Direct and Indirect Relationships Between
`Objects in a Database
`
`IPR2013-00478 POR at 15-19; ‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 130-148.
`
`EXHIBIT 2122
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC
`CASES IPR2013-00478
`IPR2013-00479
`IPR2013-00480
`IPR2013-00481
`
`1
`
`
`Objects in a Database
`
`IPR2013-00478 POR at 15-19; ‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 130-148.
`
`EXHIBIT 2122
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC
`CASES IPR2013-00478
`IPR2013-00479
`IPR2013-00480
`IPR2013-00481
`
`1
`
`
`
`“The claims of the Patents at Issue are directed to the analysis and
`search of a computerized database of textual objects containing
`citations to other objects stored in the computer database.
`
`Each specification discloses computerized tools and methods for
`extracting keywords and direct relationships from the content of
`database objects and generating representations of direct and indirect
`relationships existing among the database objects.”
`
`‘352 PO Response, IPR2013-00478 Paper 34 at 4, 1-6.
`
`2
`
`
`
`“This invention is a system for computerized searching of data. Specially, the present
`invention significantly aids a researcher in performing computerized research on a database.
`…
`The invention begins with an existing database and indexed the data by creating a numerical
`representation of the data. This indexing technique called proximity indexing generates a quick-
`reference of the relations, patterns, and similarity found among the data in the database. Using
`this proximity index, an efficient search for pools of data having a particular relation, pattern or
`characteristic can be effectuated.”
`
`IPR2013-00478 POR at 1-6; ‘352 Patent at 3:42-55.
`
`3
`
`
`
`“Specialized Computer Tools”
`A “Proximity Indexing Application Program indexes the database into a more
`useful format to enable the Computer Search Program for Data Represented
`by Matrices (CSPDM) to efficiently search the database.” ‘494 patent at 3:61-63.
`“This program includes an “extractor” which analyzes the text of database
`objects to extract citations (i.e., any reference to and from database objects to
`other database objects) and keywords for purposes of creating a proximity
`index. ‘494 patent at 16:47-17:32; FIGS 3B, 3D.
`This program also includes a “patterner” and “cluster link generator” to
`automatically generate cluster links of indirect relationships from the
`extracted content so that a large computer database can be analyzed and
`searched.” ‘494 patent at 17:33-18:58; FIGS 3B-3H; 21:30-24:16; see IPR2013-00478 POR at 4, 1-6.
`
`4
`
`
`
`“Critical to the functioning of the above systems and methods is a
`database that contains objects that cite to other objects in the
`database. This is a non-trivial limitation. Without such a database, the
`“extractor” cannot analyze the content of database objects to extract their
`direct relationships (and keywords) and the “patterner” and “cluster link
`generator” cannot automatically generate representations of indirect
`relationships that exist in the database. ‘494 patent at 16:47-17:32; 17:33-
`18:58; FIGS 3B-3D.16. Similarly, the search and display routines cannot
`display the content of objects that refer to each other without such content
`being stored in an electronic database.”
`
`IPR2013-00478 POR at 4; see, e.g., ‘352 patent at 23:25 –26:49; FIGs 4A-D; 5A-D; IPR2013-00478 POR at 4,1-6.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Claim 26 of the ‘352 Patent Recites a Method of Analyzing a
`Computerized Database Wherein Direct and Indirect
`Relationships Exist Between Objects in the Database
`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:
`marking objects in the database so that each marked object may be individually identified by a computerized search;
`creating a first numerical representation for each identified object in the database based upon the object's direct
`relationship with other objects in the database;
`storing the first numerical representations for use in computerized searching;
`analyzing the first numerical representations for indirect relationships existing between or among objects in the
`database;
`generating a second numerical representation of each object based on the analysis of the first numerical representation;
`storing the second numerical representation for use in computerized searching; and
`searching the objects in the database using a computer and the stored second numerical representations, wherein the
`search identifies one or more of the objects in the database.
`‘352 patent at 35:28-53 (emphasis added); IPR2013-00478 POR at 6-8.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘494 Patent Recites a Method of Analyzing a
`Computerized Database Using Cluster Links to Analyze
`Indirect Relationships in the Database
`Claim 1 of the ‘494 patent reads:
`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
`displaying the identity of one or more nodes using the actual cluster links.
`‘494 patent at 51:38-49; IPR2013-00480 POR at 5-8.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`“The experiments of Dr. Fox are not directed to the analysis
`of a computer database of objects, but rather are directed
`towards limited experimentation with relationships existing
`among printed documents. This prior art describes limited
`experiments to determine whether direct and indirect
`relationships existing among paper documents are useful for
`clustering and searching and were limited to preparing data for
`specific experiments – experiments that did not involve a
`database having objects and direct and indirect relationships in
`the database.”
`IPR2013-00478 POR at 32-33; ‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 161-170.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies: “The Fox Papers Teach (At Most) to
`Analyze Relationships That Exist in Printed Bibliographies”
`The Fox Papers describe Dr. Fox and his “thesis helpers” tediously
`collating citation information from printed bibliographies:
`“Carol Fox and Jill Warner looked through printed copies of each
`article to locate the bibliography. For each article, a list of the "dids“
`representing articles referenced in the CACM collection was
`eventually obtained.”
`Fox Collection at 14 (emphasis added).
`“Jill Warner finished looking up and then typed the CACM citations
`data as well as most of the ISI abstracts.”
`Fox Thesis at vi (emphasis added); see IPR2013-00478 POR at 32-35; ‘352 Jacobs Decl. at ¶ 263-264.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies: “The Fox Papers Teach (At Most) to
`Analyze Relationships That Exist in Printed Bibliographies”
`This is also confirmed by Dr. Fox’s testimony:
`“Two assistants manually looked through printed copies
`of the CACM articles to locate the bibliography to
`determine the direct citations.”
`Fox Declaration at ¶ 78.
`
`“The bibliographic coupling, co-citation, and direct
`citations were compiled by me and my thesis helpers.”
`Fox Declaration at ¶ 74; see IPR2013-00478 POR at 32-35; ‘352 Jacobs Decl. at ¶ 263-264.
`
`10
`
`
`
`For the CACM collection, the Fox Papers teach:
`“Robert Dattola of Xerox Corporation provided a magnetic tape containing the
`title, abstract, author list, keywords, Computing Reviews categories, and date of
`publication of articles published in the Communications of the ACM[]. The
`collection format was changed, document numbers (dids) were assigned, and
`editing was done to correct spelling and typographical errors.…
`[Fox’s thesis helpers] looked through printed copies of each article to locate the
`bibliography. For each article, a list of the "dids“ representing articles
`referenced in the CACM collection was eventually obtained.” Fox Collection at 14;
`Fox Thesis at 66; ‘352 Jacobs Dec. at ¶ 165.
`
`For the ISI collection, the Fox Papers teach:
`“It had been decided earlier that the title, author list, and abstract should be
`typed to obtain machine readable copy. [] These texts were then automatically
`indexed using SMART programs.” Fox Collection at 51; see also IPR2013-00478 POR at 33; ‘352
`Jacobs Dec. at ¶¶ 267-277..
`
`11
`
`
`
`“To support SRA’s position, SRA provided an incomplete image of a
`CACM export file for a particular document during an interview with the
`PTO (id.), omitting the direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-
`citation information. The full CACM file contains not only the titles and
`abstracts of articles, but also the citation information. Further, the full
`CACM database related to this document collection was what was stored in
`the SMART system, which used the INGRES database system; this
`database was not discussed by SRA. The bibliographic coupling, co-
`citation, and direct citations were compiled by me and my thesis helpers.
`Note, the CACM and ISI files were not reproduced in Fox Thesis, but
`exported versions were distributed along with SMART thereafter.”
`Fox Decl. at ¶74 (emphasis in original).
`
`12
`
`
`
`ISI
`
`CACM
`
`Exhibits 5J and 4J to the 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration of Paul S. Jacobs filed in
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,010, dated February 9, 2001, IPR2013-00478
`Exhibits 2010 and 2011; see also IPR2013-00478 POR at 33; ‘352 Jacobs Dec.,
`IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 271, 360.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`“[Claim 26 of the ‘352 Patent] requires that the first numerical
`representation be “based upon the object’s direct relationship with other
`objects in the database.” However, the numbers which Dr. Fox point to
`as the numerical representations result from the analysis of printed
`documents.
`The relationship between Raw_data and the numerical data in the CACM
`collection file is the complete reverse of the claim language: claim 26
`states that the first numerical representation is based upon an object’s
`direct relationships in the database, whereas the data in the file is created
`from Raw_data.”
`
`IPR2013-00478 POR at 31-35; ‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 271.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Fox Testifies:
`The “Raw_data” relation was used to create the citation information exported to the
`collection file:
`Q: Which was created first, the LN relation, BC relation, and CC relation [raw_data relations], or the
`raw data triples [i.e., citation information in the CACM file]?
`A: The raw data triples that you’re talking about is a list of three numbers which are in a – in the
`particular order, document identifier, concept type, and document identifier, where the concept type is
`different numbers for LN and BC and CC. That was, as far as I can recall, produced after the
`relations that we were discussing here.
`Q: Was the raw data triples [i.e., citation information] that we see in 2011 [copy of the CACM file]
`created before or after the raw data relation?
`A: The file that you see here [Exhibit 2011], this is the partial version of the fuller thing for the
`CACM, as far as I recall, and I’m pretty sure about this – was created after I had the raw data pairs
`that we were discussing here.
`Fox Deposition Transcript Pt. II. at 359-360; see IPR2013-00478 POR at 33; ‘352 Jacobs Dec. at ¶¶ 261-
`280.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`
`“The subvectors themselves cannot themselves be
`relationships in the database, as claimed – a feature
`cannot be both the relationship and a representation of
`that relationship.”
`
`‘352 Jacobs Dec., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 269, 267-271; see also IPR2013-00478 POR at 33.
`
`16
`
`
`
`“The invention begins with an existing database and
`indexes the data by creating a numerical representation
`of the data. This indexing technique called proximity
`indexing generates a quick-reference of the relations,
`patterns, and similarity found among the data in the
`database.”
`‘352 Patent at 3:51-55; IPR2013-00478 POR at 1-10.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Response States:
`Broadest reasonable interpretation does not apply:
`“Since the Patents at Issue are expired, the
`Board must, in applying the Phillips standard
`to expired claims, construe the claims so as
`to sustain their validity, if possible.”
`
`IPR2013-00478 POR at 8-9; Ex Parte Katz, Appeal 2008-005127, Reexamination Control Nos.
`90/006,978 and 90/007,074 (merged) (Mar. 15, 2010); see also Ex parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655,
`1986 WL 83328 (BPAI 1986) (emphasis added). This standard is also reflected in the MPEP. See MPEP §
`2258.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Claim 26 requires “a first numerical representation for each
`identified object in the database based upon the object's direct
`relationship with other objects in the database.”
`
`The Board has construed ‘direct relationships’ as “relationships
`where one object cites to another object.”
`
`Jacobs testifies “one skilled in the art would under this claim
`language to require an object to actually refer (i.e., cite) to another
`object in a database.”
`
`IPR2013-00479Jacobs Decl. at ¶ 216; ‘352 PO Response, IPR2013-00478 Paper 34, at 6.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`The “citation information” in the CACM collection relied
`upon by Petitioners are representations generated from
`bibliographic references in printed documents to other
`printed documents” – no citations “to objects in a
`database” as claimed.
`
`‘352 Jacobs Decl. at ¶ 270; ‘352 PO Response, IPR2013-00478 Paper 34, at 6.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Cleverdon & Mills ISI Entry
`
`Cleverdon & Mills Journal Article
`
`Exhibit 5J to the 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration of Paul S. Jacobs
`filed in Reexamination Control No. 90/011,010, dated February 9,
`2001, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2010; see also ‘352 Jacobs Decl.,
`IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 360; ‘352 PO Response, IPR2013-
`00478 Paper 34, at 10-11.
`.
`
`Cleverdon and Mills, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2037.
`
`21
`
`
`
`“The “citation information” in the CACM collection relied upon by Petitioners
`are representations generated from bibliographic references in printed documents
`to other printed documents – not database objects:”
`Q. Is it clear to you, Dr. Fox, that in these
`bibliographies, they're citing to at -- to the printed
`article? Is that clear to you or not?
`A(Fox). They're citing to the work. That work is
`represented in a particular printed form.
`Fox Deposition Transcript Pt. II. at 418; see also IPR2013-00478 POR at 16; ‘352 Jacobs Decl. at ¶¶ 138-
`139, 144.
`
`22
`
`
`
`“Since neither the CACM collection files nor the INGRES database relied upon
`by the petitioners were in existence at the time these authors created their
`citations, they could not be citing to any electronic object contained in a
`computer databases:”
`Q: But they certainly weren't citing to -- they certainly
`did not have your INGRES relational database, your
`disk drive and the things that you have described as a
`database in connection with your testimony, would they?
`A(Fox): Probably not.
`Fox Deposition Transcript Pt. II. at 419; see also IPR2013-00478 POR at 16; ‘352 Jacobs Decl. at ¶¶ 138-
`139, 144.
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`“The fourth and final format of data storage employed is that of
`relations stored in a database of the INGRES relational system.
`
`… F
`
`igures 2 through 4 thus describe the currently used INGRES
`relations.”
`
`Fox SMART at 17-19; see Pet. at 10.
`
`
`
`Fox SMART, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 1008, at 14; see ‘352 Jacobs
`Dec at ¶ 275; Fox Deposition Transcript Pt. II at 401-402.
`
`25
`
`
`
`Fox SMART, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 1008, at 16; see ‘352 Jacobs
`Dec at ¶ 275; Fox Deposition Transcript Pt. II at 401-402.
`
`26
`
`
`
`Fox SMART, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 1008, at 17; see ‘352 Jacobs
`Dec at ¶ 275; Fox Deposition Transcript Pt. II at 401-402.
`
`27
`
`
`
`“Dr. Fox also further confirms that none of the “Raw_data” relations or other
`purported representations of citations are disclosed as a stored INGRES relation:
`Q: Okay. Did any of the figures 2 through 4 describe -- disclose --
`specifically disclose the LN, BC, and CC subvectors as being among the
`relations that are stored in INGRES?
`A: No.
`Q: Does this mention anything about direct links, co-citation, and
`bibliographic coupling being stored here?
`A: Not specifically.”
`Fox Deposition Transcript Pt. II. at 401-407; see ‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 at ¶ 275; IPR2013-
`00478 POR at 32-33.
`
`28
`
`
`
`Q: Isn't it true that the raw data triples are not described here as being stored
`in INGRES?
`A: The raw data triples you described were not at issue in my discussion, so
`they wouldn't have been described here.
`Q: But does it disclose co-citation information being described – does this
`specifically disclose co-citation information being stored here as a document
`detail?
`A: There is no specific mention of co-citation on this page.
`
`Fox Deposition Transcript Pt. II. at 401-407; see ‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 at ¶ 275; IPR2013-
`00478 POR at 32-33.
`
`29
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies:
`“Moreover, claim 26 specifically requires that the claim steps pertaining
`to the first and second numerical representations must be performed on
`the claimed database…
`Because the database discussed in Fox SMART already contained the
`subvector data resulting from the manual data preparation efforts of Dr.
`Fox and his “thesis helpers,” none of the processes in the Fox Papers
`that are alleged by Petitioners as disclosing the above-identified steps
`of claim 26 were applied to this database.”
`
`Jacobs ‘352 Declaration, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 141 (emphasis added, internal citations omitted);
`see also IPR2013-00478 POR at 9-11.
`
`30
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies: “none of the processes in the Fox Papers … were
`applied to this database”
`ISI
`
`CACM
`
`Exhibit 5J to the 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration of Paul S. Jacobs
`filed in Reexamination Control No. 90/011,010, dated February 9,
`2001, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2010; see also ‘352 Jacobs Decl.,
`IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 360; ‘352 PO Response, IPR2013-
`00478 Paper 34, at 10-11.
`.
`
`31
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies: “none of the processes in the Fox Papers …
`were applied to this database”
`Claim 26 of the ‘352 patent requires:
`“creating a first numerical representation for each
`identified object in the database based upon the object's
`direct relationship with other objects in the database;
`storing the first numerical representations for use in
`computerized searching;”
`
`‘352 patent at 35:28-53 (emphasis added); see also ‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 46,
`262 (emphasis added); IPR2013-00478 POR at 9-12.
`
`32
`
`
`
`Cleverdon & Mills ISI Entry
`
`Cleverdon & Mills Journal Article
`
`Exhibit 5J to the 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration of Paul S. Jacobs
`filed in Reexamination Control No. 90/011,010, dated February 9,
`2001, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2010; see also ‘352 Jacobs Decl.,
`IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 360;‘352 PO Response, IPR2013-
`00478 Paper 34, at 10-11.
`.
`
`Cleverdon and Mills, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2037.
`
`33
`
`
`
`ISI
`
`These numbers are the
`numerical form of the ln, bc,
`and cc subvectors.
`Fox Deposition Transcript Pt. II. at 359-360.
`“2” stands for the co-citation
`concept type.
`Fox Deposition Transcript Pt. II. at 369.
`
`Exhibit 5J to the 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration of Paul S.
`Jacobs filed in Reexamination Control No. 90/011,010, dated
`February 9, 2001, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2010; see also
`‘352 Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 360; ‘352
`PO Response, IPR2013-00478 Paper 34, at 10-11.
`.
`
`34
`
`
`
`Bibliography of Printed Article 146 Contains No Citation to
`Object 498.
`Object 498 = Magic Square (Algorithm 117 & 118) by D.M.
`Collison in the August, 1962 CACM – does not appear in the
`bibliography of object 146.
`
`Cleverdon and Mills, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2037; see also ‘352
`Jacobs Decl., IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 360; ‘352 PO Response,
`IPR2013-00478 Paper 34, at 32-33.
`
`35
`
`
`
`Jacobs Testifies: “none of the processes in the Fox Papers … were
`applied to this database”
`Thus the subvectors for object 146 matches the
`bibliography of the printed article – The Testing of
`Index Language Devices by Cleverdon & Mills.
`
`Compare Exhibit 2010 with Exhibit 2037; see also ‘352 Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 2113 at ¶ 141,
`360; see also IPR2013-00478 POR at 32-33.
`
`36
`
`
`
`.I 146
`
`Jacobs Testifies: “none of the
`processes in the Fox Papers
`… were applied to this
`database”
`
`498
`
`2 146
`
`Exhibit 5J to the 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration of Paul S. Jacobs
`filed in Reexamination Control No. 90/011,010, dated February 9,
`2001, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2010; see also ‘352 Jacobs Decl.,
`IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 360; ‘352 PO Response, IPR2013-
`00478 Paper 34, at 10-11, 32-33.
`.
`
`37
`
`
`
`ISI
`
`Exhibit 5J to the 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration of Paul S. Jacobs
`filed in Reexamination Control No. 90/011,010, dated February 9,
`2001, IPR2013-00478 Exhibit 2010; see also ‘352 Jacobs Decl.,
`IPR2013-00478 Ex. 2113 at ¶ 360; ‘352 PO Response, IPR2013-
`00478 Paper 34, at 10-11, 32-33.
`.
`
`38
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
