`
`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: not yet assigned
`
`Inter Partes Review of:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`
`
`
`Petitioner:
`Inventors:
`Patent Title:
`
`Facebook, Inc.; LinkedIn Corp.; Twitter Inc.
`Daniel Egger; Shawn Cannon; Ronald D. Sauers
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INDEXING,
`SEARCHING AND DISPLAYING DATA
`May 17, 1996
`Patent Filing Date:
`
`November 3, 1998
`Patent Issue Date:
`Software Rights Archive, LLC
`Patent Assignee:
`Petition for Review Filed: July 29, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROGER THOMPSON, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`001
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................. 1
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT .............................................................................................. 3
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............................................................................................. 5
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN ANALYSIS ................................................................. 6
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................ 6
`B.
`Patent Claims in General ....................................................................................... 8
`C.
`Prior Art ................................................................................................................. 9
`D.
`Unpatentability ....................................................................................................... 9
`ʼ352 PATENT .................................................................................................................. 12
`A.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................................. 12
`B.
`State of the Art at the Time of the ʼ352 Patent Priority Date .............................. 14
`C.
`Prior Art ............................................................................................................... 17
`1.
`Thompson Discloses All Elements of Claims 26, 29, 30, 32, 34,
`and 39, and Thus Anticipates Those Claims ............................................ 17
`THE ʼ494 PATENT ......................................................................................................... 35
`A.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................................. 35
`B.
`State of the Art at the Time of the ʼ494 Patent .................................................... 36
`C.
`Prior Art ............................................................................................................... 36
`D.
`Thompson anticipate claims 18, 19, 20, 48, and 49 of the ʼ494 Patent ............... 36
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 43
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`002
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`
`
`I, Roger Thompson, Ph.D., hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1. My name is Roger H. Thompson. I live with my wife in Hilliard,
`
`Ohio. We have two children.
`
`2.
`
`In 1974, I earned my B.A. degree in Computer Science from the
`
`University of California at Berkeley.
`
`3.
`
`From 1974-1977, I attended a biblical leadership training program –
`
`The Way Corps, offered by The Way International.
`
`4.
`
`In 1979, I earned my M.S. in Computer Science from New Mexico
`
`State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
`
`5.
`
`From September 1979 through August 1980, and September 1981
`
`through December 1986, I attended University of Massachusetts Amherst working
`
`on my Ph.D. degree in Computer Science.
`
`6.
`
`From September 1980 through August 1981 I worked at Headquarters
`
`of "The Way International" doing data processing.
`
`7.
`
`From 1986 - December 1989 I worked for Hughes Aircraft in the
`
`Ground Systems Group in Fullerton, California.
`
`8.
`
`In 1989, I earned by Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from the
`
`University of Massachusetts Amherst. My specialty area was information
`
`retrieval.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`003
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`9. While in graduate school, I was a member of the special interest group
`
`
`
`of information retrieval and a member of the Association for Computing
`
`Machinery.
`
`10. From 1990 to the present I have worked at OCLC, Online Computer
`
`Library Center, Inc., Office of Research in Dublin, Ohio. OCLC is a nonprofit,
`
`membership, computer library service and research organization dedicated to the
`
`public purposes of furthering access to the worldʼs information and reducing
`
`information costs. My work focuses on knowledge organization. In this area, I
`
`work with OCLCʼs WorldCat database to discover relationships among various
`
`subject content descriptors such as classification numbers, controlled subject
`
`headings, and free text. Additionally, I explore the aggregation of bibliographic
`
`data into larger "works" using principles based on FRBR (Functional Requirements
`
`for Bibliographic Records).
`
`11. My curriculum vitae is attached hereto, including publications on
`
`information retrieval.
`
`12.
`
`I have been retained by Cooley LLP, counsel for Facebook, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) in connection with this matter.
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated at $200 an hour. My compensation is not
`
`dependent upon the outcome of the Petition for Inter Partes Review that I
`
`understand Petitionersʼ attorneys are filing along with this Declaration. Nor is my
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`004
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`compensation dependent upon the outcome of any related litigation proceedings,
`
`
`
`the opinions I express, or my testimony.
`
`14. Additional information may become available which would further
`
`support or modify the conclusions that I have reached to date. Accordingly, I
`
`reserve the right to modify and/or enlarge this opinion or the bases thereof upon
`
`consideration of any further discovery, testimony, or other evidence, including any
`
`issues raised by any expert or witness of the patentee, Software Rights Archive,
`
`LLC, or based upon interpretations of or conclusions about any claim term by the
`
`Patent Office different than those proposed in this declaration.
`
`II.
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT
`
`15.
`
`I have been asked to provide factual information regarding my prior
`
`work, including my work on my 1989 Ph.D. thesis. I have also been asked to
`
`opine on the validity of U.S. Patent No. 5,544,352 (the “ʼ352 Patent”) and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,832,494 (the “ʼ494 Patent”) (the “Egger Patents”).
`
`16.
`
`I have studied the ʼ352 Patent and the ʼ494 Patent (Ex. 1201), my
`
`observations follow.
`
`17. The ʼ352 Patent was filed June 14, 1993. It makes no claims of
`
`priority. It was issued on August 6, 1996, listing assignee Libertech, Inc. It was
`
`issued with 52 claims. I understand the ʼ352 Patent went through ex parte
`
`reexamination and the Ex Parte Reexamination certificate issued on September 20,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`005
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`2011. As part of the reexamination, the patentability of claims 26-42 and 44 was
`
`
`
`confirmed, claim 45 was cancelled, claims 53-61 were added and determined
`
`patentable, claims 1-25, 43, and 46-52 were not reexamined.
`
`18. The ʼ352 Patentʼs title is “Method And Apparatus For Indexing
`
`Searching and Displaying Data.” The field of invention is described as: “This
`
`invention pertains to computerized research tools. More particularly, it relates to
`
`computerized research on stored databases. Specifically, the invention indexes
`
`data, searches data, and graphically displays search results with a user interface.”
`
`(ʼ352 col. 1:7-11.)
`
`19. The ʼ494 Patent was filed May 17, 1996. It is a continuation-in-part of
`
`the application issued as the ʼ352 Patent. It was issued on Nov. 3, 1998, listing
`
`assignee Libertech, Inc. It was issued with 33 claims. I understand that the ʼ494
`
`Patent also went through ex parte reexamination and the Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`certificate issued on September 27, 2011. As part of the reexamination, the
`
`patentability of claims 1-3, 5, 7-16, and 18-21 was confirmed, claims 23-25 and
`
`31-33 were cancelled, claims 34-54 were added and determined patentable, and
`
`claims 4, 6, 17, 22, and 26-30 were not reexamined.
`
`20.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether the inventions recited in claims
`
`26, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 39 of the ʼ352 Patent and claims 18, 19, 20, 48, and 49 of
`
`the ʼ494 Patent are valid over my Ph. D. Thesis entitled “The Design and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`006
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`Implementation of an Intelligent Interface for Information Retrieval” which was
`
`
`
`published in 1989 (referred to herein as Thompson) (Ex. 1214) and in view of what
`
`was known at the time of the alleged inventions. I have been asked to assume that
`
`all of these claims have an effective filing date of June 14, 1993.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`21. Based upon my investigation and analysis, and for the reasons set forth
`
`below, it is my opinion that all of the elements recited in claims 26, 29, 30, 32, 34
`
`and 39 of the ʼ352 Patent were disclosed in Thompson and/or are inherent features
`
`that are necessarily present in Thompson and that those claims are anticipated by
`
`and/or rendered obvious in view of Thompson and in view of what was known in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`22. Based upon my investigation and analysis, and for the reasons set forth
`
`below, it is my opinion that all of the elements recited in claims 18, 19, 20, 48, and
`
`49 of the ʼ494 Patent were disclosed in Thompson and/or are inherent features that
`
`are necessarily present in Thompson and that those claims are anticipated by
`
`and/or rendered obvious in view of Thompson and in view of what was known in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`007
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`23.
`
`I am not a patent attorney nor have I independently researched the law
`
`on patent validity. I have been informed regarding legal principles to use in
`
`forming my opinions set forth in this report.
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`24.
`
`I understand that my assessment and determination of the meaning and
`
`validity of the claims of the Egger Patents must be undertaken from the perspective
`
`of what would have been known or understood by someone of ordinary skill in the
`
`art as of the earliest claimed priority date of the patent claim. From analyzing the
`
`Egger Patents and the relevant prior art, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art for the Egger Patents would have at least a Bachelor’s
`
`degree in Computer Science (or an overlapping field), at least one graduate level
`
`course in Information Retrieval, and 2-3 years of experience, emphasizing the
`
`development of document retrieval systems that index, search, and display data for
`
`the purposes of computer research, or equivalent education and/or experience. An
`
`individual with additional education or commercial experience could also be one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art for the Egger Patents if that additional experience
`
`compensated for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated
`
`above. Unless otherwise specified, when I state that something would be known to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`008
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`or understood by one skilled in the art or possessing ordinary skill in the art, I am
`
`
`
`referring to someone with this level of knowledge and understanding.
`
`25. A person of ordinary skill in the art of document retrieval systems
`
`would have looked to various sources of available information in order to address
`
`the same problem that the ʼ352 Patent purports to address—improving data
`
`retrieval in computerized research by improving upon methods of searching for
`
`data and by implementing a user interface that significantly enhances the
`
`presentation of data, and simplifying research that reduces the amount of human
`
`time that must be allocated to the research. Much of the specification of the ʼ352
`
`Patent is spent disparaging Boolean searching techniques. This problem, along
`
`with solutions to that problem, can be found in numerous examples including
`
`literature describing presentation and proposal systems (for example, Thompson,
`
`which is discussed in this declaration and the accompanying petition), textbooks,
`
`patents, trade journals, proceedings of seminars and conferences, and literature
`
`from trade shows.
`
`26. With my experience in the field of information retrieval prior to and at
`
`the date of the alleged invention, I am well acquainted with the level of ordinary
`
`skill described above. Therefore, my analysis and opinions regarding the claims
`
`26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 39 will be offered from this perspective.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`009
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Claims in General
`
`27.
`
`I understand that patent claims are the numbered sentences at the end
`
`of each patent. The claims are important because it is the words of the claims that
`
`define what a patent covers. The figures and text in the rest of the patent provide a
`
`description and/or examples and context for and help explain the scope of the
`
`claims, but it is the claims that define the breadth of the patentʼs coverage.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that an “independent claim” expressly sets forth all of the
`
`requirements that must be met in order for something to be covered by that claim. I
`
`understand that a “dependent claim” does not itself recite all of the requirements of
`
`the claim but refers to another claim for some of its requirements. In this way, the
`
`claim “depends” on another claim. A dependent claim incorporates all of the
`
`requirements of the claim(s) to which it refers. The dependent claim then adds its
`
`own additional requirements. To determine what a dependent claim requires, it is
`
`necessary to look at the recitations of the dependent claim and any other claim(s)
`
`on which it depends.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that patent claims may be expressed as “methods” or
`
`“apparatuses/devices/systems.” That is, I understand that a patent may claim the
`
`steps of a “method,” such as a particular way to perform a process in a series of
`
`ordered steps, or may claim a combination of various elements in an “apparatus,”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`010
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`“device,” or “system.” I understand that all of the claims addressed herein are
`
`
`
`method claims.
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the law provides categories of information that
`
`constitute prior art that may be used to anticipate or render obvious patent claims.
`
`To be prior art to a particular patent, a reference must have been made, known,
`
`used, published, or patented, or be the subject of a patent application by another,
`
`before the priority date of the patent. I also understand that the person of ordinary
`
`skill is presumed to have knowledge of all prior art.
`
`D. Unpatentability
`
`Anticipation
`
`1.
`I understand that a claim is not patentable when a single prior art
`
`31.
`
`reference that existed prior to the claimʼs priority date describes every element of
`
`the claim, either explicitly or inherently to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`understand that this is referred to as “anticipation.” I further understand that to
`
`anticipate a patent claim, the prior art does not have to use the same words as the
`
`claim, but it must describe the requirements of the claim with sufficient clarity to
`
`establish that the subject matter existed and that its existence was recognized by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the technology of the invention, so that looking
`
`at that one reference, that person could make and use the claimed invention. In
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`011
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`addition, I am informed and understand that, in order to establish that an element
`
`
`
`of a claim is “inherent” in the disclosure of a prior art, it must be clear to one
`
`skilled in the art that the missing element is the inevitable outcome of the process
`
`and/or thing that is explicitly described in the prior art, and that it would be
`
`recognized as necessarily present by a person of ordinary skill in the art. I also
`
`understand that if a reference relied on expressly anticipates all of the elements of
`
`the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Even if a reference
`
`discloses an inoperative device, it is still prior art for all that it discloses (and
`
`teaches).
`
`2. Obviousness
`I understand that, even if every element of a claim is not found
`
`32.
`
`explicitly or implicitly in a single prior art reference, the claim may still be
`
`unpatentable if the differences between the claimed elements and the prior art are
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the invention
`
`may be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when seen in light of
`
`one or more prior art references. I understand that this is often referred to as
`
`“obviousness.” In other words, a patent is obvious when it is only a combination of
`
`old and known elements, with no change in their respective functions, and that
`
`these familiar elements are combined according to known methods to obtain
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`012
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`predictable results. I understand that the following four factors are considered
`
`
`
`when determining whether a patent claim is obvious: (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claim; (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations tending to prove
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness. I understand that the courts have established a
`
`collection of secondary factors of nonobviousness, which include unexpected,
`
`surprising, or unusual results; nonanalogous art; teachings away from the
`
`invention; substantially superior results; synergistic results; long-standing need;
`
`commercial success; and copying by others. I further understand that there must be
`
`a connection between these secondary factors and the scope of the claim language.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that other rationales to support a conclusion of
`
`obviousness may be relied upon. For instance, I understand that common sense
`
`(where substantiated) may be a reason to combine or modify prior art to achieve
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`Anticipation/Obviousness Determination
`
`3.
`I understand that a determination of whether the claims of a patent are
`
`34.
`
`anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art is a two-step analysis: (1) determining
`
`the meaning and scope of the claims, and (2) comparing the properly construed
`
`claims to the prior art. I have endeavored to undertake this process herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`013
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`V.
`
`ʼ352 PATENT
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that the ʼ352 Patent was the subject of previous litigation
`
`in the Northern District of California between Software Rights Archives and
`
`Google and other defendants. I understand that in that case the parties fully briefed
`
`and argued claim constructions for several terms in the ʼ352 Patent.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the District Court in the previous litigation construed
`
`certain claim limitations as follows, and my analysis applies the constructions from
`
`the Order:
`
`CLAIM LANGUAGE
`“a non-semantical
`method”
`
`“A . . . method for
`numerically
`representing
`objects in a
`computer database
`and for
`computerized
`searching of
`numerically
`represented objects
`in the computer
`database”
`“generating a
`second numerical
`representation of
`each object based
`on the analysis of
`the first numerical
`
`
`
`
`
`COURTʼS CONSTRUCTION
`A method of analysis that is based on direct relationships
`between textual objects and that otherwise does not account
`for phrases and words in a textual object
`A . . . method for numerically representing a set of objects in
`a computer database and for computerized searching of the
`set of numerically represented objects in the computer
`database.
`
`generating a second numerical representation of each
`identified object within the set of numerically represented
`objects based on the analysis of the first numerical
`representations
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`014
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`
`representation”
`“identified object” an object identified by a search using a computer and the
`second numerical representation
`using the first numerical representation to at least locate and
`identify the indirect relationships
`
`“analyzing the first
`numerical
`representation for
`indirect
`relationships”
`
`
`37.
`
`I have also reviewed the claim constructions agreed to by the parties in
`
`the previous litigation, and my analysis applies these constructions.
`
`
`38. Otherwise, I have been instructed to interpret the claim language with
`
`the ordinary meaning that would be understood by the person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention, consistent with the patent specification. My
`
`opinions herein regarding the prior art disclosing the claim limitations also apply
`
`fully if broader claim constructions are applied. I understand that Petitioners have
`
`provided the following chart further addresses certain claim limitations and
`
`specification passages relevant to the claims considered herein.
`
`CLAIM LANGUAGE
`Patterns indicating
`indirect
`relationships
`
`ʼ352 PATENT
`The specification describes “patterns” such as “A cites C,
`and B cites C” (known in the art as bibliographic coupling),
`“A cites both B and C” (co-citation coupling), and “A cites
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`015
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`
`
`(claims 29, 30)
`
`Weighing indirect
`relationships (claim
`32)
`Pool-similarity and
`pool-importance
`searching (claim 39)
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`B, and B cites C” (path length or directed walk). See ʼ352
`col. 12:32-61; Fig. 6 (patterns 2-4).
`The specification describes “weighing” indirect relationship
`patterns based on objectsʼ “importance” and other factors.
`ʼ352 col. 13:34-47, 15:59-65.
`I am informed that the Patent Owner previously interpreted
`the recited “pool-importance searching” to mean “searching
`objects to identify a pool of important textual objects from
`the selected pool by ranking the relative importance of the
`objects in the selected pool,” and “pool-similarity
`searching” to mean “searching objects to identify a pool of
`similar textual objects to the selected pool by ranking the
`relative similarity of objects in the marked pool.”
`
`The specification describes that in “pool” searching, the
`end-user (researcher) selects a group of documents, then the
`system evaluates the similarity or importance of objects in
`the pool. See ʼ352 Figs. 4F (pool-similarity), 4H (pool-
`importance), 4I, 5A, step 428 in each figure (end user
`selects); col. 5:38-50, 20:54-21:5, 21:20-30.
`
`
`State of the Art at the Time of the ʼ352 Patent Priority Date
`
`B.
`
`39. By June 14, 1993, the ʼ352 Patentʼs earliest priority date, there were
`
`many achievements that I am quite familiar with, in a variety of areas of
`
`information processing and retrieval, that together characterize the state of the art
`
`related to the ʼ352 Patent.
`
`40.
`
`Information Retrieval was a well-established field of study for decades
`
`prior to the filing of the ʼ352 Patent. My thesis advisor, Bruce Croft, wrote
`
`pioneering articles in the field of automatic indexing and information retrieval
`
`systems going back to the early 1970s. His thesis advisor, Keith Van Rijsbergen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`016
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`was also in the field of automatic indexing and information retrieval systems going
`
`
`
`back to the early 1970s. Computerized systems for handling documents were well
`
`established by the 1970s. These earlier systems were largely based on Boolean
`
`logic which required the use of AND, OR, and NOT query language to search and
`
`retrieve documents. The shortcomings of Boolean logic were recognized in the
`
`1980s.
`
`41. By 1980, automatic indexing techniques were available to take text of
`
`a document, and remove stopwords, and assign term numbers along with their
`
`frequency in a document to index documents. The document databases consistent
`
`of all representations of documents, and most systems used an inverted file for
`
`each term and the document in which the term occurs. Reducing documents to
`
`term numbers significant increased the efficiency of searching. Also by the 1980s,
`
`clustering of terms in the database based on relatedness or frequency of occurrence
`
`was well recognized as a basis to expand queries by adding terms closely related to
`
`the terms that the user provides. The clusters were organized prior to search for
`
`the entire collection.
`
`42. Other pioneers in information retrieval, e.g., Gerald Salton and Edward
`
`Fox, began to use the idea of using the indirect relationships of “bibliographic
`
`coupling” and “co-citation” relationships to measure document similarity by early
`
`1980. My own work built on these contributions, as well as many others.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`017
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`43. By the early 1980s, it was known in the art that indirect citation
`
`
`
`relationships provided information as to whether two documents were related. One
`
`such pattern is known as bibliographic coupling. Bibliographic coupling is based
`
`on the overlap of two documentsʼ reference lists. Below is a diagram from
`
`Thompson graphically depicting the exemplary bibliographic pattern, where both
`
`“DI” and “D2” cite “Many Docs.”1
`
`
`
`
`44. Bibliographic coupling relationships corresponds to the “empirical
`
`pattern” identified as #2 in Fig. 6, reproduced below, of the ʼ352 Patent and recited
`
`in dependent claim 30 – “A cites c, and B cites c”:
`
`
`
`
`1 Note, that the arrows should be pointing from “Many Docs” to “D3” and “D5” to
`represent a co-citation relationship. This is an error in the diagram.
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`018
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`45. Another well-known pattern is co-citation. This pattern is based on the
`
`
`
`number of times that two documents appear together in reference lists of other
`
`documents. As seen in Figure 4.11, reproduced above, documents “D3” and “D5”
`
`are both cited by “Many Docs”. Co-citation relationships corresponds to the
`
`“empirical pattern” identified as #3 in Fig. 6 of the ʼ352 Patent:
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art
`
`
`
`46.
`
`I understand that inter partes review of the ʼ352 Patent has been
`
`requested, in view of various references, including my thesis, Thompson. It is my
`
`opinion that Thompson discloses all of the claim limitations of 26, 29, 30, 32, 34
`
`and 39 of the ʼ352 Patent.
`
`1.
`
`Thompson Discloses All Elements of Claims 26, 29, 30, 32,
`34, and 39, and Thus Anticipates Those Claims
`
`47.
`
`In my opinion, claims 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 39 of the ʼ352 Patent are
`
`disclosed by Thompson as explained below. These claims are also obvious in view
`
`of Thompson.
`
`48. Thompson discloses the design and implementation of a computerized
`
`information retrieval system entitled “Intelligent Interface for Information
`
`Retrieval” (“I3R”) developed by me. See Abstract at p. vi; Chapter 4 at p. 75
`
`(“Design and Implementation”). Like the ʼ352 Patent, Thompsonʼs methods
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`019
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`disclose indexing, the use of non-semantic bibliographic relationships, and
`
`
`
`searching and retrieval objects in a database.
`
`49. As fully disclosed below, Thompson discloses all the features
`
`disclosed in the preamble: a non-semantical method (e.g., citations) for
`
`numerically representing (document numbers) objects (e.g., full text documents,
`
`textual objects) in a computer database (database with long term memory) for
`
`computerized searching (e.g. document retrieval and browsing) of
`
`the
`
`numerically represented objects in the database, wherein direct and indirect
`
`relationships (direct and indirect citation relationships) exist between objects in
`
`the database.
`
`50. Thompson discloses objects (e.g., full text documents, textual objects)
`
`in the database (database with long term memory). Thompson discloses that the
`
`I3R System consists of a “long term memory” that “is composed of three major
`
`parts, the document collection, the global domain knowledge and the user
`
`histories.” Id. at 86. The document collection database is relevant here.
`
`51. The document collection system is organized into three levels – the
`
`concept level, the document level, and journal issue level:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`020
`
`Facebook Ex. 1219
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Roger Thompson, Ph.D.
`
`
`52. Within the document level, “document representations”, “citation
`
`links”, and the “full text of document a well as the date” are stored as separate files
`
`using “VAX/RMS” file structures. Id. at 97-98. These files are pre-computed and
`
`stored prior to searching. The search program accesses these files directly. Id. at
`
`98. Thompson discloses that the documents “are kept in a document hash table,
`
`which is keyed by document number.” Id. at 123.
`
`53. Thompson discloses numerically representing documents in the
`
`database by marking them with document identification numbers so the documents
`
`can be individually identified by a computerized search. Thompson refers to these
`
`as “document numbers”. Thompson discloses that the documents “are kept in a
`
`document hash table, which is keyed by document number.” Id. at 123; see also,
`
`