Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: February 3, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORP., and TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: February 3, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORP., and TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On July 30, 2013, Facebook, Inc., LinkedIn Corp., and Twitter, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Petitioners”) filed a petition (“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14-16, 35, and 40 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,832,494 (Ex. 1001, “the ’494 Patent”). Paper 2. On November 5, 2013,
`
`the Patent Owner, Software Rights Archive, LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a
`
`preliminary response (“Prelim. Resp.”). Paper 14. We have jurisdiction
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD. – The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of Petitioners’ petition and Patent Owner’s
`
`preliminary response, we determine that the information presented in the
`
`petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in
`
`showing unpatentability of claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14-16, 35, and 40 of the
`
`’494 Patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we institute an inter
`
`partes review for claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14-16, 35, and 40 of the ’494 Patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioners indicate that the ’494 patent is involved in the following
`
`co-pending litigation: Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No.
`
`12-cv-3970 (N.D. Cal. filed July 27, 2012), Software Rights Archive, LLC v.
`
`LinkedIn Corp., No. 12-cv-3971 (N.D. Cal. filed July 27, 2012), and
`
`Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 12-cv-3972 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`filed July 27, 2012). Petitioners also indicate that the ’494 patent was the
`
`subject of prior litigation: Software Rights Archives, Inc. v. Google, No. 08-
`
`cv-3172 (N.D. Cal.) (“Google Litigation”).
`
`Petitioners filed another petition, IPR2013-00479, which also seeks
`
`inter partes review of the ’494 patent. The ’494 patent was the subject of
`
`reexamination no. 90/011,014. Additionally, Petitioners filed other petitions
`
`on related patents including: (1) IPR2013-00478, which seeks inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 5,544,352 (“the ’352 Patent”) and (2) IPR2013-
`
`00481, which seeks inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,571 (“the
`
`’571 Patent”). The ’352 Patent issued from the parent of the application that
`
`issued as the ’494 Patent. The ’571 Patent issued from an application that
`
`was a divisional of the application that issued as the ’494 Patent.
`
`B. The ’494 Patent
`
`The ’494 Patent relates to computerized research on databases.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:11-13. The ’494 Patent discloses that it improves search
`
`methods by indexing data using proximity indexing techniques. Id. at 3:20-
`
`31. According to the ’494 patent, proximity indexing techniques generate a
`
`quick-reference of the relations, patterns, and similarity found among the
`
`data found in the database. Id. at 3:28-31.
`
`Figure 2 of the ’494 Patent illustrates the high-level processing of
`
`software for computerized searching (Ex. 1001, 8:7-8) and is reproduced
`
`3
`
`below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates high-level processing of three main
`programs for computerized searching.
`
`As shown in Figure 2 above, software system 60 comprises:
`
`
`
`Proximity Indexing Application Program 62, Computer Search Program for
`
`Data Represented by Matrices (CSPDM) 66, and Graphical User Interface
`
`(GUI) Program 70. Ex. 1001, 11:29-36. Processing of software system 60
`
`begins with Proximity Indexing Application Program 62 indexing a
`
`database. Id. at 11:46-47. Then, CSPDM 66 searches the indexed database
`
`and retrieves requested objects. Id. at 11:49-53. CSPDM 66 relays the
`
`retrieved objects to GUI Program 70 to display on a display. Id. at 11:53-55.
`
`Software system 60 runs on a computer system comprising, for
`
`example, a processor of a personal computer. Ex. 1001, 10:11-15. The
`
`system comprises a display, which displays information to the user. Id. at
`
`10:43-44. Exemplary displays include: computer monitors, televisions,
`
`LCDs, or LEDs. Id. at 10:44-46.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`The processor is connected to a database to be searched. Ex. 1001,
`
`10:18-20. Data in the database may be represented as a node. Id. at 12:29-
`
`33. Exemplary nodes include an object or a portion of an object, a document
`
`or section of a document, and a World Wide Web page. Id. at 12:35-38.
`
`A cluster link generation algorithm may be used alone, or in
`
`conjunction with other proximity indexing subroutines, and prior to
`
`searching. Ex. 1001, 21:30-33. The cluster link generation algorithm may
`
`generate candidate cluster links (Id. at 21:64-66) and then derive actual
`
`cluster links, which are used to locate nodes for display (Id. at 22:1-4).
`
`Actual cluster links are: “a subset of the candidate cluster links . . . which
`
`meet a certain criteria.” Id. at 22:1-4.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, the independent claims are 1 and 14. Each
`
`of dependent claims 5, 8, 10, 11, and 35 depends, directly or indirectly, from
`
`claim 1. Each of dependent claims 15, 16, and 40 depends, directly or
`
`indirectly, from claim 14.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 14 illustrate the claimed subject matter and
`
`are reproduced below:
`
`1. A method of analyzing a database with indirect
`relationships, using links and nodes, comprising the steps of:
`
`selecting a node for analysis;
`
`generating candidate cluster links for the selected node,
`wherein the step of generating comprises an analysis of one or
`more indirect relationships in the database;
`
`deriving actual cluster links from the candidate cluster
`links;
`
`identifying one or more nodes for display; and
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`displaying the identity of one or more nodes using the
`actual cluster links.
`
`14. A method for representing the relationship between
`nodes using stored direct links, paths, and candidate cluster
`links, comprising the steps of:
`
`a) initializing a set of candidate cluster links;
`
`b) selecting the destination node of a path as the selected
`node to analyze;
`
`c) retrieving the set of direct links from the selected node
`to any other node in the database;
`
`d) determining the weight of the path using the retrieved
`direct links;
`
`repeating steps b through d for each path; and
`
`e) storing the determined weights as candidate cluster
`
`links.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioners rely upon the following prior art references:
`
`Tim Berners-Lee et al., The World-Wide Web, 37 Comms. of the
`
`ACM no. 8 at 76-82 (Aug. 1994) (Ex. 1004).
`
`Edward A. Fox, Some Considerations for Implementing the SMART
`
`Information Retrieval System under UNIX, (Sept. 1983) (Ph.D. dissertation,
`
`Cornell Univ. Dept. of Comp. Sci.) (“Fox SMART”) (Ex. 1005).
`
`Edward A. Fox, et al., Users, User Interfaces, and Objects: Envision,
`
`a Digital Library, 44 J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., no. 8 at 480-91 (Sept. 1993)
`
`(“Envision”) (Ex. 1006).
`
`Edward A. Fox, Characterization of Two New Experimental
`
`Collections in Computer and Information Science Containing Textual and
`
`Bibliographic Concepts, (Sept. 1983) (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell Univ.
`
`Dept. of Comp. Sci.) (“Fox Collection”) (Ex. 1007).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`Edward A. Fox, Extending the Boolean and Vector Space Models of
`
`Information Retrieval with P-Norm Queries and Multiple Concept Types,
`
`(Aug. 1983) (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell Univ. Dept. of Comp. Sci.) (“Fox
`
`Thesis”) (Ex. 1008).
`
`James E. Pitkow et al., Webviz: A Tool for World-Wide Web Access
`
`Log Analysis, Proceedings of the First International WWW Conference,
`
`(1994) (“Pitkow”) (Ex. 1010).
`
`Tatsuki Saito et al., A New Method of Modeling and Clustering for
`
`Citation Relationship, 11 Eng’g Sci. Reports No. 3 at 327-37 (Dec. 1989)
`
`(“Saito”) (Ex. 1011).
`
`Gerard Salton, Associative Document Retrieval Techniques Using
`
`Bibliographic Information, 10 JACM no. 4 at 440-57 (Oct. 1963) (“Salton
`
`1963”) (Ex. 1012).
`
`Henry G. Small & Michael E.D. Koenig, Journal Clustering Using a
`
`Bibliographic Coupling Method, 13 Info. Processing & Management at 277-
`
`88 (1977) (“Small”) (Ex. 1013).
`
`Colin F.H. Tapper, Citation Patterns in Legal Information Retrieval, 3
`
`Datenverarbeitung im Recht no. 5 at 249-75 (1976) (Ex. 1014).
`
`Colin Tapper, The Use of Citation Vectors for Legal Information
`
`Retrieval, 1 J. of Law and Info. Sci. no. 2 at 131-61 (1982) (“Tapper”) (Ex.
`
`
`
`7
`
`1015).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioners assert that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
`
`the following grounds.
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`Fox Thesis
`
`Fox SMART
`
`Fox Thesis or Fox SMART
`and Envision and Salton
`Saito
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 5, and 14-16
`
`1, 5, and 14-16
`
`8, 10, 11, 35, and 40
`
`§102
`
`1, 5, and 14-16
`
`Saito, Envision, and Pitkow § 103
`
`8, 10, 11, 35, and 40
`
`Tapper
`
`Tapper, Saito, and Envision
`
`Small
`
`Small and Tapper
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 5, 8, 10, 11, and 14-
`16
`35 and 40
`
`1, 5, and 14-16
`
`1, 5, and 14-16
`
`Small, Saito, and Envision
`
`§ 103
`
`8, 10, 11, 35, and 40
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioners assert, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that the ’494
`
`Patent expired on June 14, 2013. Pet. 9. The Board’s interpretation of the
`
`claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review. See
`
`In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We are therefore
`
`guided by the principle that the words of a claim “are generally given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning,” as understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citation
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`omitted). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we
`
`look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim
`
`language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in
`
`evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d
`
`1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-17). There is
`
`a “heavy presumption,” however, that a claim term carries its ordinary and
`
`customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
`
`1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted).
`
` “cluster links”
`
`The term “cluster links” is recited, for example, in claims 1 and 14,
`
`within “candidate cluster links.” Petitioners set forth the prior district court
`
`construction of this term in the Google litigation. Pet. 10. The district court
`
`interpreted “cluster link” to mean: “[a] relationship between two nodes
`
`based upon statistical analysis of multiple relationships between nodes in a
`
`database.” Id. Petitioner does not explain, or direct us to record evidence to
`
`support, this seemingly narrow construction.
`
`Rather, the specification states that a link is a “relationship between
`
`two nodes.” Id. at 12:65-66. Regarding the term “cluster,” the specification
`
`states: “[h]owever, the real power of the Proximity Matrix is that it allows
`
`one to identify ‘groups’ or ‘clusters’ of interrelated cases.” Ex. 1001, 16:24-
`
`26; see also id. at 13:24-30.
`
`Thus, on this record, we decline to adopt Petitioners’ construction,
`
`and construe “cluster links” in light of the specification to mean
`
`“relationships used for grouping interrelated nodes.”
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`“candidate cluster links”
`
`The term “candidate cluster links” is recited, for example, in claims 1
`
`and 14. Petitioners set forth a prior district court construction of this term.
`
`Pet. 10. The district court interpreted “candidate cluster links” to mean:
`
`“[t]he set of all possible cluster links between a search node and a target
`
`node.” Id.
`
`The specification states: “[a]nother embodiment of this invention uses
`
`candidate cluster links 2004 to provide a more efficient search. Candidate
`
`cluster links are the set of all possible cluster links 2004 between a search
`
`node 2008 and a target node 2004.” Ex. 1001, 21:64 - 22:1. The above-
`
`quoted language does not appear to be in the form of a definition. Rather,
`
`the text is a portion of the description of preferred embodiments, and
`
`describes “[a]nother embodiment.” Id. The characterization of the term
`
`“candidate” as “possible” is consistent with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art.
`
`However, Petitioners do not explain adequately why candidate cluster links
`
`must be “all” possible links.
`
`On this record, we construe “candidate cluster links” to mean “a set of
`
`possible cluster links between a search node and a target node.”
`
` “wherein the step of generating comprises an analysis of one or more
`indirect relationships in the database”
`
` Claim 1 recites “wherein the step of generating comprises an analysis
`
`of one or more indirect relationships in the database.” Petitioners set forth
`
`the following construction from a district court, “[w]herein the step of
`
`generating comprises at least identifying and classifying one or more non-
`
`semantical relationships that are characterized by at least one intermediate
`
`node between two nodes in the database.” Pet. 10.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`The recitation of “one or more indirect relationships in the database”
`
`refers back to the preamble: “analyzing a database with indirect
`
`relationships, using links and nodes” (emphasis added). The ’494 patent
`
`provides the following examples of an indirect relationship: “A cites c, and
`
`B cites c,” “g cites both A and B,” and “A cites f, and f cites A.” Ex. 1001,
`
`14:26-31, 14:65-15:5).
`
`Thus, in light of the specification, we construe “indirect relationships
`
`in the database” to mean “relationships that are characterized by at least one
`
`intermediate node between two nodes.” On this record, further express
`
`construction is not necessary for the claim phrase: “wherein the step of
`
`generating comprises an analysis of one or more indirect relationships in the
`
`database.”
`
`“selecting a node for analysis”
`
`The term “selecting a node for analysis” is recited, for example, in
`
`claim 1. Petitioners set forth the following prior district court construction
`
`of “selecting a node for analysis” interpreting the phrase to mean:
`
`“[i]dentifying, by an end user, a node to be non-semantically analyzed.” Pet.
`
`10. The focal point of contention, if any, is unclear. On this record, an
`
`express construction of selecting a node for analysis is not necessary.
`
`“displaying”
`
`Neither party has addressed the meaning of the claim term
`
`“displaying.” Nevertheless, on this record and in light of the arguments
`
`presented, we provide an explicit construction.
`
`Claim 1 recites, “displaying the identity of one or more nodes using
`
`the actual cluster links.” In that connection, the specification states:
`
`FIG. 1 is an overview of the preferred embodiment of the
`hardware system 26 for computerized searching of data. The
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`hardware system 26 comprises a Computer Processor 30, a
`database 54 for storing data, input means, display 38, and RAM
`34.
`
`. . . .
`
`The display 38 is connected to the Computer Processor
`30 and operates to display information to the user. The display
`38 could consist of a computer monitor, television, LCD, LED,
`or any other means to convey information to the user.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:6-10, 43-46.
`
`The specification describes the display as hardware that is part of
`
`hardware system 26 and is connected to Computer Processor 30. The
`
`specification identifies exemplary hardware devices, i.e., a computer
`
`monitor, television, LCD, and LED. The description of a display as
`
`hardware is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one with ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Additionally, the specification provides illustrations of displaying.
`
`For example, the specification states: “[t]he CSPDM 66 may use the display
`
`to depict input screens for user entry of information.” Ex. 1001, 11:19-20.
`
`The specification also states: “[t]he GUI program 70 also communicates
`
`with display 38 to enhance the manner in which the display 38 depicts
`
`information.” Id. at 11:25-27. Thus, we construe “displaying,” in light of
`
`the specification, to mean “depicting information on a hardware display.”
`
`Claim 1 recites, “actual cluster links.”1 In that connection, the
`
`“actual cluster links”
`
`specification states: “[i]n this embodiment, only a subset of the candidate
`
`cluster links 2004, the actual cluster links 2004, which meet a certain criteria
`
`
`1 Neither party has addressed the meaning of the claim term “actual cluster
`links.”
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`are used to locate nodes 2008 for display.” Ex. 1001, 22:1-4. The
`
`description in the specification of actual cluster links being a subset is
`
`consistent with the recitation in the claim stating that actual cluster links are
`
`derived from candidate cluster links. Thus, in light of the express language
`
`of the claim and the specification, we construe “actual cluster links” to mean
`
`“a subset of the candidate cluster links which meet a certain criteria.”
`
`B. Anticipation of claims 1, 5, and 14-16 by Fox Thesis
`
`Petitioners contend that claims 1, 5, and 14-16 of the ’494 Patent are
`
`unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as anticipated by Fox Thesis. Pet. 10-
`
`16. In support of the asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioners set forth
`
`the teachings of Fox Thesis, provide a detailed claim chart, and cite to the
`
`declaration of Dr. Fox (Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 156-78), explaining how each limitation
`
`is disclosed in Fox Thesis. Pet. 10-16. We note that Patent Owner does not
`
`provide rebuttal for claims 1 and 14-16.
`
`1. Fox Thesis
`
`Fox Thesis describes improving query and document representation
`
`schemes for information retrieval. Ex. 1008, 261. In particular, useful types
`
`of bibliographic data are incorporated into a model to test clustering and
`
`retrieval functions. Id. at 164.
`
`Bibliographic connections between articles are illustrated for an
`
`exemplary set “O” of documents, which are represented by letters A through
`
`G. Ex. 1008, 165-66; Fig. 6.2. This exemplary set “O” includes direct and
`
`indirect citation references. Id. at 166-67; Table 6.2.
`
`Based on the reference pattern for a set of documents, Fox Thesis
`
`describes deriving various measures of the interconnection between the
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`documents. Ex. 1008, 166. For example, weights are assigned “based upon
`
`integer counts” for bibliographically coupled documents. Id. at 167.
`
`Citation submatrices represent reference or citation information.
`
`Ex. 1008, 169. For example, submatrix represents bibliographically
`
`coupled reference information and submatrix represents co-citation
`
`reference information. Id. at 169-72; Figs. 6.3-6.5.
`
`2. Claims 1 and 5
`
` Petitioners identify the following disclosure of Fox Thesis as
`
`displaying the identity of one or more nodes using the actual cluster links:
`
`“Figure 7.5 shows how the 52 documents of interest can be represented in a
`
`two dimensional map. Many of the points representing documents are
`
`[labeled] nearby with the corresponding document identifier numbers and
`
`topical areas are indicated in a number of places.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1008,
`
`207) (Internal quotations and emphasis omitted).
`
`Fox Thesis describes representing documents on a map. However,
`
`Petitioners do not explain adequately how the information is depicted on a
`
`hardware display. Petitioners, additionally, do not provide persuasive
`
`argument as to why this element should be construed to encompass
`
`something else. Thus, Petitioners have not made a sufficient showing that
`
`Fox Thesis describes displaying the identity of one or more nodes using the
`
`actual cluster links. Claim 5 depends from claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners have not demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood that they would prevail with respect to claims 1 and 5 on the
`
`ground that these claims are anticipated by Fox Thesis.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`3. Claims 14-16
`
` We find persuasive, at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioners’
`
`unchallenged analysis of how the claim elements of independent claim 14
`
`are taught in Fox Thesis. For example, Petitioners have shown sufficiently
`
`that the evidence supports a finding that Fox Thesis describes determining
`
`the weight of each selected path using retrieved direct links. Fox Thesis
`
`describes determining the weight of a path based on the linkage or
`
`“interconnection,” between documents. Ex. 1008, 166; see also id. at 167
`
`(“the next two definitions can result in the assignment of weights that are
`
`based on integer counts.”). Dr. Fox states that Fox Thesis illustrates citation
`
`submatrices with count-based weights for each path having a source and
`
`destination document in example “O” collection of documents. Ex.
`
`1009 ¶ 174 (citing Ex. 1008, 171-72). Dr. Fox testifies that retrieving direct
`
`links is a precursor to finding indirect relationships. Ex. 1009 ¶ 171. We
`
`give Dr. Fox’s testimony substantial weight at this stage in the proceeding,
`
`because his testimony is consistent with the description in Fox Thesis.
`
`Additionally, Petitioners have shown sufficiently that the evidence
`
`supports a finding that Fox Thesis describes storing the determined weights
`
`as candidate cluster links. The submatrices are stored for further
`
`computations used in a clustering procedure. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 173-74 (citing Ex.
`
`1008, 171-72, 174-77).
`
`We are persuaded, as well, that Petitioners have provided a sufficient
`
`showing that the elements of dependent claims 15 and 16 are described in
`
`Fox Thesis. For example, claim 15 requires the step of deriving actual
`
`cluster links. Dr. Fox testifies that Fox Thesis describes deriving actual
`
`cluster links. Ex. 1009 ¶ 162 (citing Ex. 1008, 199-200). We give Dr. Fox’s
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`testimony substantial weight at this stage of the proceeding, because his
`
`testimony is consistent with the description in Fox Thesis. Fox Thesis
`
`describes a garbage or orphan cluster for documents that are not grouped
`
`easily. Ex. 1008, 199.
`
`Based on the record before us, Petitioners have established a
`
`reasonable likelihood that they would prevail in showing that each of claims
`
`14-16 is anticipated by Fox Thesis.
`
`C. Anticipation of claims 1 and 5 by Fox SMART
`
`Petitioners contend that claims 1 and 5 of the ’494 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Fox SMART. Pet. 17-
`
`20. In support of the asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioners set forth
`
`the teachings of Fox SMART, provide a detailed claim chart, and cite to the
`
`declaration of Dr. Fox (Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 156-165), explaining how each
`
`limitation is disclosed in Fox SMART. Pet. 17-20. We note that Patent
`
`Owner does not provide rebuttal for claim 1.
`
`1. Fox SMART
`
`The System for Mechanical Analysis and Retrieval of Text (SMART)
`
`is described as a project for designing a fully automatic document retrieval
`
`system and for testing new ideas in information science. Ex. 1005, 3. Fox
`
`SMART describes an implementation in which software components of
`
`SMART are implemented in the C Programming Language and run under
`
`the UNIX™ operating system on a VAX™ 11/780 computer. Id. at 1, 4.
`
`In SMART, an automatic indexing component constructs stored
`
`representations of documents. Ex. 1005, 3. Bibliographic information is
`
`used to enhance document representations. Id. at 29. The SMART system
`
`may process basic raw data, such as an exemplary N collection of articles
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`and citation data describing which articles are cited by others. Ex. 1005, 29-
`
`30. The exemplary input data includes indirect citation relationships, such
`
`as bibliographic coupled and co-citation relationships. Id. at 30-32.
`
`A clustering algorithm is processed by the SMART system as follows:
`
`“[t]he clustering algorithm produces a hierarchy where all N documents in a
`
`collection end up as leaves of a multilevel tree . . . . Clustering proceeds by
`
`adding documents one by one starting with an initially empty tree.” Ex.
`
`1005, 44. Adding documents involves finding the proper place to insert,
`
`attaching the incoming entry appropriately, and recursively splitting overly
`
`large nodes. Id. at 47.
`
`In addition to splitting, the SMART system may delete clusters that
`
`exhibit too much overlap and assign others to a garbage or orphan cluster.
`
`Ex. 1005, 49. Eventually, only clusters that pass all appropriate tests are
`
`accepted. Id. at 51.
`
`2. Claims 1 and 5
`
`We find persuasive, at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioners’
`
`unchallenged analysis of how the elements of claim 1 are taught in Fox
`
`SMART. For example, Petitioners have made a sufficient showing that the
`
`evidence supports a finding that Fox SMART describes generating candidate
`
`cluster links for a selected node by analyzing indirect relationships in a
`
`database. The clustering algorithm of Fox SMART produces a hierarchy or
`
`classification in which all of the N documents in the collection end up as
`
`leaves of a multilevel tree. Ex. 1005, 44. Dr. Fox states that Fox SMART
`
`describes clustering for given concept types and generating subvectors and
`
`corresponding matrices containing indirect relationships, such as coupling
`
`and co-citation. Ex. 1009 ¶ 161 (citing Ex. 1005, 30-32, 46). We give Dr.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`Fox’s testimony substantial weight at this stage in the proceeding, because
`
`his testimony is consistent with the description in Fox Thesis.
`
`Also, Petitioners have made a sufficient showing that the evidence
`
`supports a finding that Fox SMART describes deriving actual cluster links
`
`for the candidate cluster links. Dr. Fox testifies that Fox SMART derives a
`
`result that is a subset of the initial set of links. Ex. 1009 ¶ 162 (citing Ex.
`
`1005, 51 (“clusters that do not pass all the concentration and overlap tests
`
`are deleted.”) We give Dr. Fox’s testimony substantial weight at this stage
`
`in the proceeding, because his testimony is consistent with the description in
`
`Fox SMART.
`
`Additionally, Petitioners have made a sufficient showing that the
`
`evidence supports a finding that Fox SMART describes identifying one or
`
`more nodes for display and displaying the identity of those nodes using the
`
`actual cluster links. The SMART system presents documents in a retrieved
`
`cluster to the user. Ex. 1005, 54 (“most of the documents in a retrieved
`
`cluster are presented to the user.”); see also id. at 24 (“[d]isplay desired
`
`portions of the text of documents retrieved.”)
`
`For the reasons discussed above, and in the absence of rebuttal from
`
`Patent Owner, Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
`
`they would prevail with respect to claim 1 on the ground that this claim is
`
`anticipated by Fox SMART.
`
`Claim 5 depends directly from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein
`
`the step of generating the candidate cluster links comprises the step of:
`
`eliminating candidate cluster links, wherein the number of candidate cluster
`
`links are limited and the closest candidate cluster links are chosen over the
`
`18
`
`remaining links.”
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that the step of “eliminating” requires paring
`
`down candidate cluster links before the “deriving” step of claim 1. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 15. Patent Owner further argues that the “deriving” step of claim 1 is
`
`separate from the “eliminating” step of claim 5. Id. at 16. Patent Owner
`
`further states that Petitioners have relied on the same teaching of Fox
`
`SMART for both the “eliminating” and “deriving” steps. Id. at 28. Patent
`
`Owner argues that, as a result, Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of
`
`showing that all claim 5 features are met by Fox SMART. Id. at 27.
`
`Fox SMART describes the clustering algorithm performing
`
`concentration tests:
`
`Candidate clusters which pass the concentration test are those
`formed by having enough highly correlated pairs in the
`proposed cluster. . . .
` . . . .
`“Uncour” repeatedly considers the remaining cluster that
`is most heavily covered by other clusters. If the overlap is too
`much, it is deleted. Eventually only clusters that pass all
`appropriate tests are accepted.
`
`Ex. 1005, 50-51 (emphasis added). Because Fox SMART describes multiple
`
`tests, even under Patent Owner’s interpretation, we are not persuaded by
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioners have failed to show how the
`
`number of candidate cluster links is limited, or that the closest links are
`
`chosen over the remaining links. Prelim. Resp. 29. However, Fox SMART
`
`describes choosing “highly correlated” (Ex. 1005, 50) or closest links and
`
`the “Uncour” routine limits links (Id. at 51).
`
`Based on the record before us, Petitioners have established a
`
`reasonable likelihood that they would prevail in showing that claim 5 is
`
`anticipated by Fox SMART.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`
`
`D. Obviousness of claims 8, 10, 11, 35, and 40 over Fox Thesis
`or Fox SMART and Envision and Salton
`
`Petitioners contend that claims 8, 10, 11, and 35 of the ’494 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fox Thesis or Fox
`
`SMART and Envision. Pet. 23-28. Petitioners contend that claim 40 of the
`
`’494 Patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fox
`
`Thesis or Fox SMART, Envision, and Salton. Pet. 28-29. In support of the
`
`asserted grounds of unpatentability, Petitioners set forth the teachings of Fox
`
`Thesis, provide a detailed claim chart, and cite to the declaration of Dr. Fox
`
`(Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 7, 42-52, 155, 165-66, 179-81, 211-16), explaining how each
`
`limitation is disclosed in the prior art. Pet. 23-29.
`
`1. Claims 8, 10, 11, and 35
`
`Each of claims 8, 10, 11, and 35 depend indirectly from claim 1. Each
`
`claim recites additional features relating to connections external to the
`
`database including: (1) a connection to an independent application external
`
`to the database (claim 8); (2) providing an independent application access to
`
`the database (claim 10); providing an external connection to another
`
`computer and accessing information within that computer (claim 11); and
`
`wherein the indirect relationships are a chain of hyperlink references
`
`between objects on the World Wide Web (claim 35).
`
`Petitioners have made a sufficient showing that the evidence supports
`
`a finding that each of the additional limitations of claims 8, 10, 11, and 35 is
`
`described by Fox SMART and Envision, taken together. For example,
`
`Envision describes a user interface that is an independent application on
`
`another computer external to the database and provides access to
`
`information within the database. Ex. 1006, 484-85. Additionally,
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
