Attorney Docket No. 309101-2031
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`Declaration of Edward A. Fox Ph.D.
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.:
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`Inter Partes Review of:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`
`
`
`Petitioner:
`Inventors:
`Patent Title:
`
`Patent Filing Date:
`Patent Issue Date:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc.; LinkedIn Corp.; and Twitter, Inc.
`Daniel Egger
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INDEXING,
`SEARCHING AND DISPLAYING DATA
`May 17, 1996
`November 3,
`1998
`Software Rights Archive, LLC
`Patent Assignee:
`Petition for Review Filed: July 29, 2013
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF EDWARD A. FOX, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`001
`
`

`

`
`
`Summary ............................................................................................................ 8 
`I. 
`II.  Claim by Claim Reply ..................................................................................... 10 
`A.  Reply to Dr. Jacobs’ Opinions in the ‘478 Petition Relating to the ‘352
`Patent .................................................................................................................... 10 
`1.  The Fox Papers Disclose and Render Obvious Claim 26 ........................ 10 
`a.  Fox Papers disclose “a method of numerically representing objects in a
`computer database and for computerized searching of the numerically
`represented objects in the database, wherein direct and indirect
`relationships exist between objects in the database” ................................... 10 
`(1)  Claim 26 does not claim a fully computerized method. ................. 10 
`(2)  The Fox Papers disclose a database and the first numerical
`representations are stored as part of the SMART system in the database
`
`13 
`(3)  Dr. Jacobs misinterprets my opinion regarding the INGRES
`database .................................................................................................... 27 
`b.  Fox Papers disclose “marking objects in the database so that each
`marked object may be individually identified by a computerized search” . 44 
`c.  Fox Papers disclose creating a first numerical representation based
`upon the object's direct relationship with other objects in the database ...... 46 
`d.  Fox Papers disclose “storing the first numerical representations for use
`in computerized searching”.......................................................................... 48 
`e.  Fox Papers disclose the steps of generating and storing second
`numerical representations based on analyzing the first numerical
`representation of claim 26. ........................................................................... 49 
`f.  Fox Papers disclose “searching the objects in the database using a
`computer and the stored second numerical representations, wherein the
`search identifies one or more of the objects in the database” ...................... 49 
`2.  Fox Papers meet the claim limitations of claim 28 of the ‘352 Patent –
`478 Petition ...................................................................................................... 56 
`a.  Fox Papers disclose the first and second numerical representations are
`vectors that are arranged in first and second matrices ................................. 56 
`3.  Claims 29 and 30 of the ‘352 patent – Petition 478 ................................ 57 
`a.  Fox Papers disclose examining for the direct relationship B cites A. .. 57 
`4.  Claim 32 of the ‘352 patent – Petition 478 .............................................. 58 
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`002
`
`

`

`a.  Fox Papers disclose that some indirect relationships are weighted more
`heavily than other indirect relationships. ..................................................... 58 
`5.  Claim 34 – marking subsets of objects with relationships ...................... 60 
`a.  Fox Papers disclose marking subsets of objects ................................... 61 
`b.  Fox Papers disclose and teach “relationships exist between or among
`subsets of objects in the database” ............................................................... 62 
`6.  Fox Papers disclose claim 39 pool similarity and pool searching features
`
`64 
`B.  Reply to Dr. Jacobs’ Opinions regarding the Tapper Papers and the ‘352
`Patent – Case No. 2013-00478. ............................................................................ 66 
`1.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious the claimed “database”
`features in claim 26 and dependent claims. ..................................................... 66 
`2.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious “creating a first
`numerical representation . . . based on the object’s direct relationship with
`other objects in the database.” ......................................................................... 71 
`a.  The Tapper Papers disclose numerically represented database objects,
`and it would have been obvious to use database object numbers as citations.
`
`72 
`b.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious creating citation
`vectors that are numerical representations. .................................................. 77 
`c.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious numerical values based
`on direct relationships between database objects. ....................................... 79 
`3.  The Tapper Papers disclose that citation vectors and numeric weights are
`“based on the object’s direct relationship with other objects in the database” –
`Dr. Jacobs mischaracterizes the Tapper 1982 empirical work. ....................... 81 
`a.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious “analyzing the first
`numerical representations for indirect relationships existing between or
`among objects in the database.” ................................................................... 87 
`(1)  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious analyzing the
`numeric representation of first generation citations for “second
`generation citation” relationships. ........................................................... 87 
`(2)  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious analyzing citation
`vectors and numeric values for indirect relationships through correlation
`analysis. .................................................................................................... 92 
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`003
`
`

`

`4.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious that the analyzing steps
`disclose “generating” second numerical representations in (1) second-
`generation citation vectors, (2) correlation values, and (3) similarity matrices.
`
`99 
`5.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious the “storing” step. .....100 
`6.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious claim 28. ....................104 
`b.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious claim 30. .................116 
`c.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious claim 32. .................117 
`d.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious claim 34. .................123 
`e.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious claim 39. .................128 
`C.  Reply to Dr. Jacobs’ Opinions Regarding the Fox Papers in the -479
`Petition – ‘494 Patent Claims 18-20, 48, 49, 45, 51, and 54 .............................131 
`1.  The Fox Papers render obvious claim 18. .............................................131 
`a.  Fox Papers disclose and render obvious “[a] method of analyzing a
`database having objects and a first numerical representation of direct
`relationships in the database ......................................................................131 
`(2)  Fox Papers disclose a first numerical representation of direct
`relationships in the database ..................................................................131 
`(3)  Fox Papers disclose a database .....................................................137 
`b.  Fox Papers disclose generating second numerical representation using
`the first numerical representation, wherein the second numerical
`representation accounts for indirect relationships in the database ............138 
`c.  Fox Papers disclose storing the second numerical representation. .....139 
`d.  Fox Papers disclose and render obvious the steps of identifying and
`displaying in claim 18 ................................................................................140 
`2.  The Fox Papers render obvious claim 19. .............................................144 
`3.  The Fox Papers render obvious claim 20 ..............................................150 
`4.  The Fox Papers render obvious claim 48. .............................................151 
`5.  The Fox Papers render obvious claim 49. .............................................154 
`D.  Reply to Dr. Jacobs’ Opinions Regarding the Tapper Papers in the -479
`Case – ‘494 Patent Claims 18-20, 48, 49 ...........................................................155 
`2.  The Tapper Papers disclose and render obvious the claimed “database”
`features in claim 18 and dependent claims. ...................................................156 
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`004
`
`

`

`3.  The Tapper Papers render obvious claim 18. ........................................156 
`4.  The Tapper Papers render obvious claim 19. ........................................159 
`5.  The Tapper Papers render obvious claim 20 .........................................160 
`6.  The Tapper Papers render obvious claim 48. ........................................164 
`7.  The Tapper Papers render obvious claim 49. ........................................166 
`E.  Reply to Dr. Jacobs’ Opinions in -480 Case Relating to Claims 1, 5, and
`14-16 of the ‘494 Patent .....................................................................................169 
`1.  The Board did not err in construing “indirect relationships in a database.”
`
`169 
`2.  Claim 1 is anticipated by Fox SMART. ................................................170 
`a.  Fox SMART discloses “analysis of one or more indirect relationships
`in [a] database.”..........................................................................................170 
`b.  Fox SMART discloses “selecting a node for analysis.” .....................171 
`c.  Fox SMART discloses “generating candidate cluster links for the
`selected node” by analyzing “indirect relationships in the database.” ......172 
`d.  Fox SMART discloses “deriving actual cluster links from the candidate
`cluster links.” .............................................................................................174 
`e.  Fox SMART discloses “identifying one or more nodes for display” and
`“displaying the identity of one or more nodes using the actual cluster
`links.” .........................................................................................................175 
`f.  Fox SMART discloses the steps of claim 1 as arranged in the claim.176 
`3.  Claim 5 is anticipated by Fox SMART .................................................176 
`a.  Fox SMART discloses “eliminating candidate cluster links” by
`choosing the closest links...........................................................................176 
`4.  Claim 14 is anticipated by Fox Thesis. ..................................................177 
`a.  Fox Thesis discloses “initializing a set of candidate cluster links.” ...177 
`b.  Fox Thesis discloses “selecting the destination node of a path as the
`selected node to analyze.” ..........................................................................178 
`c.  Fox Thesis discloses “retrieving the set of direct links from the selected
`node to any other node in the database.” ...................................................179 
`d.  Fox Thesis discloses “determining the weight of the path using the
`retrieved direct links.” ................................................................................180 
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`005
`
`

`

`
`
`e.  Fox Thesis discloses “repeating” steps b through d above “for each
`path.” ..........................................................................................................180 
`f.  Fox Thesis discloses “storing the determined weights as candidate
`cluster links.” .............................................................................................181 
`5.  Claim 15 is anticipated by Fox Thesis. ..................................................181 
`a.  Fox Thesis discloses “deriving the actual cluster links wherein the
`actual cluster links are a subset of the candidate cluster links.” ................181 
`6.  Claim 16 is anticipated by Fox Thesis. ..................................................182 
`a.  Fox Thesis discloses further “choosing the top rated candidate cluster
`links.” .........................................................................................................182 
`F.  Reply to Dr. Jacobs’ Opinions in Petition 481 Relating to the ’571
`Patent .................................................................................................................183 
`1.  Claim 12 is obvious in light of the Fox Papers. .................................183 
`a.  The “identifying” limitation is obvious in light of the Fox Papers.
`
`183 
`b.  The “analyzing” limitation is obvious in light of the Fox Papers. 185 
`c.  The Fox Papers disclose the “displaying” limitation. ....................188 
`2.  Claim 21 is obvious in light of the Fox Papers. .................................189 
`a.  The Fox Papers disclose the “identifying” element. ......................189 
`b.  The Fox Papers disclose the “determining” limitation. ................189 
`c.  Applying my search methods to hyperjump data was obvious. ...193 
`3.  Claim 22 is obvious in light of the Fox Papers. .................................194 
`a.  The Fox Papers disclose “proximity indexing.” .............................194 
`b.  The Fox Papers disclose “displaying one or more determined
`hyperjump data.” .....................................................................................194 
`c.  Fox Envision teaches “generating a source map” and “activating a
`link represented on the source map.” ....................................................195 
`Responses to Dr. Jacobs’ Non-Obviousness Arguments ...........................196 
`III. 
`It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the Fox Papers
`A. 
`with an electronic database containing full textual objects ...............................198 
`1.  PO admits that full-textual databases containing objects with citations
`was known in the art. .....................................................................................198 
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`006
`
`

`

`2.  Fox Papers motivate and teach combining their teachings with a full-
`textual database ..............................................................................................200 
`3. 
`Indexing Steps of Fox Papers compatible with full-text databases .......202 
`B. 
`It would have been obvious to add textual bibliographic information to the
`CACM files. .......................................................................................................204 
`1.  Dr. Jacobs’ opinions attempting to overcome the Fox Papers’ express
`motivations to combine with full-text databases are incorrrect; the Fox Papers
`are combinable and extendable to other collections and databases ...............210 
`a.  The Fox Papers are Combinable .........................................................210 
`b.  Fox Papers do not “incorrectly rel[y]” on “specialized manual data
`preparation steps” .......................................................................................212 
`c.  Fox Papers teach generating the bibliographic subvectors from a
`numerical representation. ...........................................................................213 
`d.  Fox Papers rely on compatible features for the first numerical
`representation. ............................................................................................215 
`2.  Fox Papers’ experiments involve searches and are extendable to other
`collections ......................................................................................................222 
`3.  Fox Papers’ regression analysis is a search method. .............................231 
`C. 
`It was known in the field of information retrieval to numerically represent
`documents using non-semantic and indirect relationships for the purposes of
`search. .................................................................................................................236 
`1.  Dr. Jacobs’ book on text-based intelligent systems teaches using non-
`semantic, indirect relationships for search. ....................................................237 
`2.  Numerically representing direct and indirect relationships between
`objects was known in the art. .........................................................................244 
`D.  Automated indexing and hypertext was known in the art of information
`retrieval. .............................................................................................................250 
`E.  Analyzing direct and indirect relationships using hyperlinks and web-based
`links was obvious at the time of the invention...................................................254 
`F.  Dr. Jacobs’ “Additional Reply and Explanation” mischaracterizes the Fox
`Papers .................................................................................................................259 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`007
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY
`(a)
`
`Declaration of Edward A. Fox
`
`
`
`I have reviewed the Patent Owners Responses and Dr. Jacobs’
`
`declarations filed in Case IPR2013-00478 Patent 5,544,352 (“478 Petition), Case
`
`IPR2013-00479 Patent 5,832,494 (“479 Petition”), Case IPR2013-00480 Patent
`
`5,832,494 (“480 Petition”), and Case IPR2013-00481 Patent 6,233,571 (“571
`
`Petition”).
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I attended the deposition of Dr. Jacobs, and studied his statements.
`
`First, I provide an element-by-element analysis of each claim in view
`
`of the Fox Papers, responding to Dr. Jacobs’ opinions on an element-by-element
`
`basis. In this section, I also address Dr. Jacobs’ statements on what one skilled in
`
`the art would have known in relation to other prior art submitted by Petitioners. I
`
`also respond to certain of Dr. Jacobs’ claim constructions in the context of claim
`
`analysis.
`
`3.
`
`Second, Dr. Jacobs disputes the Board’s finding that the Fox Papers
`
`are combinable, and he does not read the papers (or even the teachings of each
`
`paper), in view of each other in rendering his opinions. As a result, Dr. Jacobs’
`
`opinions are based on isolated portions of the Fox Papers, ignore other portions,
`
`and misconstrue the papers as incompatible. I respond to the combination of the
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`008
`
`

`

`
`
`Fox Papers and teachings below.
`
`4.
`
`I also respond to Dr. Jacobs’ opinions rebutting my opinions on
`
`obvious combinations relating to i) searchable full-text databases are obvious to
`
`combine with the prior art submitted in the petitions, and ii) adding additional
`
`bibliographic fields in the CACM files was obvious.
`
`5.
`
`I also respond to various of Dr. Jacobs’ opinions which concern
`
`novelty and obviousness. Many of these statements are irrelevant or orthogonal to
`
`the issues. They also misconstrue the state of the art relating to information
`
`retrieval and hypertext at the time of the alleged inventions. My aim is to help
`
`identify some of the red herrings that might distract from a claim-by-claim analysis
`
`of the prior art submitted in the Petitions.
`
`6.
`
`Finally, I explain more clearly that the ISI Collection was mentioned
`
`in my declaration to emphasize 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. The CACM Collection, which includes
`
`semantic content, as well as non-semantic direct and indirect relationship data,
`
`suffices to address all the claim elements. 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.
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`009
`
`

`

`
`
`II. CLAIM BY CLAIM REPLY
`A. Reply to Dr. Jacobs’ Opinions in the ‘478 Petition Relating to the
`‘352 Patent
`1.
`
`The Fox Papers Disclose and Render Obvious Claim 26
`a.
`
`Fox Papers disclose “a method of numerically
`representing objects in a computer database and for
`computerized
`searching
`of
`the
`numerically
`represented objects in the database, wherein direct
`and indirect relationships exist between objects in the
`database”
`(1) Claim 26 does not claim a fully computerized
`method.
`
`7.
`
`Dr. Jacobs apparently opines that all of the elements of the claimed
`
`method of ‘352 patent claim 26 must be entirely computerized when in fact they do
`
`not. See Declaration of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`
`the 478 Petition, Ex. 2113 (“Jacobs Decl. 478”) - ¶16, 34, 74, 76 (“Thus, the
`
`specification clearly discloses a computerized method that analyzes an existing
`
`database that contains objects with relationships to other objects in the database, as
`
`claimed.”), ¶78, ¶130; see also Jacobs 479-¶¶16, 17, 27, 73, 84, 111. At deposition,
`
`Dr. Jacobs clarified “the fact that a step is automatic and done by a computer does
`
`not mean that a human cannot also do something related to this step.” (emphasis
`
`added). Specifically relating to the creating step, Dr. Jacobs testified “[b]ut what I
`
`said with respect to the claims is that the – the creating step has to be performed by
`
`a computer. That’s not in opposition to having humans contribute.” Id. at 97:11-12.
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`010
`
`

`

`
`
`I disagree that the ‘352 patent claims an automated, computerized method for each
`
`step claimed in claim 26 of the ‘352 patent.
`
`8.
`
`First, the plain claim language does not require all the claimed steps
`
`of claim 26 to be computerized. Claim 26, for example, does not claim a
`
`“computerized” method – it only claims a “method”:
`
`“A non-semantical method for numerically representing
`
`objects in a computer database and for computerized
`
`searching of the numerically represented objects in the
`
`database, wherein direct and indirect relationships exist
`
`between objects in the database…
`
`352 Patent, preamble, col. 35:28-32. As such, the word “computerized” does not
`
`modify “method”.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 26 expressly provides which claim steps are computerized, i.e.,
`
`those discussing searching:
`
`marking objects in the database so that each marked
`
`object may be individually identified by a computerized
`
`search;
`
` 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;
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`011
`
`

`

`
`
` storing the first numerical representations for use in
`
`computerized searching;
`
` 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;
`
` storing the second numerical representation for use in
`
`computerized searching; and
`
` searching the objects in the database using a computer
`
`and the stored second numerical representations, wherein
`
`the search identifies one or more of the objects in the
`
`database.
`
`‘352 patent, cl. 26, emphasis added.col. 35:33-54. Accordingly, the plain claim
`
`language specifies to a person of ordinary skill in the art which steps are
`
`computerized.
`
`10. The steps of “creating” and “analyzing”, for example, do not recite
`
`that a computer must perform the recited step. As a result, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand that these steps may be performed by a human or
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`012
`
`

`

`
`
`by a computer or some combination. The claim language does not require or
`
`exclude human or computer involvement in performing these steps.
`
`(2) The Fox Papers disclose a database and the first
`numerical representations are stored as part of
`the SMART system in the database
`
`
`(a) Dr. Jacobs applies an unduly narrow
`construction of database
`
`11.
`
` Throughout his declaration, Dr. Jacobs opines the prior art does not
`
`contain a “database” because the ‘352 patent claim 26 and (‘494 patent claim 18)
`
`(and their dependent claims) requires a database that contains numerous limitations
`
`found in the claims. At deposition, Dr. Jacobs refused to opine on the definition for
`
`“database” without reading in other limitations from the claim.
`
` in the context of this claim, I understand a
`
`computer database to be an organized collection of
`
`electronic documents, with the additional
`
`stipulation that the database is referred to in many
`
`additional steps of the claim, which might narrow
`
`the term as used in that claim (Jacobs Tr. 12:9-14)
`
`(emphasis added);
`
` So I can’t give you an opinion on objects in a
`
`computer database with respect to this claim that
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`013
`
`

`

`
`
`does not consider the other mentions of objects in
`
`a computer database in the claim, which includes
`
`the numerical representations (Jacobs Tr. 25:23-
`
`26:3) (emphasis added);
`
` There are numerous requirements of the computer
`
`database, as used in the claims. (Jacobs Tr. 39:24-
`
`40:1) (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, Dr. Jacobs testified that “database” must be construed to contain
`
`direct relationships that are numerically represented, citations, analyzing of the
`
`objects in the database, and computerized searching. Id.
`
`12. Similarly, in his declarations, Dr. Jacobs opined that “database”
`
`includes “marking objects in the database”, “searching the objects in the database”,
`
`“direct relationships, first numerical representations for objects, or objects with
`
`relationships to other objects.” Jacobs 478- ¶¶, 143 fn.16 (“I do not believe that
`
`“the database” as used in the claims, could reasonably be interpreted to mean
`
`anything other than the contents of the database (i.e., the database of numerically
`
`represented objects) as stored in a computer”), id. at 261-279; see also, e.g.,
`
`Declaration of Paul S. Jacobs in Support of Patent Owner Response Jacobs to 479
`
`Petition (“Jacobs Decl. 479”) - ¶¶90, 86-97, 98 fn. 12, 207-225.
`
`13. After spending seven years analyzing the patents at issue in the
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`014
`
`

`

`
`
`petitions, Dr. Jacobs declined to opine on whether the prior art Lexis or Westlaw
`
`legal databases, which are discussed in the Background of the patents and also
`
`discussed in the Tapper Papers, disclose databases of objects:
`
`Q: So prior to 1992, West Law provided databases that
`
`contained legal cases, and those cases were objects inside
`
`of the databases, correct?
`
`A. Again, I can’t really tell you about the objects part.
`
`Because, you – you know—the – the – although I worked
`
`with Lexis -- and West law for periods, it was after they
`
`were – actually, played their hands really close to the
`
`chest in terms of the technology behind all of the
`
`improvements. And I really can’t tell you prior to 1992,
`
`whether those cases would have been viewed as – as
`
`objects, necessarily, or not.
`
`Jacobs Tr. 381:20-387:19 (emphasis added). While Dr. Jacobs did not have an
`
`opinion on whether Lexis and Westlaw were databases containing objects, the ‘352
`
`patent (and the ‘494 and ‘571 patents) refer to Lexis and Westlaw as databases
`
`with textual objects:
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`015
`
`

`

`
`
`Legal research searches on systems like Westlaw™ and
`
`Lexis™ only use a series of interrelated Boolean searches
`
`of actual text to retrieve textual objects from databases.
`
`352 patent, col. 4:46-48; see also 494 patent col. 1:30-40 (computerized searching
`
`on Lexis and Westlaw databases).
`
`14.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Jacobs’ narrow construction of “database” because
`
`the specification broadly defines “database” and the database can be separate from
`
`the other features of the claims.
`
`15. First, the specifications of the patents broadly define the database at
`
`issue as simply a storage device: “any device which will hold data”, including
`
`“any type of magnetic or optical storing device for a computer” and “can be
`
`located either remotely … or locally.” 352 patent, col. 9:45-50; 494 patent col.
`
`10:18-23. I testified at deposition what I understood the “database” in the claimed
`
`invention to mean:
`
`Q. Did I correctly summarize what you rely upon as
`
`the claimed database in -- for Claim 26?
`
`A. If you look at the '352 patent, 14 column 9, lines 46,
`
`it says, "The database is connected to the computer
`
`processor 30 and 16 can be any device which will hold
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`016
`
`

`

`
`
`data. For example, the database can consist of any type
`
`of magnetic or optical storing device for a computer."
`
`Q. I'm asking you to summarize the testimony you just
`
`gave me as what is the claim -- what is it you contend is
`
`the claimed database of -- that you rely upon that
`
`discloses the elements of Claim 26?
`
`A. My recollection was that the VAX 11/780 had a disk
`
`drive for the files I used for my experiments, and that
`
`disk drive had some name. I don’t recall it. And it stored
`
`all of the things that are discussed in Claim 26. And I
`
`gave you the entry in patent ‘352, column 9, that
`
`describes what a database is that supports my discussion.
`
`Fox Tr. 251:9-252:12.
`
`16. Second, contrary to Dr. Jacobs’ opinion, the database can be located
`
`remotely, and can be connected to the computer in a variety of ways that would be
`
`obvious to one skilled in the art.
`
`The database 54 can be located either remotely from the
`
`Computer Processor 30 or locally to the Computer
`
`Processor 30. The preferred embodiment shows a
`
`database 54 located remotely from the Computer
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`017
`
`

`

`
`
`Processor 30 that communicates with the personal
`
`computer 28 via modem or leased line. In this manner,
`
`the database 54 is capable of supporting multiple remote
`
`computer processors 50. The preferred connection 48
`
`between the database 54 and the Computer Processor 30
`
`is a network type connection over a leased line. It is
`
`obvious to one skilled in the art that the database 54 and
`
`the Computer Processor 30 may be electronically
`
`connected in a variety of ways. In the preferred
`
`embodiment the database 54 provides the large storage
`
`capacity necessary to maintain the many records of
`
`textual objects.
`
`‘352 patent, col. 9:49-63; see also ‘494 patent, col. 10:18-35. Accordingly, one
`
`skilled in the art would understand that a database of objects could be stored
`
`separately from a computer processor and connected to the computer processor
`
`using known methods.
`
`17. The specification further provides that the database can be separate
`
`and apart from the indexing and searching features:
`
`The Proximity Indexing Application Program 62 could
`
`reside in RAM 34 or in separate memory connected to
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. - EXHIBIT 1233
`
`018
`
`

`

`
`
`the database 54. The Computer Processor 30 or a
`
`separate computer processor 50 attached to the database
`
`54 could execute the Proximity Indexing Application
`
`Program 62.
`
`The CSPDM [Computer Search Program for Data
`
`Represented by Matrices] 66 could reside in the RAM 34
`
`connected to the Computer Processor 30 or in the
`
`separate memory connected to the database 54.
`
`‘352 patent, col. 10:28-40; see also 494 col. 10:67-11:13. Accordingly, contrary to
`
`Dr. Jacobs’ apparent opinions, the claimed database that stores the “objects” can be
`
`separate from the other features of the invention, including the numerical
`
`representations and the searching feature.
`
`18. At any rate, while the claimed “database” is nothing more than a
`
`storage medium, claim 26 recites “objects in a database” and no other limitation.
`
`The steps of “storing the first numerical representations” and “storing the second
`
`numerical representations” are not necessarily in the same database. Claim 26
`
`does not recite “storing the first or second numerical representations in the same
`
`storage device as the objects in the database”. See 352 patent, cl. 26, col. 35:28-
`
`53. Nonetheless, the F