Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
` Paper No. 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,702,682
`Issued: April 20, 2010
`Filed: November 14, 2005
`Inventor: Michael De Angelo
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING AND MANIPULATING
`INFORMATION CONTAINERS WITH DYNAMIC REGISTERS
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00080
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW .............................................................................. 4
`A.
`Certification the ’682 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner ............ 4
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a)) ............................................. 4
`B.
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b)) ............................................... 5
`1.
`Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ........................................... 5
`2.
`Other Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................... 5
`3.
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel ................................. 6
`4.
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4)) ............................................ 6
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)) ........................................ 6
`D.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`(§ 42.104(B)) .................................................................................................. 6
`III. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`PATENT ......................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’682
`Patent .................................................................................................... 7
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 8
`Construction of Terms Used in the Claims .......................................... 8
`1.
`“container” ................................................................................. 9
`2.
`“register” and “container register” ........................................... 10
`3.
`“gateway” ................................................................................. 11
`4.
`Analogous Sets of Independent Claims ................................... 11
`IV. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 12
`A.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claims 1-23 ..................................................... 12
`1.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claims 1, 19 and 21 ............................... 12
`2.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 23 ................................................ 18
`3.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claims 18, 20, and 22 ............................ 20
`4.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 2 .................................................. 24
`
`B.
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 3 .................................................. 25
`5.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 4 .................................................. 26
`6.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 5 .................................................. 26
`7.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 6 .................................................. 27
`8.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 7 .................................................. 28
`9.
`10. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 8 .................................................. 28
`1.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 9 .................................................. 29
`2.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 10 ................................................ 30
`3.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 11 ................................................ 30
`4.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 12 ................................................ 31
`5.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 13 ................................................ 32
`6.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 14 ................................................ 33
`7.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 15 ................................................ 34
`8.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 16 ................................................ 34
`9.
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 17 ................................................ 35
`Ex. 1006 (Cullis) Considered in View of Ex. 1007
`(SavvySearch) Would Have Rendered Obvious Claims 4 and
`23 ........................................................................................................ 35
`1.
`Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious ........................................ 35
`2.
`Claim 23 Would Have Been Obvious ...................................... 37
`Ex. 1006 (Cullis) Considered with Ex. 1008 (Chang) Renders
`Obvious Claims 3, 5 and 6 ................................................................. 38
`1.
`Claim 3 Would Have Been Obvious ........................................ 38
`2.
`Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious ........................................ 39
`3.
`Claim 6 Would Have Been Obvious ........................................ 40
`Ex. 1006 (Cullis) Considered with Ex. 1005 (Wachtel) Would
`Have Rendered Obvious Claims 15 and 16 ....................................... 41
`Ex. 1007 (SavvySearch) Renders Claims 1-23 Unpatentable ........... 42
`1.
`Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claims 1, 19 and 21 ............................... 42
`2.
`Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 23 ................................................ 46
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claims 18, 20, and 22 ............................ 47
`3.
`Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 2 .................................................. 49
`4.
`Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 3 .................................................. 49
`5.
`Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 4 .................................................. 50
`6.
`Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 5 .................................................. 51
`7.
`Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 6 .................................................. 52
`8.
`Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 7 .................................................. 52
`9.
`10. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 8 .................................................. 53
`11. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 9 .................................................. 54
`12. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 10 ................................................ 54
`13. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 11 ................................................ 55
`14. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 12 ................................................ 56
`15. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 13 ................................................ 56
`16. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 14 ................................................ 57
`17. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 15 ................................................ 58
`18. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 16 ................................................ 59
`19. Ex. 1007 Anticipates Claim 17 ................................................ 59
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`V.
`
`Attachment A. Proof of Service of the Petition
`
`Attachment B. List of Evidence and Exhibits Relied Upon in Petition
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Certification the ’682 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner
`Petitioner certifies that U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682 (the ’682 patent) (Ex.
`
`1001) is available for inter partes review. Petitioner certifies that it is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review of the claims of the ’682 patent on
`
`the grounds identified in this Petition. Neither Petitioner, nor any party in privity
`
`with Petitioner, has filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the
`
`’682 patent. The ’682 patent has not been the subject of a prior inter partes review
`
`by Petitioner or a privy of Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner certifies this petition for inter partes review is filed within one
`
`year of the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement of a patent.
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’682 patent on
`
`October 23, 2012, which led to Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-04201-LB in the
`
`Northern District of California. Ex. 1011. As the date of this petition is less than
`
`one year from October 23, 2012, this petition complies with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))
`B.
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 CFR § 42.15(a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 50-1597.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b))
`Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`1.
`The real party of interest of this petition pursuant to § 42.8(b)(1) is Apple
`
`Inc. (“Apple”) located at One Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014.
`
`2. Other Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’682 patent is the subject of civil action no. 2:12-cv-02829-JPM, served
`
`on Petitioner on October 23, 2012, and naming Petitioner as defendant. The ’682
`
`patent has been asserted against other parties. These actions were originally filed in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas but have been transferred to the Northern District of
`
`California, and include: (1) Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case
`
`No. 3:13-cv-4202-JSC; (2) Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. FourSquare Labs,
`
`Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4203-EDL; (3) Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Groupon,
`
`Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4204-LB; (4) Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v.
`
`LivingSocial, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-4205-EDL; (5) Evolutionary Intelligence LLC
`
`v. Millennial Media, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-4206-HRL; (6) Evolutionary
`
`Intelligence LLC v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-4207-KAW; and (7)
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-
`
`4513-JCS.
`
`The ’682 patent is also the subject of IPR2014-00079, filed October 22,
`
`2013.
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`3.
`Lead Counsel
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Reg. No. 43,401
`jkushan@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8914
`(202) 736-8711 (fax)
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Douglas I. Lewis
`Reg. No. 39,748
`dilewis@sidley.com
`(312) 853-4169
`(312) 853-7036 (fax)
`
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4))
`
`4.
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Sidley
`
`Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. The fax numbers for
`
`lead and backup lead counsel are shown above.
`
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a))
`D.
`Proof of service of this petition is provided in Attachment A.
`
`II.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (§ 42.104(b))
`Claims 1-23 of the ’682 patent are unpatentable as being anticipated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) & (e), and/or for being obvious over the prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. Specifically:
`
`(i)
`
`Claims 1-23 are anticipated by Ex. 1006 (Culliss) under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`(ii) Claims 1-23 are anticipated by Ex. 1007 (SavvySearch) under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 (a) and (b).
`
`(iii) Claims 4 and 23 are obvious based on Ex. 1006 (Culliss) in view of
`
`Ex. 1007 (SavvySearch) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`(iv) Claims 3, 5 and 6 are obvious based on Ex. 1006 (Culliss) in view of
`
`Ex. 1008 (Chang) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`(v) Claims 15 and 16 are obvious based on Ex. 1006 (Culliss) in view of
`
`Ex. 1005 (Wachtel) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of the contested claims, the evidence relied
`
`upon, and the precise reasons why the claims are unpatentable are provided in
`
`§ IV, below. The evidence relied upon in support of this petition is listed in
`
`Attachment B.
`
`III. Relevant Information Concerning the Contested Patent
`A. Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’682 Patent
`The ’682 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 11/280,700, filed
`
`November 14, 2005. The ’700 application is designated a continuation of
`
`09/284,113, filed as PCT/US99/01988 on January 29, 1999. The ’113 application,
`
`in turn, claims priority to Provisional Application No. 60/073,209, filed on January
`
`30, 1998. The disclosure of the ’209 provisional application is not identical to the
`
`disclosure of the ’682 patent, which raises questions regarding whether the claims
`
`would be entitled to claim priority to the ’209 provisional application. Without
`
`waiving its right to contest the effective filing date of the claims of the ’682 patent,
`
`Petitioner has assumed – solely for the purposes of this proceeding – that the
`
`earliest effective filing date of claims 1-23 is not earlier January 30, 1998.
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`B.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’536 patent would
`
`have been someone with a good working knowledge of computer programing, data
`
`structures, and object oriented programming. The person would have gained this
`
`knowledge either through an undergraduate education in computer science or
`
`comparable field, in combination with training or several years of practical
`
`working experience.
`
`C. Construction of Terms Used in the Claims
`In this proceeding, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. 37 CFR § 42.100(b). The broadest
`
`reasonable construction should reflect subject matter that Patent Owner contends
`
`literally infringes the claims, as well as constructions proposed by Patent Owner in
`
`past or concurrent litigation. Also, if Patent Owner contends terms in the claims
`
`should be read to have a special meaning, those contentions should be disregarded
`
`unless Patent Owner also amends the claims compliant with 35 U.S.C. § 112 to
`
`make them expressly correspond to those contentions. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 at
`
`II.B.6 (August 14, 2012); cf. In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Petitioner identifies below and in applying the prior art certain subject matter
`
`that falls within the scope of the claims, read with their broadest reasonable
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`construction. Petitioner submits this is sufficient for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding to evaluate the claims against the prior art.
`
`“container”
`
`1.
`The ’682 specification defines a “container” as being “a logically defined
`
`data enclosure which encapsulates any element or digital segment (text, graphic,
`
`photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital segments, or referring now to
`
`FIG. 3C, any system component or process, or other containers or sets of
`
`containers.” Ex. 1001 at 9:2-7. The ’682 patent continues, stating “[a] container
`
`100 at minimum includes in its construction a logically encapsulated portion of
`
`cyberspace, a register and a gateway” and “…at minimum encapsulates a single
`
`digital bit, a single natural number or the logical description of another container,
`
`and at maximum all defined cyberspace, existing, growing and to be discovered,
`
`including but not limited to all containers, defined and to be defined in
`
`cyberspace.” Ex. 1001 at 9:7-14. The ’682 patent also states a container “contains
`
`the code to enable it to interact with the components enumerated in 2A, and to
`
`reconstruct itself internally and manage itself on the network 201.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`9:14-17. The broadest reasonable construction of “container” therefore
`
`encompasses a logically defined data structure that contains a whole or partial
`
`digital element (e.g., text, graphic, photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`digital segments, or any system component or process, or other containers or sets
`
`of containers.
`
`“register” and “container register”
`
`2.
`The ’682 patent explains that “registers 120” are “user or user-base created
`
`or system-created values or ranges made available by the system 10 to attach to a
`
`unique container, and hold system-set, user-set, or system-evolved values.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 14:24-26. The ’682 patent adds that “[v]alues may be numeric, may
`
`describe domains of time or space, or may provide information about the container
`
`100, the user, or the system 10” and that “[r]egisters 120 may be active, passive or
`
`interactive and may evolve with system use.” Ex. 1001 at 14:24-29. The ’682
`
`patent similarly explains that “container registers 120” are “interactive dynamic
`
`values appended to the logical enclosure of an information container 100, and
`
`serve to govern the interaction of that container 100 with other containers 100,
`
`container gateways 200 and the system 10, and to record the historical interaction
`
`of that container 100 on the system 10.” Ex. 1001 at 9:19-22. It also explains that
`
`“[c]ontainer registers 120 may be values alone or contain code to establish certain
`
`parameters in interaction with other containers 100 or gateways 200.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`9:22-23. The broadest reasonable construction of “register” thus consequently
`
`would encompass a value or code associated with a container, while the broadest
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`reasonable construction of “container register” would be a register that is appended
`
`to the logical enclosure of an information container.
`
`“gateway”
`
`3.
`The ’682 patent does not expressly define the term “gateway.” However, its
`
`usage of this term indicates that the term is being used generally to refer to the
`
`interface between processes, system components and data files (e.g., “container” or
`
`“registers”). As the ’682 explains:
`
`Gateways gather and store container register information according to
`system-defined, system-generated, or user determined rules as
`containers exit and enter one another, governing how containers
`system processes or system components interact within the domain of
`that container, or after exiting and entering that container, and
`governing how containers, system components and system processes
`interact with that unique gateway, including how data collection and
`reporting is managed at that gateway. Ex. 1001 at 4:66-5:8.
`
`See also Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 61-63. The broadest reasonable construction of “gateway”
`
`thus is an interface between a process, system component, container or register.
`
`Analogous Sets of Independent Claims
`
`4.
`The ’682 patent presents two sets of highly similar independent claims.
`
`First, independent claims 1, 19 and 21 recite, respectively, a method, a computer
`
`program product and an apparatus, but otherwise employ the same operative
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`language.1 In a similar manner, claims 18, 20, and 22 recite, respectively, a
`
`method, a computer program product and an apparatus, but otherwise employ the
`
`same operative language. Because each set of three claims differs solely with
`
`respect to form, each set of claims will be analyzed concurrently relative to the
`
`prior art.
`
`Claim 23 recites a method highly analogous to the method of claim 1, with
`
`only minor variations in certain of the claim elements (e.g., “providing a list
`
`characterizing the identified containers” in claim 1 vs. “providing a list
`
`characterizing the identified one or more search query templates to formulate
`
`subsequent search queries” in claim 23). These minor distinctions will be
`
`addressed below.
`
`IV. Precise Reasons for Relief Requested
`A. Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claims 1-23
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claims 1, 19 and 21
`1.
`Ex. 1006 describes a computer-based system that receives and separates key
`
`words from search queries for articles. See Ex. 1003 at ¶ 108. Ex. 1006 is
`
`discussed in detail in Ex. 1003. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 106-265. Ex. 1006 therefore
`
`1 Claim 21 employs “means-plus-function” language to define the elements,
`
`but the ’682 disclosure does not identify corresponding structures for these
`
`“means” elements. Claim 21 is thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6.
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`shows “a computer-implemented method,” as specified by claim 1, as well as the
`
`corresponding computer-readable media and an apparatus elements of claims 19
`
`and 21.
`
`Ex. 1006 describes systems that can be incorporated via a client-side or
`
`server-side software interface, where the interface accepts or otherwise records a
`
`search query, and forwards the reformulated search query to input directly to
`
`another search engine available over the Internet. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 109, 110-112.
`
`Ex. 1006 thus shows “receiving a search query,” as specified by claim 1, as well as
`
`corresponding elements of claims 19 and 21.
`
`Ex. 1006 shows use of a search query that contains one or more keywords.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 110-112. Ex. 1006 also shows a system that creates an index to
`
`match these key words with matching articles. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 112-115. In the
`
`various embodiments shown in Ex. 1006, the indexes are each formed differently;
`
`however, they have common elements. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 113-136. For instance, each
`
`index includes a list of keywords and an array of articles that match those
`
`keywords. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 115-116. In certain embodiments, the index
`
`includes a key term score, which analyzes how often users have accessed an
`
`article, and a key term total score, which analyzes how often an article came up in
`
`a search result. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 116-118. From this data, Ex. 1006 describes
`
`calculating a probability score as well as a comparison score. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 121-
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`125. Ex. 1006 also describes an index that specifies categories and adult content
`
`ratings. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 133-135. Each of these data elements used in the systems
`
`described in Ex. 1006 operates as a “container register” that will be encapsulated
`
`and logically defined within the index (a “container”) and articles (“identified
`
`containers”) associated with a particular search query. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 116-125,
`
`133-135. Ex. 1006 thus shows “searching, using the computer, first container
`
`registers encapsulated and logically defined in a plurality of containers to identify
`
`identified containers responsive to the search query,” as specified by claim 1, as
`
`well as corresponding elements in claims 19 and 21.
`
`Ex. 1006 describes an index used to match keywords from a search inquiry
`
`to articles that contain similar keywords. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 112-115. Also included
`
`in this index is data aggregated based on how users interact with articles. Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶¶ 116-125. For instance, the index includes a key term score, which analyzes
`
`how often users have accessed an article, and a key term total score, which
`
`analyzes how often an article came up in a search result. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 115-118
`
`Ex. 1006 describes calculating a probability score using this data as well as a
`
`comparison score. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 121-125. Ex. 1006 further describes assigning a
`
`rating to articles based on historic user interactions with those articles, as compared
`
`to the type of content requested by that user. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 133-135. The index
`
`(collection of container registers) contains historical data derived from user
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`interactions with indexes (other containers), search queries (other containers) and
`
`articles (identified containers) in the databases. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 116-125, 133-135.
`
`Ex. 1006 thus describes a process comprising “container registers having defined
`
`therein data comprising historical data associated with interactions of the
`
`identified containers with other containers from the plurality of containers,” as
`
`specified by claim 1, as well as corresponding provisions of claims 19 and 21.
`
`Ex. 1006 describes how historical data within the index, such as the key term
`
`score, the key term total score, the probability score, the comparison score and
`
`rating labels are used as elements for a search. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 116-125, 133-135.
`
`For instance, the key total term score and key term score are determined based on
`
`how often, historically, users have searched for articles and viewed articles,
`
`respectively. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 116-125. A probability score and comparison score
`
`are calculated based on a key term score and a key term total score. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶
`
`116-125, 133-135. Therefore, each of these scores is derived based on historical
`
`information and will be a “container register” within the meaning of the claims.
`
`Ex. 1006 also shows that the probability score and comparison score can be
`
`used to determine which matching article from a search should be placed in a
`
`superior position to others. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 119-125. In another example, Ex. 1006
`
`shows use of a rating label to screen results that do not match a user’s preferences
`
`to see, or not to see, adult content within an article. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 133-135. The
`
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`rating label is determined based on historical data from the key term scores and
`
`key term total scores. Id. In each of these cases, Ex. 1006 shows use of the
`
`historical data within the index (container registers) to conduct the search. Ex.
`
`1006 thus shows a process “wherein searching the first container registers
`
`comprises searching historical data,” as specified by claim 1, as well as
`
`corresponding provisions in claims 19 and 21.
`
`Ex. 1006 describes a process where search results, such as articles, are
`
`presented to a user in the form of a squib. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 120. The squib may exist
`
`in a number of forms, including information such as a hyperlink text, a
`
`representation of the matched article, title, headings, the first few lines of text of
`
`the publication, audio, video, or any other type of information. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 120.
`
`A user may scroll through the squibs of the articles and select, using the squib, a
`
`desired matched articles to more closely inspect (e.g., to open, retrieve, read, view
`
`or listen to) the article from the storage area. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 120. The collection of
`
`squibs, therefore, is a new container that encapsulates the articles identified by the
`
`search query. Ex. 1006 thus shows a process comprising “encapsulating the
`
`identified containers in a new container,” as specified by claim 1, as well as
`
`corresponding provisions in claims 19 and 21.
`
`Ex. 1006 provides examples describing how the key term score and key term
`
`total scores may be updated. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 115-118. For example, it shows a
`
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`process whereby each time an article comes up in a search, the key term total score
`
`is incremented by one. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 115-118. Similarly, it shows that when a
`
`user decides to visit a specific article, the key term score is incremented. Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶¶ 115-118. Ex. 1006 also shows that these two values propagate into other
`
`historic data. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 116-125, 133-135. For instance, the key term score
`
`and key term total score are used to calculate the probability score and comparison
`
`score (see Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 121-125), and are used to determine rating labels for
`
`articles. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 133-135. In other words, Ex. 1006 shows updating score
`
`information for each of the articles with data reflecting when users interact with the
`
`articles of the new collection of search results. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 116-125, 133-135.
`
`Ex. 1006 thus shows “updating second container registers of the identified
`
`containers with data associated with interactions of the identified containers with
`
`the new container,” as specified by claim 1, and in corresponding provisions of
`
`claims 19 and 21.
`
`Ex. 1006 describes processes where search results, such as articles, are
`
`presented to a user in the form of a squib. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 120. The squib may come
`
`in a number of forms, including information such as hyperlink text, a
`
`representation of the matched article, title, headings, the first few lines of text,
`
`audio, video, or any other type of information. Id. When multiple results are
`
`presented, the user can review a list of squibs and scroll through the individual
`
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`squibs of the articles and select a desired one of the matched articles. Id. The list
`
`of squibs acts as a list characterizing the articles from the search. Id. Ex. 1006
`
`thus shows “providing a list characterizing the identified containers,” as specified
`
`by claim 1, and in corresponding provisions of claims 19 and 21.
`
`Ex. 1006 Anticipates Claim 23
`
`2.
`Claim 23 closely tracks claim 21, as illustrated below (bracket annotations
`
`have been added to identify steps):
`
`1. A computer-implemented method
`comprising:
`[i] receiving a search query;
`[ii] searching, using the computer, first
`container registers encapsulated and
`logically defined in a plurality of
`containers to identify identified
`containers responsive to the search
`query, the container registers having
`defined therein data comprising
`historical data associated with
`interactions of the identified containers
`with other containers from the plurality
`of containers,
`wherein searching the first container
`registers comprises searching the
`historical data;
`[iii] encapsulating the identified
`containers in a new container;
`[iv] updating second container registers
`of the identified containers with data
`associated with interactions of the
`identified containers with the new
`container; and
`
`23. A computer-implemented method
`comprising:
`[i] receiving a search query;
`[ii] Searching, using the computer,
`first container registers encapsulated
`and logically defined in a plurality of
`containers to identify search query
`templates encapsulated in identified
`containers, the first container registers
`having defined therein data
`comprising historical data associated
`with interactions of the identified
`containers with other containers from
`the plurality of containers, wherein
`searching container registers
`comprises searching the historical
`data;
`[iii] encapsulating the identified
`containers in a new container;
`[iv] updating second container
`registers of the identified containers
`with data associated with interactions
`of the identified containers with the
`new container; and
`
`Page 18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682
`
`
`
`[v] providing a list characterizing the
`identified containers.
`
`[v] providing a list characterizing the
`identified one or more search query
`templates to formulate subsequent
`search queries.
`
`As shown above, steps [i], [iii] and [iv] are identical, and these elements of
`
`claim 23 are thus described in Ex. 1005 for the reasons noted in § B, above.
`
`Step [ii] in each process differs by inclusion in claim 23 of the phrase
`
`“search query templates encapsulated in identified containers” rather than simply
`
`“identified containers responsive to the search query.” The ’682 patent does not
`
`define the term “search query template” and indeed only uses this term in claim 23.
`
`The ’682 patent does state that a “search template is here defined as one or more
`
`text phrases, graphics, video or audio bits, alone or in any defined outline or
`
`relational format designed to accomplish an inquiry.” See Ex. 1001 at 2:33-36. If
`
`a “search query template” is considered to be similar to a “search template”
`
`pursuant to the ’682 patent disclosure, then a text phrase “alone or in any defined
`
`outline or relationship format designed to accomplish an inquiry” would constitute
`
`a search query template. In addition, in step [ii] of claim 23,