Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84-1
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(1 of 38)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF
`
`JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION
`
`OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED: 09/09/2016
`
`The attached opinion announcing the judgment of the court in your case was filed and judgment was entered on
`the date indicated above. The mandate will be issued in due course.
`
`Information is also provided about petitions for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing en banc. The questions
`and answers are those frequently asked and answered by the Clerk's Office.
`
`Costs are taxed against the appellant in favor of the appellee under Rule 39. The party entitled to costs is
`provided a bill of costs form and an instruction sheet with this notice.
`
`The parties are encouraged to stipulate to the costs. A bill of costs will be presumed correct in the absence of a
`timely filed objection.
`
`Costs are payable to the party awarded costs. If costs are awarded to the government, they should be paid to
`the Treasurer of the United States. Where costs are awarded against the government, payment should be made to
`the person(s) designated under the governing statutes, the court's orders, and the parties' written settlement
`agreements. In cases between private parties, payment should be made to counsel for the party awarded costs or, if
`the party is not represented by counsel, to the party pro se. Payment of costs should not be sent to the court. Costs
`should be paid promptly.
`
`If the court also imposed monetary sanctions, they are payable to the opposing party unless the court's opinion
`provides otherwise. Sanctions should be paid in the same way as costs.
`
`Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Your attention is directed Fed. R. App. P. 34(9) which states that the clerk
`may destroy or dispose of the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives
`notice to remove them. (The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandate is issued.)
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`[31 Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`15—1649 - Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. IPR2013—00479
`
`15—1650 - Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. IPR2013-00480
`
`.
`15-1651 - Software Rights Archive. LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. lPR2013-00480
`
`15—1652 - Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. IPR2013-00481
`
`15-1653 - Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. IPR2013-00481
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84—2
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(2 of 38)
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`OHniteiJ étates (£01111 of gppeals
`
`for the jeheral QEircuit
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC,
`
`Appellant
`
`V.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORPORATION,
`TWITTER, INC.,
`'
`Cross-Appellants
`
`2015-1649, 2015-1650, 2015-1651
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade-
`mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos.
`IPR2013-00479, IPR2013-00480.
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC,
`Appellant
`
`V.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORPORATION,
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Cross-Appellants
`
`
`20 15- 1652, 20 15- 1653
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84-2
`
`Page: 2
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(3 of 38)
`
`2
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade-
`mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No.
`IPR2013-00481.
`
`Decided: September 9, 2016
`
`VICTOR G. HARDY, DiNovo, Price, Ellwanger & Hardy
`LLP, Austin, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented
`by MINGHUI YANG; MARTIN Moss ZOLTICK,
`SOUMYA
`PANDA, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C., Washing-
`ton, DC.
`
`HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued
`for cross-appellant Facebook Inc. Also represented by
`LOWELL D. MEAD, CARRIE J. RICHEY, MARK R. WEINSTEIN.
`
`DAVID SILBERT, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, San Francis-
`co, CA, argued for cross-appellants LinkedIn Corporation,
`Twitter, Inc. Also represented by SHARIF E. JACOB, PHILIP
`J. TASSIN.
`
`Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
`
`Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM.
`
`Opinion dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge
`CHEN.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`Software Rights Archive, LLC (“Software Rights”) ap-
`peals inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions of the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board (“board”) of the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) holding that claims
`18 and 45 of US. Patent No. 5,832,494 (the “’494 patent”)
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Doculnent: 84-2
`
`Page: 3
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(4 of 38)
`
`\.
`
`$H3WARERK§HSAMHHVEILCV.MKEBOOKJNC.
`
`3
`
`' /
`
`and claims 12 and 22 of U.S.' Patent No. 6,233,571 (the
`“’571 patent”) are unpatentable over the prior art.1 See
`Facebook, Inc. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC, IPR No.
`2013-00479, 2015 WL 470598, at *7—13, *16—17 (PTAB.
`Feb. 2, 2015) (“Board Decision I”); Facebook, Inc. v. Soft-
`ware Rights Archive, LLC, IPR No. 2013—00481, 2015 WL -
`429750, at *12—16, *18—20 (PTAB Jan. 29, 2015) (“Board
`Decision II”). Facebook, Inc., LinkedIn Corporation, and
`Twitter, Inc. (collectively “Facebook”)cross-appeal, chal-
`lenging the board’s determinations that claims 1, 5, 15,
`and 16 of the ’494 patent are not anticipated, see Face-
`book, Inc. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC, IPR No. 2013-
`00480, 2015 WL 456539, at *8—13 (PTAB Jan. 30, 2015)
`(“Board Decision III”), and that claim 21 of the ’571 pa-
`tent is not obvious over the prior art, see Board Decision
`II, 2015 WL 429750, at *16—18. For the reasons discussed
`below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The ’494 and ’571 patents are continuations-in-part of
`US. Patent No. 5,544,352 (the “’352 patent”). We recently
`affirmed the board’s determination that claims 26, 28—30,
`32, 34, and 39 of the ’352 patent are unpatentable as
`obvious. See Facebook, Inc. v. Software Rights Archive,
`LLC, IPR No. 2013-00478, 2015 WL 470597 (PTAB Feb. 2,
`2015), aff’d without opinion, 640 F. App’x 995 (Fed. Cir.
`2016).
`
`Software Rights also advances a cursory argu- ‘
`1
`ment that the board erred in concluding that certain
`claims that depend from claims 18 and 45 of the ’494
`patent (i.e., claims 19, 20, 48, 49, 51, and 54) are un-
`patentable as obvious. It does not, however, identify any
`specific limitations in those dependent claims that would
`render them non-obvious if the board’s determination that
`claims 18 and 45 are unpatentable as obvious is affirmed.
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84—2
`
`Page: 4
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(5 of 38)
`
`4
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`The ’494 and ’571 patents, which relate to computer-
`ized research on a database, are both entitled “Method
`and Apparatus for Indexing, Searching and Displaying
`Data.” Joint Appendix (“J .A.”) I 5057; J .A. II 5058.2 The
`patents purport
`to improve upon traditional Boolean
`search methods by analyzing non-semantic relationships
`between documents. See J.A. I 5057—59; J.A. II 5058—60.
`They describe a process for organizing and searching for
`data using a technique called “proximity indexing.” ’494
`patent, col. 3 1. 28; ’571 patent, col. 3 l. 33. Proximity
`indexing is used to search for data,
`including textual
`objects, by “generat[ing] a quick-reference of the relations,
`patterns, and similarity found among the data in the
`database.” ’494 patent, col. 3 11. 30—31; ’571 patent, col. 3
`11. 34—36. The claimed inventions are designed to provide
`a “user friendly computerized research tool” which “emu-
`lates human methods of research.” ’494 patent, col. 3 ll.
`
`11—14;’571 patent, col. 3 11. 15—18.
`
`I. The ’494 Patent
`
`The ’494 patent describes using non-semantic rela-
`tionships to search for objects in a database. J.A. I 5057—
`58. A citation relationship between two documents is
`non-semantic because it is not based on words (or “terms”)
`common to both documents, but is instead based on one
`document’s reference to the other document. See J .A. I
`5058, 5063. Two documents have a direct citation rela-
`tionship when one document cites to the other document.
`See J .A. I 5063. Two documents can also have an indirect
`citation relationship, such as when they both cite to a
`
`The appendix related to the ’494 patent and the
`2
`appendix related to the ’571 patent contain many of the
`same documents. For the sake of convenience, the appen-
`dix related to the ’494 patent will be referred to as “J .A. I”
`and the appendix related to the ’571 patent will be re-
`ferred to as “J .A. II.”
`
`

`

`Case: 15—1649
`
`Document: 84-2
`
`Page: 5
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`/
`
`(6 of 38)
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`5
`
`third document (bibliographiocoupling (“bc”)) or when
`they are both cited by a third document (co-citation (“cc”)).
`J.A. I 5063—64.3 These relationships, as well as other
`relationships between documents, can be used to create
`clusters of similar documents, thereby enhancing search
`and retrieval. J .A. I 5058—64.
`
`The ’494'patent explains that data in the database to
`be searched may be represented as a “node.” ’494 patent,
`col. 12 11. 34—41. A node can be “an object in a database, a
`portion of an object in a database, a document, a section of
`a documentfl [or] a World Wide Web page.” Id. col. 12 11.
`36—39 (diagram numbering omitted).
`‘ The ’494 patent
`further states that a cluster link generator can be used to
`generate candidate cluster links between nodes.
`Id. col.
`21 11. 54—67.
`It explains that ‘.‘[c]andidate cluster links
`are the set of all possible cluster links between a search
`node and a target node.”
`Id. col. 21 1. 66—001. 22 l. 1
`(diagram numbering omitted). Actual cluster links, which
`are “a subset of the candidate cluster links .-
`.
`. which meet
`a certain criteria,” can be “used to locate nodes for dis-
`play.” Id. col. 22 11. 1—4 (diagram numbering omitted).
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’494 patent recites:
`
`A method of analyzing a database with indirect
`relationships, using links and nodes, comprising
`the steps of:
`
`selecting a node for analysis;
`\
`
`The board construed the term “direct relation-
`3
`ships” to mean “relationships where one object cites to
`another object” and the term “indirect relationships” to
`mean “relationships where at
`least one intermediate
`object exists between two objects and where the interme-
`diate object(s) connect the two objects through a chain of
`citations.” Board Decision I, 2015 WL 470598, at *5
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`

`

`II
`
`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84—2
`
`Page: 6
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(7 of 38)
`
`6'
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`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
`
`displaying the identity of.one or more nodes using‘
`the actual cluster links.
`
`Id. col. 51 11. 38—49.
`
`Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, provides that
`“the step of generating the candidate cluster links com-
`prises 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
`remaining links.” Id. col. 51 1. 66—col. 52 l. 4. Claim 15
`recites: “The method of claim 14 further comprising the
`step of deriving the- actual cluster links wherein the
`actual cluster links are a subset of the candidate cluster
`links.” Id. col. 52 11. 65—67 (emphasis omitted). Similarly,
`claim 16 recites: “The method of claim 15 wherein the
`step of deriving comprises the step of choosing the top
`rated candidate cluster links.” Id. col. 53 11. 1—3 (empha-
`
`sis omitted).
`
`'
`
`Claims 18 and 45 of the ’494 patent describe search
`methods which use numerical representations of relation-
`ships between documents. Independent claim 18 recites:
`
`A method of analyzing a database having objects
`and a first numerical representation of direct rela-
`tionships in the database, comprising the steps of:
`
`generating a second numerical representation us-
`ing the first numerical representation, wherein
`the second numerical representation accounts for
`indirect relationships in the database;
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84—2
`
`Page: 7
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(8 of 38)
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`7
`
`storing the second numerical representation;
`
`in the database,
`identifying at least one object
`wherein the stored numerical representation is
`used to identify objects; and
`
`displaying one or more identified objects from the
`database.
`
`Id. col. 53 11. 28—40.
`
`Claim 45 depends from claim 19, which in turn de-
`pends from claim 18. It recites:
`
`The method of claim 19, wherein the direct rela-
`tionships are hyperlink relationships between ob-
`jects on the world wide web and the second
`numerical representation of direct and indirect re-
`lationships is a value that is generated by analyz-
`ing direct link weights in a set of paths between
`two indirectly related objects, and wherein the
`step of identifying uses at least the value to de—
`termine an object’s importance for ranking.
`
`J .A. I 5092 (reexamination certificate) (emphasis omit—
`ted).
`
`The board held that claim 18 of the ’494 patent is un-
`patentable over three prior art publications by Dr. Ed-
`ward A. Fox (collectively the “Fox Papers”). See Board
`Decision I, 2015 WL 470598, at *7—13. These publications
`were originally part of one document but were eventually
`split into three separate documents: (1) Edward A. Fox,
`Characterization of Two New Experimental Collections in
`Computer and Information Science Containing Textual
`and Bibliographic Concepts (Sept. 1983) (Ph.D. disserta-
`tion, Cornell University) (“Fox Collection”); (2) Edward A.
`Fox, Some Considerations for Implementing the SMART
`Information Retrieval System under UNIX (Sept. 1983)
`(Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University) (“Fox SMART”);
`and (3) Edward A. Fox, Extending the Boolean and Vector
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84-2
`
`Page: 8
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(9 of 38)
`
`8
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`Space Models of Information Retrieval with P-Norm
`Queries and Multiple Concept Types (Aug. 1983) (PhD.
`thesis, Cornell University) (“Fox Thesis”). The Fox Pa-
`pers describe clustering documents based on concepts
`(which are referred to as “vectors” or “subvectors”) as well
`as terms. J .A. I 5629—40. In the Fox system, a query will
`not only “retrieve clusters containing documents whose
`terms match its terms,” but will also retrieve “documents
`which have little in common with the query terms but are
`highly correlated through other components of the ex-
`tended vectors.”
`J.A. I 5659. Fox Thesis explains that
`“bibliographic measures,” such as be and cc, are “useful in
`both retrieval and clustering applications.” J .A. I 5635.
`
`Although Software Rights argued that the Fox Papers
`do not teach claim 18’s limitation requiring “a database
`having objects and a first numerical representation of
`direct relationships in the database,” ’494 patent, col. 53
`11. 27—29, the board rejected this contention. See Board
`Decision I, 2015 WL 470598, at *10—11. According to the
`board, “it would have been obvious to modify the data-
`bases of the Fox Papers to contain full text documents.”
`Id. at *10.
`In support,
`the board noted that the Fox
`Papers specifically state that “some [information retriev-
`al] systems store the full text of the various documents.”
`Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`The board further concluded that the Fox Papers,
`when combined with Edward A. Fox et al., Users, User
`Interfaces, and Objects: Envision, a Digital Library, 44 J.
`Am. Soc’y Info. Sci. 480 (1993) (“Fox Envision”), rendered
`claim 45 of the ’494 patent obvious. See Board Decision I,
`2015 WL 470598, at *16—17. According to the board, Fox
`Envision teaches analyzing web-based links, as claim 45
`requires, because it specifically describes “applying cita-
`tion analysis to hypertext systems, including the World
`Wide Web.” Id. at *17.
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84-2
`
`Page: 9
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(10 of 38)
`
`SOFI WARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`9
`
`The board determined, however, that the prior art
`failed to teach the limitation of claims 1, 5, 15, and 16
`that requires “deriving” actual cluster links from the set
`of candidate cluster links. See Board Decision III, 2015
`WL 456539, at *8—13. The board noted that “Fox SMART
`describes the clustering process as initializing a new tree
`as empty, adding documents to the tree, and recursively
`splitting overly large nodes of the tree.” Id. at *9. In the
`board’s View, however, because Fox SMART does not
`disclose “deleting clusters other than those that simply
`overlap, or duplicate, other clusters,” it does not teach
`“deriving a subset of the already generated candidate
`cluster links.” Id. at *10; see also id. at *13 (concluding
`that Fox Thesis does not anticipate claims 15 and 16
`because it does not teach “deriving” a subset of actual
`cluster links).
`
`II. The ’571 Patent
`
`The ’571 patent is focused on search techniques for
`use in hypertext networks. Claim 12 describes “cluster
`analyzing” universal resource locators (“URLs”):
`
`A method for visually displaying data related to a
`web having identifiable web pages and Universal
`Resource Locators with pointers, comprising:
`
`choosing an identifiable web page;
`
`identifying Universal Resource Locators for the
`web pages, wherein the identified Universal Re-
`source Locators either point to or point away from
`the chosen web page;
`
`analyzing Universal Resource Locators, including
`the
`identified Universal Resource Locators,
`wherein Universal Resource Locators which have
`an indirect relationship to the chosen web page
`are located, wherein the step of analyzing further
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84—2
`
`Page: 10
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016 ,
`
`(11 of 38)
`
`.51
`
`L
`
`10
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`comprises cluster analyzing the -Universal Re-
`source Locators for indirect relationships; and
`displaying identities of web pages, wherein the lo-
`cated Universal Resource Locators are used to
`identify web pages.
`
`’571 patent, col. 52 11. 38—56.
`
`Claim 22 describes retrieving hyperjump data which
`J .A. II
`“has an indirect reference to [a] chosen node.”
`5090. It recites:
`
`A method for displaying information about a net-
`work that has hyperjump data, comprising:
`
`choosing a node;
`
`‘
`
`accessing the hyperjump data;
`
`identifying hyperjump data from within the ac-
`cessed hyperjump data that has a direct reference
`to the chosen node;
`,
`
`determining hyperjump data from Within the ac-
`cessed hyperjump data that has an indirect refer-
`ence to the chosen node by proximity indexing the
`identified hyperjump data; and
`
`‘ displaying one or more determined hyperjump da-
`ta, wherein the nodes are nodes in the network
`that may be accessed,
`the hyperjump data in-
`cludes hyperjump links between nodes in the
`network, and the step of displaying comprises:
`
`generating a source map using one or more of the
`determined hyperjump data, wherein the source
`, map represents hyperjump links that identify the
`chosen node as a destination of a link, and where-
`in the method further comprises activating a link
`represented on the source map, wherein a user
`
`

`

`,
`
`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84—2
`
`Page: 11
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(12 of 38)
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC. ‘
`
`11
`
`may hyperjump to a node represented as a node of
`the link.
`
`J.A. II 5090—91 (reexamination certificate).
`,—
`
`Claim 21 of the ’571 patent describes deriving actual
`cluster links from a set of candidate cluster links in a
`
`hypertext network:
`
`A method'of displaying information about a net-
`work that has hyperjump data, comprising:
`
`choosing a node;
`
`accessing the hyperjump data;
`
`identifying hyperjump data from within the ac-
`cessed hyperjump data that has a direct reference
`to the chosen node;
`
`determining hyperjump data from within the ac-
`cessed hyperjump data that has an indirect refer-
`ence to the chosen node using the identified
`hyperjump data, wherein the step of determining
`comprises non-semantically generating a set of
`candidate cluster links for nodes indirectly related
`to the chosen node using the hyperjump data, as-
`signing weights to the candidate cluster links and
`deriving actual cluster links from the set of candi-
`date cluster links based on the assigned weights;
`and
`
`displaying one or more determined hyperjump da-
`ta.
`
`J .A. II 5090 (reexamination certificate).
`
`The board determined that claims 12 and 22 of the
`’57 1 patent are obvious over a combination of Fox Thesis,
`Fox SMART, and Fox Envision. See Board Decision II,
`2015 WL 429750, at *12—16, *18—20.
`Specifically, the
`board concluded that Fox SMART and Fox Thesis taught
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84-2
`
`Page: 12
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(13 of 38)
`
`12
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`all of the elements of claims 12 and 22—other than the
`hypertext
`limitations—and that Fox Envision taught
`applying the teachings of Fox SMART and Fox Thesis to
`hypertext networks.
`See id.
`Furthermore, although
`Software Rights contended that the commercial success of
`Google’s PageRank algorithm provided objective evidence
`of non-obviousness, the board determined that Software
`Rights had failed to establish any nexus between the
`success of Google’s algorithm and the “features recited in
`the claims of the ’571 patent.” Id. at *15.
`
`The board concluded, however, that Facebook had not
`established that claim 21 of the ’571 patent is unpatenta-
`ble as obvious. See id. at *16—18.
`In the board’s View,
`since Fox SMART’s clustering algorithm does not delete
`documents from the cluster tree, it does not teach “deriv-
`ing” a subset of actual cluster links from the set of candi—
`date cluster links. Id. at *18.
`
`The parties then timely appealed. This court has ju-
`risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C.
`§ 141(c).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`1. Standard of Review
`
`'
`
`We review the board’s legal conclusions de novo, but
`review for substantial evidence any underlying factual
`determinations. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz,
`Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 836—38 (2015); see also Nike, Inc. 0.
`Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re
`Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375,
`1378—79 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a
`reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
`conclusion.”- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 US. 197,
`229 (1938); see In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d
`1289, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84—2
`
`Page: 13
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(14 of 38)
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`13
`
`II. Claim 18 of the ’494 Patent
`
`Software Rights argues that the board erred in con-
`cluding that claim 18 of the ’494 patent is obvious in View
`of the Fox Papers.
`In support, it contends that claim 18
`operates on a full-text database containing documents
`with textual citations to each other, whereas the test
`collections used by Fox contained only limited infor-
`mation—such as abstracts, authors, titles of articles, and
`bibliographic records—instead of the full text of docu-
`ments.
`
`This argument fails. Even assuming arguendo that
`claim 18 requires a database containing full-text docu-
`ments, the Fox Papers explicitly suggest the use of such a
`database. Fox Thesis states that some information re-
`trieval “systems store the full text of the various docu-
`ments .
`.
`. being manipulated,” and that this approach is
`advantageous because it allows users “to locate docu-
`ments of interest” and “examine paragraphs, passages,
`sentences, or single word occurrences (in context).” J .A. I
`5482.4 It explains, moreover, that storing the full text of
`documents is a “straightforward generalizationfl of docu-
`ment retrieval methods.”
`J .A. I 5482. Given that Fox
`Thesis specifically states that storing the full
`text of
`documents is both beneficial and “straightforward,” the
`board had ample support for its conclusion that “the Fox
`Papers suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention the modification of the Fox data-
`bases to include full text documents.” Board Decision I,
`ZUlb WL 470598, at ”‘11.
`
`Fox SMART likewise suggests the use of full-text
`4
`retrieval applications.
`It states that “vectors could be
`computed for smaller items than just documents” and
`that “[t]his would be of particular value in full text re-
`trieval applications.” J .A. I 5443 (emphasis added).
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84—2
`
`Pagez‘14
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(15 of 38)
`
`‘14
`
`SOFI WARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`'
`
`I
`
`‘3
`
`"III. Claim 45 of the ’494 Patent
`
`' The board also had ample support for its determina—
`tion that claim 45 of the ’494 patent is obvious over a
`combination of the Fox Papers and Fox Envision. See id:
`at *15—17. Claim 45 recites that “the direct relationships
`are hyperlink relationships between objects on the world -
`wide web.”
`J .A. I 5092 (emphasis omitted). Although
`. Software Rights argues that “Fox Envision does not teach
`the idea that one should analyze hyperlinks as opposed to
`bibliographic citations to enhance search,” the board
`properly rejected this contention, concluding that Fox
`Envision explicitly teaches the application of citation
`analysis in hypertext systems. See Board Decision I, 2015
`WL 470598, at *17.
`
`.
`
`,
`
`Fox Envision, which was published ten years after
`Fox Thesis and Fox SMART, was designed to “reconcep-
`tualize the idea of digital libraries” in order to “envision ‘
`their next generation.” J .A. I 5844 (emphasis omitted).
`Its objective was “to harmonize and integrate concepts
`from'a variety of interrelated fields,” including “hyper-
`text[,] hypermediaH .. .
`[and]
`information storage and
`retrieval.” J.A. I 5844. Fox Envision explicitly teaches
`analyzing the links between objects in a hypertext sys-
`tem:
`
`v’:
`
`Links should be recorded, preserved, organized,
`and generalized. As we integrate documents into
`very large collections covering an entire scientific
`domain or professional area,
`links among those
`documents become increasingly important to help
`with search and browsing. Groupings of those
`links into paths, threads, tours, and webs are es-
`sential for organizing, personalizing, sharing, and
`' preserving the structural,
`interpretational, and
`evolutionary connections that develop. We are
`beginning to see the emergence of wide area hy-
`perext
`systems
`(Yankelovich,
`1990)
`like
`the
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84-2 . Page: 15
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(16 of 38)
`
`\
`
`v
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTSBARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`15
`
`WorldWideWeb . .. that carry -this concept for-
`ward into a distributed environment. Clearly, we
`' must coordinate hypertext and hypermedia link-
`ing with the various approaches to search and re-
`trieval (Fox et al., 1991b). One approach is the
`idea of
`information graphs
`(including hyper-
`graphs), where objects of all types are interrelated
`by links or arcs that capture not only citation (ref-
`erence) but also inheritance,
`inclusion, associa-
`tion,
`synchronization,
`sequencing,
`and other
`relationships.
`'
`
`u
`
`J.A. I 5845.
`
`\
`
`As the board correctly determined, “[t]he approach
`taught in Fox Envision interrelates ‘objects of all types,’
`including objects on the World Wide Web, so as to capture
`citation relationships.”
`Board Decision I, 2015 WL
`470598, at *17 (quoting J.A. I 5845).
`Indeed, Fox Envi-
`sion explains that as the overall size of a document collec-
`tion increases, the “links among
`documents become
`increasingly important to help with search and browsing.”
`J.A. I 5845.
`It further explains that one approach to
`“coordinat[ing] hypertext and hypermedia linking” with
`known search and retrieval methods is to create “infor-
`mation graphs (including hypergraphs), Where objects of
`all types are interrelated by links or arcs that capture .
`.
`.
`citation .
`.
`. relationships.” J .A. I 5845 (emphasis added);
`see also J.A. I 7084—88. Thus, as the board correctly
`concluded, Fox Envision teaches analyzing citation rela-
`tionships in hypertext systems.
`See Board Decision I,
`2015 WL 470598, at *17.
`
`Software Rights contends that because the Fox Papers
`predated the widespread use of the web and hyperlinks,
`their teachings are limited to bibliographic citations
`between paper documents. We are unpersuaded.
`In
`assessing obviou'sness, references are not. read in isola-
`tion. See, e.g., In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
`
`

`

`\
`
`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84-2
`
`Page: 16
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(17 of 38)
`
`' 16
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC V. FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be estab-
`lished by attacking references individually where the
`rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
`references”). Although the Fox Papers do not describe
`analyzing hyperlink relationships, they must be read in
`-view of Fox Envision, which, as discussed above, provides
`express motivation to apply citation analysis to the links
`between objects found ; on‘ the web.
`See, e.g., Applied
`Materials, 692 F.3d at 1298 (emphasizing that “[o]ne of
`ordinary skill in the art is not foreclosed from combining”
`relevant related references).
`As the board correctly
`determined, moreover, a skilled artisan would readily
`have combined the teachings of Fox Envision with those
`of Fox Thesis and Fox SMART given that Fox Envision is
`a follow-on work to Fox’s earlier publications. See Board
`Decision I, 2015 WL 470598, at *16; see also Board Deci-
`sion II, 2015 WL 429750, at *12 (“Dr. Fox states it would
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`combine the techniques of [Fox] Envision, Fox Thesis, and
`Fox SMART because [Fox] Envision was built on, and was
`itselffl a follow--on work to Fox Thesis and Fox SMART.”).
`In short, Fox Thesis and Fox SMART teach the use of
`citation analysis in databases storing information related
`to paper documents, while Fox Envision extends that
`teaching to hypertext networks. We conclude, therefore,
`that substantial evidence supports the board’s determina-
`tion that claim 45 of the ’494 patent is obvious over a
`combination of Fox Envision and the Fox Papers.5 See In
`
`For similar reasons, we affirm the board’s deter-
`5
`mination that claims 12 and 22 of the ’571 patent. are
`obvious in View of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox
`Envision.
`See Board Decision II, 2015 WL 429750, at
`*10—16. As the board correctly determined, Fox Thesis
`and Fox SMART teach each of the elements of claims 12
`and 22, other than the hypertext limitations, and Fox
`Envision teaches applying citation analysis to hypertext
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1649
`
`Document: 84-2
`
`Page: 17
`
`Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(18 of 38)
`
`SOF‘I WARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC.
`I
`,1
`t
`
`17
`
`_
`
`x
`
`.
`
`re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The
`presence or absence of a motivation to combine references
`in an obviousness determination is a pure question, of
`fact.”); Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340,
`1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“What a reference teaches and
`whether it teaches toward or away from the claimed *
`invention are Questions of fact.” (citations and internal
`quotation marks omitted».
`
`.
`
`IV. Alleged Teaching Away
`“A reference may be' said to teach away when a person
`of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
`discouraged from following the path set out in the refer-
`ence, or would be led in a direction divergent from the
`
`
`
`3
`
`-
`
`Id. Software Rights argues that claim 12 is
`networks.
`not obvious because Fox Thesis describes the use of
`‘document identifiers, which it refers to as “dids,” see J .A.
`II 5738, 5766, rather than URLs. We do not agree. As
`noted previously, Fox Thesis teaches using citation data,
`including bibliographic relationships,
`to improve search
`and retrieval.
`See J.A. II 5694—5725. Although Fox
`Thesis does not discuss the use of URLs, it must be read
`in View of Fox Envision, which explicitly teaches using
`citation analysis in hypertext systems. See J .A. II 5845.
`Given that Fox Envision is a follow-on work to Fox Thesis,
`a skilled artisan “would have combined the retrieval
`systems taught in Fox Thesis .
`.
`. with documents stored
`as web pages and linked by hypertext and hypermedia
`linking taught in [Fox] Envision.” Board Decision II, 2015
`WT. 429750, at *12. As this court has previously recog-
`nized, moreover, taking well-known methods and apply-
`ing them Via the Internet is insufficient, standing alone,
`to render claims non-obvious. See, e.g., Muniauction, Inc.
`v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`(concluding that “the incorporation of web browser func-
`tionality” did not establish non—obviousness).
`
`

`

`Case: 15—1649
`
`Document: 84-2
`
`Page: 18 . Filed: 09/09/2016
`
`(19 of 38)
`
`18
`
`SOFTWA