Petitioner’s Arguments
`
`EXHIBIT 2121
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC
`CASES IPR2013-00478
`IPR2013-00479
`IPR2013-00480
`IPR2013-00481
`
`F
`
`1
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2121
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC
`CASES IPR2013-00478
`IPR2013-00479
`IPR2013-00480
`IPR2013-00481
`
`F
`
`1
`
`
`
`ISI
`
`ISI
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioners rely upon these statements concerning the
`experiment of Table 8.7 (“ISI”):
`Apparently, the best combination is to use tm and cc.
`Regression methods lead to a combined similarity computation
`which is a 5% improvement over terms alone.
`Fox Dec. at ¶ 64; Fox Thesis at 246.
`Of all the subvectors, terms are best, though co-citations are
`not much worse. Author subvectors are not worthwhile, alone
`or in combination. Using regression or guessed at coefficients,
`the tm and cc combination yields a 5-6% improvement over
`the performance when terms alone are used.
`Fox Dec. at ¶ 65 Fox Thesis at 247; ‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113, at ¶ 287; IPR2013-00478 POR
`at 32-34.
`
`3
`
`
`
`‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113, at ¶ 289.
`
`Fox Thesis, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 1009 at 241-256; ‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113, at ¶ 287; IPR2013-00478 POR at 32-34.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Fox thesis states:
`“Mild improvements for ISI suggested further testing and so
`the CACM collection was considered.”
`
`‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113, at ¶ 289 (citing Fox Thesis at 283); ‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-
`00478 Ex. 2113, at ¶ 287; IPR2013-00478 POR at 32-34.
`
`G
`
`5
`
`
`
`Fox Thesis states:
`“The recipe proposed is to at least employ terms (tm), some manually
`assigned categorization scheme (cr), and direct links between
`documents (ln). When bibliographic information is only available
`among articles in a collection the simplest form of that information,
`references (ln) [i.e., the direct links vector], seems to be the most reliable
`and most useful of all the types considered (bc, ln, cc) [(bc) and (cc) are
`the indirect bibliographic vectors]. The ln subvectors are typically
`longer than the other two and are easier to obtain so use of them is
`encouraged by practicality considerations as well as effectiveness tests.”
`
`Fox Thesis at 253; ‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113, at ¶ 291; IPR2013-00478 POR at 52.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Fox Thesis States:
`“It can be inferred, however, that with
`the other subvectors present cc is not
`really needed and bc is probably not
`either.”
`
`Fox Thesis at 253; ‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113, at ¶ 203; IPR2013-00478 POR at 52.
`
`7
`
`
`
`The Prior Art as a Whole Must be Considered:
`“[T]he prior art as a whole must be considered. The teachings are
`to be viewed as they would have been viewed by one of ordinary
`skill. “It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to
`pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will
`support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to
`the full appreciation of what such references fairly suggests to one of
`ordinary skill in the art.”
`In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (quoting In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d at 241, 147
`USPQ at 393).
`
`H,I
`
`8
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`“The ISI collection itself is a specialty collection where the documents in
`the collection were chosen specifically to be rich in co-citation data so that
`the effects of co-citation may be more easily detected:
`A…[W]e constructed a collection of works that were highly co-cited… I
`was trying to show the benefit of using co-citation….
`Q. …are you saying that you selected documents that would be rich
`in co-citation relationships?
`A. Yes.
`Fox Depo. Tr. Pt. 1 at 159:20-160:17.
`To be in the ISI collection an article must be cited 5 times, which is a
`condition that would not normally be present absent this engineering.
`‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478, Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 295; see also IPR2013-00478 POR at 52.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`“[T]he improvements were mild and below the threshold of
`significance set forth by Dr. Fox’s thesis advisor:”
`“An average effectiveness improvement above 10 percent
`is normally considered important enough to warrant
`serious attention…”
`
`Salton 1986 at 9; see also ‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113, at ¶ 294; IPR2013-00478 POR at 52.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Jacobs testified:
`
`• “direct links were not
`available for the ISI
`collection” ‘352 Jacobs Dec. at ¶ 296
`• “there was no testing to determine
`whether … cc and bc would
`degrade precision results in the
`presence of the other subvectors—as
`was the case for nearly all of the
`other feedback experiments
`disclosed in Chapter 8” (id.)
`
`“[N]o teaching [or experiment] in the Fox Papers that … suggested that either bc or
`cc would improve results when direct links (ln) were available.” Jacobs ¶ 297.
`
`‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 287 (citing Fox Thesis, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 1009 at 241-256), 288; IPR2013-00478 POR at 50-53.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies: No experiment “suggested that either bc or cc
`would improve results when direct links (ln) were available.”
`Jacobs ¶ 297.
`
`Experiment
`8.8-CACM (bc)
`8.8-CACM (cc)
`8.11-CACM (bc)
`8.11-CACM (cc)
`
`Result
`-43.5% (vs ln)
`-26.7% (vs ln)
`-7.4% (vs ln)
`-6% (vs ln)
`
`Experiment
`8.11-CACM (bc+cc)
`8.12-CACM (bc)
`8.12-CACM (cc)
`
`Result
`-4.1% (vs ln)
`-30% (vs ln)
`-32.4% (vs ln)
`
`‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 227, 287; see also IPR2013-00478 POR at 1, 50-54.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Claim 26 of the ‘352 Patent Requires a First Numerical
`Representation Based Upon an Object’s Direct Relationship
`with Other Objects
`Claim 26 of the ‘352 patent reads:
`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, comprising:
`
`…c
`
`reating a first numerical representation for each identified
`object in the database based upon the object's direct
`relationship with other objects in the database;
`storing the first numerical representations for use in
`computerized searching;
`
`… ‘
`
`352 patent at 35:28-53 (emphasis added); see also IPR2013-00478 POR at 44.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies on Nunn’s ISI Results:
`
`13.2-13.5% degradation
`
`Jacobs Depo. Tr. Pt. 2 at 397-402; Nunn, Exhibit 2027, at 37; ‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR 2013-00478 at ¶ 213; IPR2013-
`00478 POR at 50-55.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies as to the ISI Results
`
`Experiment
`8.2-ISI (cc)
`8.2-ISI (cd)
`8.3-ISI (cc+terms)
`8.3-ISI (cc+other subvectors)
`8.3-ISI (cc+terms)
`8.7-ISI (cc+terms regression)
`
`Result
`-37% (vs terms)
`-54% (vs terms)
`-6.2% (vs terms)
`-7.8% (vs terms)
`+4.5 to 6.1% (vs terms)
`+5 to 6% (vs terms)
`
`-13.2%
`-13.5 %
`degradation
`over terms
`Nunn, Exhibit 2027 at 37; see also Jacobs Depo. Tr. Pt. 2 at 397-402; IPR2013-00478 POR at 1, 53-54; ‘352 Jacobs
`Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 287, 397-402.
`15
`
`15
`
`
`
`“[S]ince no obvious way exists for
`distinguishing the positive from the negative
`effects, the citation methodology cannot be
`recommended for inclusion in practical
`retrieval environments.”
`Salton 1986, Ex. 2009, at 11, abstract (emphasis added).
`“Overall, the procedure is not sufficiently
`reliable to warrant incorporation into
`operational automatic retrieval systems.”
`Salton 1986, Ex. 2009, at 11, abstract (emphasis added); see, e.g., ‘352 Jacobs Decl.,
`IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 211; IPR2013-00478 POR at 51.
`
`16
`
`
`
`“Merely Inferior Results”
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, IPR 2013-00481, Paper 38 at 11.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Even if certain isolated experiments showed that a particular
`subvector was less useful than others under certain conditions,
`Dr. Fox’s work still did not “teach away.” See Fox Reply Decl. ¶¶
`375-89; In re Moutter [sic], 686 F.3d 1322, 133-34 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) (holding that prior art did not teach away even though it
`considered the claimed invention to be inferior); Syntex (U.S.A.)
`LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (same).
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, IPR 2013-00481, Paper 38 at 11.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Although predictability is a touchstone of obviousness, the “predictable result”
`discussed in KSR refers not only to the expectation that prior art elements are
`capable of being physically combined, but also that the combination would
`have worked for its intended purpose.
`…
`The opposite conclusion would follow, however, if the prior art indicated
`that the invention would not have worked for its intended purpose or
`otherwise taught away from the invention. See United States v. Adams, 383 U.S.
`39, 52, 86 S.Ct. 708, 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966); In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed.Cir. 2007) (“[A] reference teaches away from a
`combination when using it in that combination would produce an inoperative
`result.”
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`19
`
`
`
`Jacobs’s Opinions:
`I. “The experimental record showed that the use of
`indirect relationships generally resulted in worse search
`results”. Jacobs Dec. at ¶¶ 217-254; 287-296. ‘352 POR
`at 25-26.
`
`II. “The experimental record showed that the use of
`indirect relationships … was not sufficiently reliable to
`be used in an automated retrieval system.” Jacobs Dec.
`at ¶¶ 205-216. ‘352 POR at 25-26.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies as to Degradation:
`
`Fox Thesis, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 1009 at 241-256; ‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 287; IPR2013-00478 POR at 1, 50.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies as to Degradation:
`Experiment
`Result
`Experiment
`-37% (vs terms)
`8.2-ISI (cc)
`8.11-CACM (bc)
`-54% (vs terms)
`8.2-ISI (cd)
`8.11-CACM (cc)
`-6.2% (vs terms)
`8.3-ISI (cc+terms)
`8.11-CACM (bc+cc)
`-7.8% (vs terms)
`8.3-ISI (cc+other
`8.11-CACM (bc)
`subvectors)
`8.3-ISI (cc+terms
`emphasized)
`8.7-ISI
`(cc+terms regression)
`-62% (vs terms)
`8.12-CACM (bc)
`8.8-CACM (bc)
`-51% (vs terms)
`8.8-CACM (cc)
`8.12-CACM (cc)
`‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 287; see, .e.g, IPR2013-00478 POR at 1.
`
`+4.5 to 6.1% (vs
`terms)
`+5 to 6% (vs terms)
`
`8.11-CACM (cc)
`
`8.11-CACM (bc+cc)
`
`Result
`-6.3% (vs terms)
`-1.4% (vs terms)
`-2.9% (vs terms)
`-7.4% (vs ln)
`
`-6% (vs ln)
`
`-4.1% (vs ln)
`
`-26.5% (vs terms)
`-29% (vs terms)
`
`22
`
`
`
`Salton States “Citation Methodology Cannot be
`Recommended”:
`“The evaluation results of Tables 3 to 8 lead to the
`conclusion that the term association process based on the
`bibliographically related title words is not reliable…
`since no obvious way exists for distinguishing the
`positive from the negative effects, the citation
`methodology cannot be recommended for inclusion in
`practical retrieval environments.
`
`Salton 1986 at 11, abstract (emphasis added); see, e.g., ‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 211;
`IPR2013-00478 POR at 51.
`
`23
`
`
`
`Salton Explicitly States:
`“Overall, the procedure is not sufficiently
`reliable to warrant incorporation into
`operational automatic retrieval systems.”
`
`Salton 1986 at 11, abstract (emphasis added); see, e.g., ‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 211;
`IPR2013-00478 POR at 51.
`
`24
`
`
`
`Croft Paper
`
`Fox Reply Decl. at ¶ 401.
`
`25
`
`
`
`Within the information retrieval community, a number of techniques have
`been developed that can represent the content of documents and
`information needs. These representations have a much different flavor
`than NLP representations. They are generally based on simple, very
`general, features between documents (e.g., words, citations) and represent
`simple relationships between features (e.g., phrases) and between
`documents (e.g., two documents cite the same document). …
`Given the availability of a number of representation techniques that
`capture some of the meaning of the document or information need, our
`basic premise is that decisions about which documents match an
`information need should make use of as many of the representation forms
`as practical.
`Croft Paper at 130 (Ex. 1031); Jacobs Tr., IPR2013-00478, Ex. 1033 at 393-396; see Fox Reply Decl. at ¶
`401; see also Jacobs Tr., IPR2013-00478, Ex. 1033 at 273-396.
`
`26
`
`
`
`Our interest, however, is in retrieval techniques that can be applied under
`program control to select items from machine-readable collections. For
`these machine-readable collections, we have descriptions of the objects in
`the collection rather than the objects themselves (for objects that exist
`only in machine readable form, e.g., electronic mail messages, we may
`have the actual objects. These descriptions usually consist of text
`describing various attributes of the objects, but may also include
`descriptors assigned by the creator of the object or some indexing agent
`(e.g., controlled vocabulary terms assigned by a human indexer or some
`automatically assigned classification), or used to describe relationships
`between objects in the collection (e.g., citations or hypertext links).
`Croft Paper at 130 (Ex. 1031); see Fox Reply Decl. at ¶ 401; see also Jacobs Tr., IPR2013-00478, Ex. 1033 at
`273-396.
`
`27
`
`
`
`The Croft and Turtle Paper (Exhibit 1031) presents work first
`reported in Turtle’s Ph.D. Thesis (Exhibit 2029). “On pages 154-
`157, Turtle describes the methodology of his experiments and he
`does not use bc or cc.”
`‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113, at ¶¶ 235-236 (citing Turtle, Exhibit 2029); see also
`Jacobs Tr., IPR2013-00478, Ex. 1033 at 273-396.
`
`“A colleague of Dr. Turtle’s, Roger Thompson, who testified for the
`Petitioners, also conducted experiments using the CACM collection.
`He also did not use the bc and cc subvectors.”
`‘352 Jacobs Decl. at ¶ 234 (citing Thompson Part 3 at 96 (Exhibit 1012)); see also Jacobs Tr., IPR2013-
`00478, Ex. 1033 at 273-396.
`
`28
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`Q. Okay. So you – in your opinion, this passage doesn’t say
`anything about which is the best type of representation to use
`for search. Is that fair?
`A. Or even which ones would be effective or useful at all….
`Q. Okay. And does it say – does this passage also teach that the
`descriptions of the relationships between documents that can be
`used for search include citations between the documents or
`hypertext links between the documents?
`A. That’s what it says.
`Jacobs Tr., Ex. 1033 at 273:2-291:13.
`
`not quoted
`
`relied on by
`petitioners
`
`29
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`Q. Do you -- is it your testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`reading the passage that we’ve read, would not understand that a document
`representation, such as is -- is described here, could be used for search?
`A. … Now, the – fact that something can be used as a document
`representation, in theory, means that that might be used for search. But
`one of ordinary skill would understand that the results of using such a
`representation would depend on the quality of the representation and on
`empirical results in terms of whether it worked or not. … So I don’t think
`this particular paragraph sheds any light on where a – a particular
`representation should be used for search, and, at – at most, in the abstract, says
`that – that – that these areas of different representations of documents have
`been explored.
`Jacobs Tr., Ex. 1033 at 270:23-273:1.
`
`30
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`Q. Do you -- is it your testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`reading the passage that we’ve read, would not understand that a document
`representation, such as is -- is described here, could be used for search?
`A. … Now, the – fact that something can be used as a document
`representation, in theory, means that that might be used for search. But
`one of ordinary skill would understand that the results of using such a
`representation would depend on the quality of the representation and on
`empirical results in terms of whether it worked or not. … So I don’t think
`this particular paragraph sheds any light on where a – a particular
`representation should be used for search, and, at – at most, in the abstract, says
`that – that – that these areas of different representations of documents have
`been explored.
`Jacobs Tr., Ex. 1033 at 270:23-273:1.
`
`31
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`Q. Does any of these passages describe using citations for the
`purposes of search?
`A. No.
`Q. Does [the passage on page 128 of Croft beginning with “our
`interest, however…”] describe analyzing citations for purposes
`of conducting a search?
`A. No. It just says citations can be part of a description of an
`object.
`
`Jacobs Tr., IPR2013-00478, Ex. 1033 at 393:20-396:19.
`
`32
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`Q. Does anything in this passage describe treating hypertext
`links as citations for the purposes of search?
`A. No – no. And there would be many ways to use hypertext
`links as descriptions that didn’t involve using them for search
`that would be pertinent in information retrieval.
`
`Jacobs Tr., IPR2013-00478, Ex. 1033 at 393:20-396:19.
`
`33
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`Q. So in that case, would they be analyzing the citations in a
`methodology similar to Fox or the other prior art at issue in this
`case?
`A. No. This paragraph really doesn’t say anything about
`what one might or might not do using the methodology of
`Fox.
`Q. Would one skilled in the art read that and conclude that one
`would use indirect relationships for search?
`A. No.
`Jacobs Tr., IPR2013-00478, Ex. 1033 at 393:20-396:19.
`
`34
`
`
`
`Nunn
`
`Fox Reply Decl. at ¶ 393; IPR2013-00478 POR at 52-55.
`
`W
`
`35
`
`
`
`“The recipe proposed is to at least employ terms (tm), some
`manually assigned categorization scheme (cr), and direct
`links between documents (ln). When bibliographic
`information is only available among articles in a collection the
`simplest form of that information, references (ln) [i.e., the
`direct links vector], seems to be the most reliable and most
`useful of all the types considered (bc, ln, cc) [(bc) and (cc) are
`the indirect bibliographic vectors]. The ln subvectors are
`typically longer than the other two and are easier to obtain so
`use of them is encouraged by practicality considerations as
`well as effectiveness tests.”
`Fox Thesis at 253; see IPR2013-00478 POR at 53-55; ‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR 2013-00478 at ¶ 223.
`
`36
`
`
`
`“[I]t can be inferred, however, that with the
`other subvectors present cc is not really
`needed and bc is probably not either.”
`
`Fox Thesis at 258 (emphasis added); IPR2013-00478 POR at 53-55; ‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR 2013-00478
`at ¶ 203.
`
`37
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies as to Degradation:
`
`approx. -13.5% degrade
`
`Nunn Ex. 2027 at 37; see also Jacobs Depo. Tr. Pt. 2, Ex. 1033 at 397-402; IPR2013-00478 POR at 53-55.
`
`38
`
`
`
`“The base runs in CACM2 and ISI2 of each collection are not as high as those
`of CACM1 and ISI1. … Though disappointing, these results are not
`surprising – term relevance weights and coefficients for concept types were
`derived through a feedback sampling process on a different half of the
`collection.”
`Nunn Ex. 2027 at 32; ‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 214.
`
`“The coefficients that were used in the feedback runs with SMART proved to
`be of limited usefulness here as improvements in precision were limited to the
`1% to 5% range. … The author of this study would like to suggest that
`further research might be pursued … to try to develop coefficients that
`could be generalized to other collections.”
`Nunn Ex. 2027 at 42; see also see also Jacobs Depo. Tr. Pt. 2, Ex. 1033 at 397-402; IPR2013-00478 POR at
`53-55; ‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 205-215.
`
`39
`
`
`
`Tapper
`
`IPR2013-00478 POR at 40-49.
`
`40
`
`
`
`Tapper States :
`“Table 2 shows the upper part of the correlation table for the cases in
`the British database. The first column gives the numbers allocated to
`the cases. The second gives the correlation value indicated by the
`conventional VEXT technique without weighting, and the third the
`rank order according to those values. The fourth and fifth correspond
`to the second and third except that the values there are derived from
`the Oxford technique with Oxford weighting. Great care must be
`taken in interpreting this table. It is necessary to bear in mind that the
`absolute values are very low, and that only the first two or three
`pairs have a value of any real significance at all.”
`‘494 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00479 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 350 (citing Tapper 1982 at 148 (emphasis added));
`IPR2013-00478 POR at 40-49; ‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Ex 2113 at ¶ 222.
`
`41
`
`
`
`Tapper Recognizes:
`
`“What [the citation experiment’s results] do not, and cannot, demonstrate is
`whether or not the technique can be improved to yield still better results, and
`whether or not it can be developed into a component part of an operational
`commercial system. It is sadly little appreciated just how wide a gap separates a
`system which operates perfectly satisfactorily in an experimental or limited
`environment, and one which can take the strains imposed by the massive
`databases, constant use, and variety of misuse, much of it quite possibly
`unimaginable, to which a commercial system is inevitably exposed.”
`Tapper 1982 at 157; IPR2013-00478 POR at 40-49; ‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Ex 2113 at ¶ 222.
`
`42
`
`
`
`“The former question can be answered by the conduct of a series
`of careful and systematic experiments. … It is now necessary to
`consider the question of testing the system. Some of the further
`research described above could and should be tested by the same
`methods as those employed hitherto. Some testing should however
`be organized on a more scientific and practical basis.”
`Tapper 1982 at 157; IPR2013-00478 POR at 40-49; ‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Ex 2113 at ¶ 222.
`
`J,K,L
`
`43
`
`
`
`In Conclusion…
`
`M,N,O
`
`44
`
`
`
`Pre-1998, “no one at the web search companies mentioned using
`links. The links were the reason that a research project running on a
`computer in a Stanford dorm room had become the top performer.”
`Michael Specter, “Search and Deploy,” The New Yorker, May 29, 2000 (IPR2013-00479 Exhibit 2041) (emphasis added); see also
`Langville Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2114 at ¶¶ 43-65.
`
`“Before [1998], people were only looking at the content. They
`were completely ignoring the fact that people were going to the
`effort of putting a link from one page to another and that there
`must be a meaning to that.”
`Professor Rajeev Motwani, IPR2013-00479 Exhibit 2041 (emphasis added); IPR2013-00478 POR at 56-60; see also
`Langville Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2114 at ¶¶ 43-65. .
`
`45
`
`
`
`“We originally developed PageRank kind of playing around with all
`the links on the web and that too was a pretty revolutionary idea,
`though it seems very simple, the fact you can even just collect [the
`links of the web] and do anything meaningful with them …
`I really credit Larry for pursuing that idea that it is even worth
`collecting the graph and then that you could run any kind of
`processing on it.”
`
`Brin transcript, IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2032, at 6:15-6:20, 15:17 – 15:33 (emphasis added); IPR2013-00478
`POR at 56-60; Langville Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2114 at ¶¶ 43-65.
`
`46
`
`
`
`“In 1998, Google didn’t exist; Yahoo and Alta Vista were leading
`the young search industry, and there was no place for a late
`comer. By bringing to the market a major innovation (the
`“page rank” technology), Google put the previous order of
`competitors upside down.”
`
`Ex. 2074: “The right candidates to wound a group with $64 billion pile of case? A start-up and a living-dead
`. . .,” Innovation Tribune eng (January 2005) (available at http://portail-
`innovation.typepad.com/eng/2004/12/index.html) (emphasis added); IPR2013-00478 POR at 56-60;
`Langville Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2114 at ¶¶ 43-65.
`
`.
`
`47
`
`
`
`“AUDIENCE: My question is, at the time that you developed and released
`Google there were other search engines that had been accepted as the standard
`and were considered to work fine and so on. What is it that inspired you to go
`back to the drawing board, create a new search engine, and release it?
`SERGEY BRIN: Great question. So at the time there were probably five major
`search engines or so. And you might not even remember some of them. I don't
`know. People here are pretty young. But what we found was we-- kind of by
`accident almost-- we found that this processing of the link structure of the
`web, we could create a search that was better in important ways. In ways
`that these search engines had ignored.”
`
`Brin transcript, IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2032, at 6:15-6:20, 15:17 – 15:33 (emphasis added); IPR2013-00478
`POR at 56-60; Langville Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2114 at ¶¶ 43-65.
`
`P
`
`48
`
`
`
`Remaining Claim Elements
`Some of these remaining claim elements include:
`‘352 claim 28 – “wherein the step of searching comprises the steps of matrix searching of the
`second matrices and examining the chronological data.” ‘352 patent at 36:1-3.
`‘352 claim 32 – “wherein the step of analyzing further comprises the step of weighing, wherein
`some indirect relationships are weighed more heavily than other indirect relationships” ‘352 patent
`at 36:44-47
`‘352 claim 34 – “wherein objects in the database may be divided into subsets and wherein the
`marking step includes the step of marking subsets of objects in the database and wherein
`relationships exist between or among subsets of objects in the database” ‘352 patent at 36:65-37:2.
`‘352 claim 39 – “pool-similarity searching to identify a similar pool of textual objects, similar in
`relation to the objects in the marked pool; and pool-importance searching to identify an important
`pool of textual objects, important in relation to the objects in the selected pool.” ‘352 patent at
`37:32-37. See also IPR2013-00478 POR at 24, 37-39, 47-50; ‘352 Jacobs Decl. at ¶¶ 302-313.
`
`49
`
`
`
`Remaining Claim Elements
`Some of these remaining claim elements include:
`‘494 claim 20 – “searching for objects in a database using the stored numerical representation,
`wherein direct and/or indirect relationships are searched” ‘494 patent at 53:50-53.
`‘494 claim 45 – “wherein the direct relationships are hyperlink relationships between objects on
`the world wide web and the second numerical representation of direct and indirect relationships is
`a value that is generated by analyzing direct link weights in a set of paths between two indirectly
`related objects” ‘494 patent C1 at 2:16-22.
`‘494 claim 51 – “wherein the identified objects include web sites and the step of identifying
`includes proving a Universal Resource Locator that identifies a web page within one of said web
`sites” ‘494 patent C1 at 2:44-47.
`‘494 claim 54 – “wherein an independent application determines a cost associated with accessing
`the identified objects” ‘494 patent C1 at 2:62-64; see also IPR2013-00478 POR at 24, 37-39, 47-
`50; ‘494 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00480, at ¶¶ 237-245.
`
`50
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
