512412010
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`A TIORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CON FIRMA noN NO.
`
`5544352
`
`3905-102
`
`2567
`
`6449
`04/04nOII
`7590
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`142~ K STREET, N.W.
`SUITE800
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`EXAMINER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`. PAPERNUMBER
`
`DATE MAILED: 04/0412011
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PT0-90C (Rev. 10103)
`
`EXHIBIT 2020
`Face book, Inc. et al.
`v.
`Software Rights Archive, LLC
`CASE IPR2013-00479
`
`

`

`Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary 90/011,010
`5544352
`~Ex_a_m~in~e-r-----------rA~rt~U~ni~t----~--------~
`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`JOSHUA D. CAMPBELL
`
`3992
`
`All participants (USPTO personnel, patent owner, patent owner's representative):
`
`(1) JOSHUA D. CAMPBELL. ERIC KISS. ERIC KEASEL
`
`(3) ANDREW DINOVO. NANCY LINCK
`
`(2) DANIEL EGGER. PAUL JACOBS. WILLIAM MARINO
`
`(4) MARTIN ZOL TICK. MICHAEL JONES
`
`Date of Interview: 04 April 2011
`
`Type: a)O Telephonic b)O Video Conference
`c)[gl Personal (copy given to: 1)0 patent owner
`
`2)0 patent owner;s representative)
`
`e)O No.
`d)r8;1 Yes
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted:
`If Yes, brief description: Presentation (attached) laying out a more detailed analysis of the points in the agenda.
`
`Agreement with respect to the claims f)0 was reached. g)r8] was not reached. h)O N/A.
`Any other agreement(s) are set forth below under "Description of the general nature of what was agreed to ... 11
`
`Claim(s) discussed: 26.
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Fox and Garner.
`
`Description of the general nature of what was agreed to if an agreement was reached, or any other comments:
`Details of independent claims were discussed as per agenda and examiner agreed to take into consideration when
`response is filed.
`
`(A fuller description, if necessary, and a copy of the amendments which the examiner agreed would render the claims
`patentable, if available, must be attached. Also, where no copy of the amendments that would render the claims
`patentable is e~vailable, a summary thereof must be attached.)
`
`A FORMAL WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE LAST OFFICE ACTION MUST INCLUDE PATENT OWNER'S
`STATEMENT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW. (See MPEP § 2281).1F A RESPONSE TO THE
`LAST OFFICE ACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED, THEN PATENT OWNER IS GIVEN ONE MONTH FROM THIS
`INTERVIEW DATE TO PROVIDE THE MANDATORY STATEMENT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW
`(37 CFR 1.560(b)). THE REQUIREMENT FOR PATENT OWNER'S STATEMENT CAN NOT BE WAIVED.
`EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`/Joshua D Campbell/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`cc: Requester (if third party requester)
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-474 (Rev. 04-01)
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary
`
`PaperNo.20110406
`
`

`

`~·--"""~'~. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`• I
`>l
`5)·----------------------------------------------------------------------------·----------------~-----
`~
`(
`Commlssloner for Paten1s
`-z;/
`\~~
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`"~~7
`P.O. 80X1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`"'IIINIJN.vspto.gov
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(fHIRD PARlY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`l.
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12390 EL CAMINO REAL
`SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
`
`................... !
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 901011.010.
`
`PATENT NO. 5544352.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parle reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for .filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parle reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`

`

`04/04/2011 10:08 FAX 202 783 6031
`
`ROTHWELL,FIGG,ERNST&MANB
`
`~001
`
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK
`
`1425 K Street, NW
`Suite 800
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`Telephone: (202)783-6040
`Telefax: (202)783·6031
`
`DATE:
`
`TO:
`
`FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
`
`April4, 2011
`
`Examiner Josh1.1a D. Campbell
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Fax. No.
`
`571-273-4133
`
`Control No ..
`Patent No.
`Art Unit:
`Conf. No.
`
`90/011,010
`5,544,352
`3992
`2567
`
`FROM:
`
`Nancy L. Linck
`Reg. No. 31,920
`
`Number of Pages Including This Transmittal Sheet: 9
`
`If lillY problems in connection with this facsimile, please contact: Deanna. Thompson 202-783-6040
`
`TI:!IS M~SAdE IS INTEND EO fOR lliE USE OF THE !NOMDU/\1 OR ENTITY TO WHICH rT IS ADDRES&EP AND MAY CONT 1\IN
`TNFORMATION Tli.AT IS PRI'XJLEGP.D CONJl'IDrlNTIAJ AND fjXEMPT FltOM DISCLOS!!RE uNDER APPUCA.BLE LAW. tFTHE
`RSA.DER OF TillS MESSAOF, 1$ NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AOENCY RESPONSffiLE FOR
`DELIVERlNG nn:: MESSAO£ TO THE lNTENOED R..ECIPIENT. YOU ARE H~EBY N01'1FIED THAT ANY DISSEM!'NA IION,
`DISTRIBl.fl'IOf.l OR COPYING OF Ttl IS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PR.OHmiTED. IF YOU HA Vf! RECEfVED 'fHIS
`C0MMUNlCAii10N IN ERROR., PLEAS£ NOTIFY US IMMEDIATt:!LY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN TilE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO
`US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS V1A THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICES. TiiANK YOU.
`
`PAGE 1/9 * RCVD AT 4/4/201110:09:23 AM ~astern Da~ight Time]• SVR:W.PTOFAX.001/15 ~ DNIS:2734133' CSID:202 783 6031 ~DURATION (mm-ss):02.07
`
`

`

`04/04/2011 10:08 FAX 202 783 6031
`
`ROTHWELL,FIGG,ERNST&MANB
`
`f4l 002
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Control No.
`Patent No.
`Filed
`
`: 90/011,010
`: 5,544,352
`: May 24, 2010
`
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Conf. No.
`
`: 3992
`: Joshua D. Campbell
`: 2567
`
`Title: MI;:THOD AND APPARATUS FOR INDEXING, SEARCHING, AND DISPLAYING
`DATA
`.
`
`Mail Stojp Ex Parte Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandiria, VA 22313-1450
`
`-· .
`
`AGENDA FOR INTERVIEW
`
`P~atent Owner, Software Rights Archive, LLC ("Patent Owner"), proposes the
`following agenda for the in-person interview to be conducted at 1 :OO pm on Monday,
`April 4, 2011. Attendees will include:
`
`-
`
`daniel Egger, Inventor, Director, Center for Quantitative Modeling, Pratt School
`
`of Engineering, Duke University
`
`• Raul Jacobs, Technical Expert, Jake Technologies, Inc.
`
`- William Marino, Altitude Capital Partners
`
`-
`
`1\!ndrew DiNovo, DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy ~LP
`
`- Nancy Linck, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`
`~ Martin Zoltick, Rothwell, Flgg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`
`- Michael Jones, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`
`P·atent OWner proposes the following agenda but invites the Examiner to Inform
`us as to what discussions would be most helpful to his deliberations.
`
`PAGE 219• RCVD AT 4141201110:09:23 AM ~astern Da~ight TimeJ• SVR:W.PTOFAX.001/15 * DNIS:2734133 * CSID:202 783 6031* DURATION (mm-ss):02.07
`
`

`

`04/04/2011 10:08 FAX 202 783 6031
`
`ROTHWELL,FIGG,ERNST&MANB
`
`141003
`
`Attorney's Docket No.: 3905-102
`Control No. 90/011,010
`Page 2
`
`Proposed Agenda
`
`• The ·Invention
`
`o U.S. Patent No. 5,544,352 ("the '352 patenf') Is directed to systems and
`methods for indexing and searching a database. See Abstract. The claimed
`methods address the short-comings of prior art-techniques, which retrieve
`irrelevant objects and fail to convey important and necessary information, by
`analyzing the non-semantic relationships that exist among objects located in
`the database. ,
`o Claim 26 Is representative of the invention and recites a non"semantical
`method that requires, among other things:
`"creating a first numerical representation for each identified object" ln a
`•
`computer database based upon the object's direct relationships (I.e.,
`the citations or references from one object to another) existing in the
`database;
`"analyzing the first numerical representations for indirect relationships
`[i.e., chains of citations or references] existing between or among
`objects in the database;" and
`"generating a second numerical representation ... based on the
`analysis of the first," which Is then stored for use In searching the
`database objects using a computer.
`o The claim also requires that:
`• each of the uobjects" be located "in a computer database" under
`analysis; and
`"direct and indirect relationships exist between objects in the database"
`such as citations or references (i.e., "non-semantic relationships").
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`• Example of the Claimed Search Method
`o Patent Owner is preparing a series of PowerPoint slides illustrating the
`claimed invention, an example of non-semantic searching, and the limitations
`of prior art systems. The presentation will include specific examples of the
`deficiencies of the cited references.
`
`PAGE 319 • RCVD AT 414/201110:09:23 AM ~astern Da~ight Time1• SVR:W.PTOFAX-001/15 • DNIS:2734133 • CSID:202 783 6031 *DURATION (mm-ss):02.07
`
`

`

`04/04/2011 10:08 FAX 202 783 6031
`
`ROTHWELL.FIGG,ERNST&MANB
`
`141004
`
`Attorney's Docket No.: 3905w102
`Control No. 90/011,010
`Page 3
`
`•
`
`Issue 1
`o Claims 26-32, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, and 45 have been rejected under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of "Extending the Boolean and Vector Space Models
`of Information Retrieval withP-Norm Queries and Multiple Concept Types/
`Com ell University, 1983, by Edward Fox ("Fox'').
`o Deficiencies of Fox (see Response, pp. 14-29)
`• The experiments discussed in Fox are not performed using "objects in
`a computer database ... wherein direct and indirect relationships exist
`between objects In the database" as required by claim 26. The CACM
`and lSI collections do not contain objects in a database with direct or
`Indirect relationships as claimed. They are merely small samples
`containing entries such as titles, authors, and abstracts:
`The assembled CACM collections file is based on titles 1 and where
`available, abstracts of all articles published in the Communications
`of the ACM from the first issue of 1958 through the last one in
`1979." Fox, p. 66.
`• Accordingly, Fox fails to teach and would not have suggested any of
`the limitations of claim 26, such as "creating a first numerical
`representation for each identified object," or qanalyzing ... for indirect
`relationships existing between or among objects in the database." See
`Response,pp. 15·21.
`• Fox fails to teach and would not have suggested "analyzing the first
`numerical representation for indirect relationships existing between or
`among objects In the database" and "generating a second numerical
`representation of each object based on the analysis of the first
`numerical representation." The In, be, and cc matrices do not disclose
`a second numerical representation as claimed because they are not
`generated based on analyzing a first numerical representation of an
`object's direct relationships for Indirect relationships.
`• The In matrix is not a first numerical representation as claimed.
`The first numerical representation must be "based upon the
`object's direct relationship with other objects In the database"
`and there are no direct relationships between objects In the
`CACM collection used in Fox.
`• Further, the In matrix is not used to gener;ate either the be or cc
`~· All three (I.e., In, be, and cc) are created from the same
`raw data.
`"Source-cited pairs" do not teach and would not have suggested any
`limitation of claim 26. They are simply a list of co-citation relationships
`between pairs of documents. They are neither a first numerical
`
`•
`
`PAGE 419 * RCVD AT 4141201110:09:23 AM ~astern Da~ight TimeJ* SVR:W.PTOFAX.001115 * DNIS:2734133 * CSID:202 783 6031 *DURATION (mm-ss):02.07
`
`

`

`04/04/2011 10:09 FAX 202 783 6031
`
`ROTBWELL,FIGG,ERNST&MANB
`
`~005
`
`Attorney's Docket No. : 3905-102
`Control No. 90/011 ,01 o
`Page 4
`
`representation of direct relationships, nor a second numerical·
`represe11tation derived from analyzing a first numerical representation
`of direct relationships for indirect relationships in a database. Rather,
`they were manually extracted from an index of co-citations external to
`any database used In Fox, and, thus, are unrelated to the claimed
`invention.
`• Similarly, Fox fails to teach and would not have suggested any of the
`limitations of claim 41. See Response, pp. 26-29. For instance, Fox
`does not disclose "patterning" by "creating a third numerical
`representation for each object using the second numerical
`rep~esentations, wherein the third numerical representation for each
`object is determined from an examination of the second numerical
`representations for occurrences of patterns that define indirect
`relations between or among objects'' or "weaving• by "calculating a
`fourth numerical representation ... based on the Euclidean distances
`between the third numerical representations."
`• Furthermore, Fox fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim
`45, such as "identifying objects that are referred to by the selected
`object" and "Identifying objects that refer to the selected object." See
`Response, p. 29.
`
`•
`
`Issue 5
`o Claims 26-3;2, 36, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) In view of
`"Computer-Oriented Graph Theoretical Analysis of Citation Index Structures,"
`Drexel Press, 1967, by Ralph Gamer et al. ("Gamer}.
`o DeficienQies of Gamer (see Response, pp. 30-37)
`• Garner does not disclose any of the computational steps of claim 26
`directed to "numerically representing objects In a computer database"
`for use in "computerized searching." Rather, Gamer discusses how to
`manipulate an existing citation Index using a proposed mathematical
`notation derived from graph theory.
`• For instance, Garner does not Include a computer database "wherein
`direct and indirect relationships exist between objects in the database.,
`• A citation index is not a database of objects with direct and
`indirect relationships and there is no disclosure of a computer
`database of objects with such relationships In Gamer. There
`are simply no actual documents, textual objects, references, or
`citations as described in the '352 patent. As Gamer fails to
`disclose this threshold feature of the claims, It cannot be relied
`upon as teaching any of the limitations of claim 26.
`
`PAGE 519 * RCVD AT 4141201110:09:23 AM ~astern Da~ight TimeJ* SVR:W.PTOFAX-001115 • DNIS:2734133 • CSID:202 783 6031* DURATION (mm-ss):02.07
`
`

`

`04/04/2011 10:09 FAX 202 783 6031
`
`ROTHWELL.FIGG,ERNST&MANB
`
`~006
`
`Attorney's Docket No. : 3905-102
`Control No. 90/011,010
`Page 5
`
`Garner fails to teach and would not have suggested "analyzing the first
`numerical representation for indirect relationships existing between or
`among objects in the database" or "generating a second numerical
`representation of each objed based on the analysis of the first
`numerical representationp as required by claim 26.
`• The A2 Matrix is not obtained from an analysis of "relationships
`exist(ing] between objects in the database." Any "relationships"
`that may exist, presumably exist In papers, and there are no
`papers stored in any database examined or searched in Garner.
`The theoretical discussion of bibliographic connections between
`papers does not teach and would not have suggested the
`computational steps of claim 26, such as "generating a second
`numerical representation."
`• Garner fails to disclose "searching the objects using the stored
`second numerical representations." Garner (p. 4) explicitly
`states that its notations wo.uld not be used for a computerized
`search product: "The purpose of this research was to investigate
`whether or not the mathematical discipline of graph theory is
`applicable to the analysis of citation indexing ... a cjtation index
`search product requires the application of concepts significantly
`different from those employed in this report."
`• Further, Gamer does not teach ''storing" the A2 matrix for use in
`"searching the objects."
`• Garner also fails to disclose the limitations of claim 45, such as
`"selection of an object," "Identifying a group of objects that have a
`relationship to the selected obje(!t," or •ranking the objects in the
`group." See Response, p. 37. Garners limited discussion of
`searching is directed to searching an Index, not •searching Indexed
`objects" as required by claim 45.
`
`•
`
`Issues 2-4 and 6·9
`o Claims 33-42 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1 03(a) as
`unpatentable over Fox or Garner in view of several secondary references.
`However, none of the secondary references remedy the deficient teachings of
`Fox and Gamer with respect to independent claims 26 and 41. See
`Response, pp.40-53.
`o Furthermore, the claims of the '352 patent do not recite known elements
`combined to yield a predictable result. See Jacobs Declaration of February,
`9, 2011, ff1l131-42.
`
`PAGE 619 a RCVD AT 4141201110:09:23 AM ~astern Da~ight TimeJ• SVR:W.PTOFAX.Q01115 a DNIS:2734133 a CSID:202 783 6031 a DURATION (mm-ss):02.07
`
`

`

`04/04/2011 10:09 FAX 202 783 6031
`
`ROTHWELL,FIGG,ERNST&MANB
`
`~007
`
`Attorneys Docket No. : 3905-102
`Control No. 90/011,010
`Page6
`
`• Many elements of the claims are completely absent in the prior art,
`such as "creating a first numerical representation ... based upon the
`object's direct relationship with other objects in the database,"
`"analyzing the first numerical representations for Indirect relationships,"
`and "generating a second numerical representation ... based on the
`analysis of the first numerical representation," required by claim 26.
`"Extracting," "patterning," and "weavingp as required by claim 41 are
`also completely absent In the prior art.
`• The utility of using Indirect relationships between database objects to
`improve search results would not have been obvious to one of ordinary
`skill in the art. In fact, the use of this technique was consistently
`disparaged by the leaders in the field. See Jacobs Decl., mi 131-42
`(providing a detailed survey of the negative results obtained from
`experimentation with Indirect relationships).
`• For Instance, Fox •encourages" the use of a direct link matrix
`over the oo-citation and bibliographic coupling matrices (i.e., the
`indirect bibliographic relationship matrices):
`"The recipe proposed is to at least employ terms (tm), some
`manually assigned categorization scheme (ar), and direct links
`between documents (/n). When bibliographic information Is only
`available among articles In a collection the simplest form of that
`information, references (In) (i.e., the direct links vector), seems
`to be the most reliable and most useful of all the types
`·considered (be, In, cc) [(be) and (cc) are the indirect
`bibliographic vectors]. The In subvectors are typically longer
`than the other two and are easier to obtain so use pf them Is
`encouraged by: practicality considerations as well as
`· effectiveness tests. a Fox, p. 253 (emphasis added).
`
`Fox's conclusion Is not surprising given that his tests showed
`that retrieval precision using either of the indirect bibliographic
`relationships (co-citation or coupling) in the CACM collection
`was over 50% lower than that obtained from terms (weighted
`word matches). See Fox, Table 8.8.
`
`• Dependent Claims
`a Fox and Gamer, alone or in the various combinations submitted in the
`Request, fall to teach and would not .have suggested the additional features of
`the dependent claims, such as:
`
`PAGE 719 * RCVD AT 4141201110:09:23 AM ~astern Da~ight TimeJ a SVR:W.PTOFAX.001/15 * DNIS:2734133 • CSID:202 783 6031' DURATION (mm-ss):02.07
`
`

`

`04/04/2011 10:09 FAX 202 783 6031
`
`ROTHWELL.FIGG,ERNST&MANB
`
`ll!008
`
`Attorney's Docket No.: 3905-102
`Control No. 90/011 ,010
`Page 7
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`"weighing, wherein some indirect relationships are weighed more
`heavily than other indirect relationships" (claim 32) (see Response, pp.
`22~24, 36)
`"creating an interim vector representing each object; and wherein the
`step of generating a second numerical representation uses coefficients
`of similarity and ... creating proximity vectors representing the objects
`using 0 calculated euclidean distances" (claim 33) (see Response, pp.
`40, 49~50)
`"marking subsets of objects in the database and wherein relationships
`exist between or among subsets of objects in the database" (claim 34)
`(see Response, pp. 41 M47, 50-52)
`"creating a subset numerical representation for each subset based
`·upon the relationships between or among subsets •.. clustering the
`subsets into sections based upon n subset analysis; and generating a
`section numerical representation for each section, wherein the section
`numerical representations are available for searching" (claim 35) (see
`Response, pp. 41-47, 50-52)
`"pool~simllartty searching" and npoo!-lmportance searching" (claims 39
`and 40) (see Response, pp. 24-25, p.53)
`
`• Secondary Considerations (see Response, pp. 54-59)
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Software Rights Archive, LLC
`
`~~~;A.
`Nancy J.lilCk
`Reg. No. 31,920
`Martin M. Zoltick
`Reg. No. 35,745
`
`Apr111, ~W11
`
`ROTHVj!ELL, FJGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC
`1425 K Street, NW
`Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`TEL: (202) 783-6040
`FAX: (202) 78~w6031
`E~MAIL: nfinck@rfem.com, mzoltlck@rfem.com
`
`PAGE 819* RCVD AT 4141201110:09:23 AM ~astern Da~ight Time]* SVR:W.PTOFAX-001115 t DNIS:2734133 * CSID:202 783 6031* DURATION (mm-ss):02.07
`
`

`

`04/04/2011 10:09 FAX 202 783 6031
`
`ROTBWELL.FIGG,ERNST&MANB
`
`~009
`
`. '
`
`Attorney's Docket No. : 3905~102
`Control No. 90/011,010
`. Page 8
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`lb is hereby certified that the attached Agenda is being served on the attorney of
`record for the 3rd party Requester in the above-captioned Reexamination by first class
`mail at the third party requesters address:
`John c. Phillips
`Fish & Richardson, P .C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, California 92130
`
`Aplil 1,2011
`
`PAGE 919- RCVD AT 4141201110:09:23AM ~astern Da~ight Time]* SVR:W.PTOFAX.001/15-DNIS:2734133 • CSID:202 783 6031- DURATION (mm-ss):02.07
`
`

`

`5.3338
`
`aa—Eaafil-EEEEE
`
`
`
`>LmEEsmt<tutu«EmEmymammm..mwmm
`
`L.
`QJ
`tl.O
`tl.O
`LU
`
`
`
`
`
`1.1.4...134014.,11.03.111.11..3.1.54.3.
`
`
`
`82d.93.433..1use.3j39.3%5.5.2as...”aa...“gummagnum53?;
`
`
`
`
`
`(.gafigggfi‘ggflggflgfllgfiig.3.
`
`
`
`2:3”.73wngngifiufluaaaflsflaggflttugg
`
`5%:
`
`
`
`:391:53.inane,git.
`
`
`931383B.9.3.HE33£u¢§d3Ufl«933gat
`arm?»1%1Egg.EEWrénuqxcyuv§§§.ul1z.fi
`
`
`
`43.36:2inf...53.4.}?:B
`
`5331.3...k»EE3
`
`
`uuaaggzfiggxaogéuam..w.23m
`
`.éafliflfl.€53§§¢wan23.83.:
`
`
`
`
`5.92%"...anavum3538:33ba2.332.3321.13.!»3%:Eu
`
`
`5%Wm.§;.,3§§Eddd”Nun
`
`
`u...§u:.uu6i$§.§§japfixghfizw:
`
`w.15:15.?!»3fig?”368933.an.
`
`
`
`Haipninpggfikgwfiwzind—.13.g3“»
`
`
`3.gangsit:n53:3
`
`EgéhgalxaxfifluflggéE3533.33.55.93...-#303335
`
`
`
`:31.vagakuiigwwgimfi-GMT?!
`
`uabgfixggfifiggg~35Edam
`31:}fit5n358.5%
`:1anElla55355..
`
`
`
`
`
`#1339,5tag
`
`fl.§n«§5fi§:gafizafigsnfiugigs?HESS2.5%.“
`
`
`
`
`SaéiggfisagSixinIna:3Ban
`
`
`
`
`
`.53.?qu33:83in!savingFR3....
`
`
`
`I?K».-”mag
`
`
`§§§§3§.§E§m".4.iii-36.39833
`
`
`g€x2§_fi3535vain-[Bugg:tzlnltlrilsngrain}
`
`
`
`§£§.:Uu£§u353:5.:3511‘1anlzoro3:5.
`
`
`
`
`wanna-.33.....5332.«02.1.5.9augu-
`
`
`
`flagflsflw.§u§ghflflgBiggzérc:1:6435..
`
`.agéflaagéggilg.éfiflgg
`5....£33.:nmvgggagfi132.0.ngldflg
`
`
`
`23335355.?3-9..8F3&3?.infigfiqflPug.gggggi—Sfiugfiigvgg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§x$§fin§1¢9an»...a§§§.§ui£
`
`1.552%:43:35.35...
`
`.pszxigg
`
`
`
`
`
`33.5352Egan»?!.33283.85
`
`flog?
`
`
`

`

`The Problem: Finding Relevant and Important Material
`
`Finding relevant, important, and related objects:
`
`"will not return the desired textual object" (1:44)
`
`"does not convey some important and necessary information to the researcher" (2: 13-14)
`
`Examples:
`
`Find Mauldin (or Ishikawa) in relation to Egger
`
`Find Mauldin (or Ishikawa) starting with a Boolean search for topical material
`based on Egger
`
`How can a computer determine the relatedness of Mauldin to Egger?
`
`Egger 5,544,352
`
`.. __ ._._...
`
`.. -- ........
`~-
`._..._..__
`.. ===--===- =--=--=--::.~"":".'
`~----- -~ -- ---..!!....~ .. -~---~~
`::.:-:::."':'-·-
`· · - - - - - ~~..=---'"­
`:=:;:.::;.;.:: __
`==--~-~~--
`
`Mauldin 5,748,954
`-·'IIIIP··
`..,...,. ..... ,_ ... --- ~
`
`~ ····----··-···----~--~-~~---· -~!''"!'
`
`Ishikawa 5,848.407
`~ ................ -- ~
`
`~ .. _________ ....:::,.!!!:'.!.~--~~
`
`relation?
`
`relation?
`
`:~-~~~J"
`u.i.=~---·;""
`.;-------"-~~j· . . ..:_"!,:
`
`2
`
`

`

`Prior Art: Misses Important Material
`
`"search retrieves a significant amount of irrelevant objects" (1: 54-55)
`"will not return the desired textual object" (1 :44)
`
`53 7 5~152,025 T Method oo.tuputcl; p:ogram pt:odoct,and system for a:eating and displaying a categomatioo table
`538 5.75.1...286 T ! -- ~~§t!~~~~a_
`'-
`539· 5.14&1163 . ·~
`540 5·.745;.764 -TM
`
`· · tive and.
`
`• s.c.alable ·.
`
`~-
`
`.ob.'ects
`
`Word search finds "Image steganography system" (and hundreds of
`other unrelated patents)
`
`Does not find Mauldin (5,748,954)- the "Lycos" patent
`
`Uailed S&a15 h-tml ll:'lll
`~-~--
`
`•• IUI!!!II•IU
`
`Ill! ..... ~ 5.,1411,954
`1(11' o-r~.....
`"'-~-~
`
`Prior art: "Boolean" retrieval (or anything purely "semantical" or
`word-based)
`
`~
`~.,~~I
`
`~0=-=~~-r·
`..... ~J::1u r
`
`--->-<' ~;@·--<EJ
`
`3
`
`

`

`The '352 Solution: "Proximity Indexing"
`
`" 'Proximity indexing' is a method of indexing that uses statistical techniques and
`empirically generated algorithms to organize and categorize information stored in
`databases .... for legal research by indexing objects based on their degree of
`relatedness- in terms of precedent and topic-to one another" (11:51-60)
`
`"Textual objects may contain 'citations', which are explicit references to other
`textual objects" (11 :63-64)
`,
`
`"Any two textual objects may be related to each other through a myriad of
`patterns" (12:32-33)
`
`"The 'numerical factors' for all eighteen patterns are assigned various
`weights ... to generate a scalar. .. " (13:35-26)
`
`" ... proximity matrix" (14:2)
`
`" ... and generate a coefficient of similarity" (14:8)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent Example •
`
`•
`
`Direct Relationships
`
`Egger 5,544,3 52
`, ...... !1.!!!111.111
`
`Unlltd Swa: Patftl ''"'
`~u ,... ,..,_.,
`--
`····-----·---!";!,_~-~--·-··~!':~ .. ~~
`
`SSoK,.Ul
`
`Egger 5,832,494
`••1111!.~1
`•·Nooo- ~
`
`li•IUo!IW...,.f"auaa,...
`
`, . . , - · - -.J,. .....
`
`Page 6,285,999
`, .. , ...... ,_ ~" ..
`UIU,U!!!.UIIU
`,,..,._,, us~••
`
`"contains ... citations"-- 12:15
`
`"Citation Vectors"-- 14:55
`
`"first numerical representation"
`-- cl. 26
`
`Turtle 5,418,948
`
`--- ........
`
`·-~-~--.-
`
`Mauldin 5,748,954
`
`... ::.:~...:.. :;..-::='::'==:-.::-:
`
`~~~~~~~:-~~
`= :.:.~;:;;;--.::;;,-; ¥:::;--:::.::- -~
`~~!.~~~~
`~:~-=-==
`·-~w
`
`~=r:!ll;;rf
`M~·r
`.. ·-···'··~~~·-. -(!!)
`
`T.
`
`Ishikawa 5,848,407
`
`Wells 6,711,586
`
`, ..... ,....
`
`5
`
`

`

`The Claims Require Creating 1/a First Numerical Representation" of
`Existing Direct Relationships between Objects in the Database ,
`
`• "initial extractor subroutine" (14:47-15:17)
`
`• "Create Opinion Citation Vectors ... [b ]y comparing each full textual object in the data
`every other full textual object that occurred earlier in time" (14:55-57)
`
`base to
`
`Ulilled States Patent '"'
`£arr
`
`!11111118!!!!!!,1111111110
`"" ......., N.-..
`5.544~
`1<>1 Dauafl'almt!
`~ .... , ~~
`
`f)lf IICITRODA.fiQ)UiiUl.\'TWf'Oil~ ~.-.......,......._.a-czr~A
`1&\KUDCCANDDISf'UYI:SCDlU
`t...-..,_a-t~Jrc:a.'""'CAIL "tlll.tJ)
`~~ai)'.,.;:,~ v. •
`rnr .._._ o-w raw . .......,.._ nc
`f'JI ~ ~t...Orlc!lll::a.~C
`t:t.l Allfll ~,.'JUS~
`
`~·=--w~ ~" '-"
`
`Claim 26 ... wherein direct and indirect relationships
`exist between objects in the database ..... creating a first
`numerical representation for each identified object in
`the database based upon the object's direct relationship
`with other objects in the database;
`
`(Claims 41 and 45 have comparable elements)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent Example •
`
`•
`
`Indirect Relationships
`
`Egger 5,832,494
`·••ll!gpdlll
`"" -~ WL31
`_,_l ..
`..
`..
`...
`.
`,_.,-~-
`
`Ullilrd~ht..C .,...
`
`Page 6,285,999
`iii .. D,I!!JY&UI
`
`- ::.::..=:-... ~
`, ... -
`, ___ .........
`~--::.;-:.~;.;::.:::.:=·:::.-:--
`!<;< -;,;r~-=-z-= ~':.!'::~:,;,..-;"'.:r.::""''--
`_ ........ ...-... - .. ~~...::-... -::::"""-.:::.
`··1 -
`
`~-==:.:::.=' ... ·::::~
`
`"'" ~.'~'---· ~~=~~
`
`-::--_. ..... _ .... ___ ., :.".:---... ----·<-...
`, ........ :.~.;·;.:-;.-;;;·;..~~
`... ~""--
`
`"" U<1- ............ K •• -
`
`~=-:;r!'::-..:;:::::o;:::
`
`"myriad of patterns" (12:33)
`
`"analyzing the first numerical
`representations" ( cl. 26)
`
`"indirect relationships ( cl. 26)
`
`Turtle 5,418,
`... -...... · ...... -
`--- ~
`
`, .•.
`
`_:_.=ail:."ll:l-(
`u~-J'
`.... tJI<W"'~•. "'.J!.I
`
`* many others not shown
`
`7
`
`

`

`The Clai~s Require Using a Numerical Representation of Each Object Based on
`Direct Relationships to Generate Another Based on Indirect Relationships
`
`26. . . . creating a first numerical representation for each identified object in the
`database based upon the object's direct relationship with other objects in the
`database;
`
`***
`analyzing the first numerical representations for indirect relationships
`existing between or among objects in the database;
`
`generating a second numerical representation of each object based on the
`analysis of the first numerical representation ...
`
`(Claim 41 has a comparable sequence of steps)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent Example :Analyzing the for Indirect
`Relationships
`
`Egger 5,544,352
`:•••••!!...~~!.~~• .. ••
`
`"" - ~ !.J.M.JD
`U:mled Statts Paint (...
`~-·--········---~~~-2!*--~~!!"
`
`"~nalyzing the first numerical
`representations for indirect
`relationships ... " ( cl. 26)
`"generating a second numerical
`representation ... based on the
`analysis ... " ( cl. 26)
`
`Egger and Mauldin both
`cite Turtle (coupling, P#2)
`
`Turtle 5,418,948 -
`
`Mauldin 5,748,954
`...-- ........
`••IIIJI!!IUIII
`....,..,..............
`~---··. ~·------------!"'! .. .!-..!..~---~':.~
`
`Page 6,285,999
`
`111110.~10
`....... ...,
`1.$ .... .,..,
`.... -.~-. ...,. .. u-1
`
`-·---
`----·--.. -···
`:.:: ~
`__.,.
`-----~~ =:fi:E7;;:·-
`~~~~~~~~~
`
`Page cites Egger '494 and Mauldin
`(they are co-cited); and
`Egger '494 cites Egger '352 (P#8)
`
`9
`
`

`

`Analyzing for Indirect Relationships
`Many different indirect
`relationships ("myriad of
`patterns") may exist between
`A and B (12:33; Figure 6)
`
`~
`
`I.
`
`For example, if A is Egger
`and B is Mauldin ....
`
`P#2 illustrates that Egger an
`Mauldin both cite Turtle
`
`P#8 illustrates Page cites
`Mauldin and Egger '494, and
`Egger '494 cites Egger
`
`2.
`
`a
`
`4
`
`a
`
`..
`
`7 •
`
`..
`
`.~ .... , ... ,
`.... ~ ..
`
`··~··•]••
`
`~ .............
`
`~
`
`lA ···~
`... ~ 1L
`... ~.
`
`~
`vr-
`.........
`I& ·····.f:?::·~
`
`I&
`
`~
`
`J,l. ~~d
`a fie Ai • f~l
`.... ~ ,.,.-
`
`.......,
`~
`•-cAC•I•f•S
`.•. zt,u••'
`~·
`I& ·~···
`••• £ •• ~>
`17. ~-.~.._i,• !._.!I. I
`
`ttr' r.*'
`
`. . . . . . . . . ,
`
`flil
`~
`
`1& ~·;:•·'
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent Example : Generating a Second Numerical Representation
`of each Object Based on the Analysis
`
`"scalar ... arranged" (13:53-57)
`
`"proximity matrix" (14:2)
`
`"second numerical representation" ( cl. 26)
`
`Degree of relatedness of Egger to
`Mauldin, representing Egger,
`based on analysis of citations
`
`~·----IOC ~~~,:;-w ....... -
`r t l t - ,_..._-.,.c
`:::..:.-:.';-~':':;;:" -·.,.-
`
`I>'IW...__
`
`- · - - " -
`
`, ... ::.= ... ..=:.:n-- =-:.~·=-"':::...~.:=::
`,.._ """"--·-·-··· ==~ ===~==
`~ i~_;..:.,;: . .:;;;;·;_~~ :=-=-::·::::::-.. ,
`~[~*~ii
`
`Egger 5,544,352
`
`IIIIIH!IJ!,!IDIII
`Uolied Stata Patmt n•,
`I'" ...., """"-kn
`.s.JoM.!.S:
`~~-----·-·'-·-····---·-----·~~.!.~-~~
`
`Mauldin 5,748,954
`HIDD_guml
`v.ar.IStritN ..... <>e - - - 1,7 . . . .
`- : . ·-.. ··-·--- ~-~-:~ .... }~"!.~~
`-:.==~...:.. ?-"":.!:::e:.::=
`
`===~..::.-.. ~~~~~
`::: .. :.~:._ _______ ====-==
`:;:.~.;.---==....-;.:.:: ¥==-:::---
`~§~~~:~
`= ::.::;;:===
`~f"~--=--:::
`=.::::-:5F'~:~-=
`
`Y~'~!g'~l·,
`.-:.=\'lr.l.W..'W'-'Y
`-:r;:o.:.;:ro.ri'Y
`.:'.#~·~1'
`
`---- __ :;;r;r~:;;;:;
`
`Degree of
`relatedness of
`Mauldin to Egger,
`representing
`Mauldin, based on
`analysis of citations
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent Example: Searching
`
`"searching the objects in the database .... " ( cl. 26)
`
`"determines the degree of similarity between the retrieved textual objects and the
`selected textual object .... " (5: 33-35)
`
`"ranks the importance of each of the full textual objects in the pool" (21: 31-32)
`
`Ualetcl Slatft l'llldt '""'
`
`11·--~UIII
`:UI . . . ,._...,
`:UQ,M'I'
`______ ..!:L~-~~
`
`Uaikd S&a1ei Pokal t"'f
`~~-~
`
`• '352 Solution: Finds Mauldin
`
`• Prior Art: Does not find Mauldin
`
`_.._,. .. __
`l'"' -n--""-"1"£1
`s:a.=~~,;