Patent Owner Network-1’s Disclosure of Demonstrative Slides
`NETWORK-1 EXHIBIT 2011
`Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
`IPR2015-00345
`
`1
`
`
`NETWORK-1 EXHIBIT 2011
`Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
`IPR2015-00345
`
`1
`
`
`
`Ghias
`• ‘237 Ground 2
`
`• ‘988 Ground 1
`
`• ‘988 Ground 2
`
`• ‘179 Ground 2
`
`• ‘441 Ground 2
`
`Iwamura
`• ‘237 Ground 1
`
`• ‘237 Ground 3
`
`• ‘988 Ground 3
`
`Conwell
`• ‘179 Ground 1
`
`• ‘441 Ground 1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Iwamura
`
`Independent
`claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`1
`
`5
`
`9
`
`13
`
`25
`
`33
`
`15
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`identify a neighbor
`non-exhaustive search
`
`sublinear
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`non-exhaustive search
`identifying a neighbor
`
`‘237
`
`‘988
`
`3
`
`
`
`Iwamura
`
`Independent
`claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`1
`
`5
`
`9
`
`13
`
`25
`
`33
`
`15
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`identify a neighbor
`non-exhaustive search
`
`sublinear
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`non-exhaustive search
`search identifying a neighbor
`
`
`
`‘237 ‘237
`
`‘988
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petition asserts that Boyer-Moore algorithm is sublinear:
`
`‘237 Petition 10-11
`‘237 Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶75
`
`‘237, Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶ 72
`
`23 Q The only thing you identify in your
`24 Declaration about Iwamura that could disclose a
`25 sublinear time search is the Boyer-Moore algorithm;
`1 correct?
`2 A As far as I remember, yes. In that
`3 Declaration at that time, yes.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 1) 82:23-83:3
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petition asserts that Boyer-Moore algorithm is sublinear:
`
`‘237 Petition 10-11
`‘237 Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶75
`
`‘237, Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶ 72
`
`Petitioner’s expert confirmed Boyer-Moore algorithm is linear:
`
`sub-linear time search: “a search whose execution
`time scales with a less than linear relationship to the
`size of the data set to be searched”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`18 Q Are you familiar with any analysis of the
`19 Boyer-Moore algorithm with respect to the size of
`20 the dataset being searched?
`21 A It's described here. So, again, this i,
`22 if you look at the worst case, i is N minus patlen,
`23 then you obtain it. As I said, it will be a linear
`24 relationship.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 1) 61:18-24
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petition asserts that Boyer-Moore algorithm is sublinear:
`
`‘237 Petition 10-11
`‘237 Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶75
`
`‘237, Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶ 72
`
`No reasonable explanation for sublinear statements
`
`sub-linear time search: “a search whose execution
`time scales with a less than linear relationship to the
`size of the data set to be searched”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`20 Q When you wrote this, were you trying to
`21 convey that searching using the Boyer-Moore
`22 algorithm would be sublinear with respect to the
`23 size of the dataset being searched?
`24 A No. I did not -- no.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 1) 74:20-24
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petition asserts that Boyer-Moore algorithm is sublinear:
`
`‘237 Petition 10-11
`‘237 Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶75
`
`‘237, Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶ 72
`
`No reasonable explanation for sublinear statements
`
`sub-linear time search: “a search whose execution
`time scales with a less than linear relationship to the
`size of the data set to be searched”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`16 Q Okay. Would you agree, sir, that if --
`17 that one way to read this would be that you were
`18 claiming that the claim language, "perform a
`19 sublinear time search," was satisfied by searching
`20 using the Boyer-Moore algorithm?
`21 A That might be one way of reading it. It's
`22 not the way I'm reading this now.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 1) 78:16-22
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition asserts that Boyer-Moore algorithm is sublinear:
`
`‘237 Petition 10-11
`‘237 Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶75
`
`‘237, Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶ 72
`
`No reasonable explanation for sublinear statements
`
`sub-linear time search: “a search whose execution
`time scales with a less than linear relationship to the
`size of the data set to be searched”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`23 When you wrote this sentence here on
`24 page 29, did you think that someone at the Board
`25 looking at this might think that you meant that a --
`1 the Boyer-Moore algorithm was sublinear as used in
`2 the patent claim?
`3 A I didn't think of it that way, no.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 1) 75:23-76:3
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petition asserts that Boyer-Moore algorithm is sublinear:
`
`‘237 Petition 10-11
`‘237 Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶75
`
`‘237, Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶ 72
`
`No reasonable explanation for sublinear statements
`
`sub-linear time search: “a search whose execution
`time scales with a less than linear relationship to the
`size of the data set to be searched”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`19 Q To be candid with the Board, wouldn't it
`20 have been better to say, "Board, the Boyer-Moore
`21 algorithm is linear, not sublinear"?
`22 A Listen, there are many words that I -- I'm
`23 sure I could have chosen better words. So I agree
`24 with you, there is probably better ways to write
`25 this. I don't dispute that.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 1) 79:19-25
`
`10
`
`
`
`New Reply Theory:
`
`‘237 Reply at 17
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48767
`
`11
`
`
`
`New Reply Theory:
`
`‘237 Reply at 19
`
`Patent owner’s argument:
`
`Patent owner’s argument:
`
`‘237 Response at 12
`
`‘237 Response at 12
`
`Responsive argument in reply:
`
`New Reply issue:
`
`“Patent owner’s is wrong because . . . ”
`
`‘237 Reply at 17
`
`12
`12
`
`
`
`New Reply Theory:
`
`‘237 Reply at 17
`
`‘237 Reply at 16
`
`Evidence?
`
`not disclosed
`‘237 Reply at 16
`
`Evidence?
`
`13
`
`
`
`Iwamura
`
`Independent
`claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`1
`
`5
`
`9
`
`13
`
`25
`
`33
`
`15
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`identify a neighbor
`non-exhaustive search
`
`sublinear
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`non-exhaustive search
`search identifying a neighbor
`
`‘237
`
`‘988
`
`14
`
`
`
`Iwamura
`
`Independent
`claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`1
`
`5
`
`9
`
`13
`
`25
`
`33
`
`15
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`identify a neighbor
`non-exhaustive search
`
`sublinear
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`non-exhaustive search
`search identifying a neighbor
`
`
`
`‘237 ‘237
`
`
`
`‘988 ‘988
`
`15
`
`
`
`nonexhaustive search: “a search that locates a match
`without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a match
`without conducting a brute force comparison of all possible
`matches, and all data within all possible matches.”
`
`Petitioner’s construction
`
`16
`
`
`
`nonexhaustive search: “a search that locates a match
`without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`Reference melodies are possible matches
`
`Iwamura (1012) 7:54-55
`
`12 Q When we do the search that's described in
`13 Iwamura, is the -- are the -- the possible matches
`14 the set of the melodies in the database in Iwamura?
`15 A Yeah, that you try to match melodies.
`
`Moulin (A2006 Part 3) 206:12-15
`
`17
`
`
`
`nonexhaustive search: “a search that locates a match
`without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`Reference melodies are possible matches
`
`Iwamura (1012) 7:54-55
`
`Iwamura compares all possible matches
`
`22 Q Now, let's return to Iwamura. The --
`23 we've talked about how the possible matches that can
`24 be returned in Iwamura are musical works that are in
`25 the reference database; right?
`1 A Yes.
`2 Q You would agree that in Iwamura, the
`3 search that's identified there does make a
`4 comparison to each of the possible musical works
`5 that could be returned as a match?
`6 MR. ELACQUA: Objection.
`7 THE WITNESS: To each of the musical works,
`8 yes.
`
`Moulin (A2006 Part 3) 222:22-223:8
`
`18
`
`
`
`nonexhaustive search: “a search that locates a match
`without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`Reference melodies are possible matches
`
`Iwamura (1012) 7:54-55
`
`Iwamura compares all possible matches
`
`15 Q But it does examine each of the possible
`16 musical works -- or each of the musical works that
`17 could be returned as a possible match?
`18 A Yes.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 3) 217:15-18
`
`18 Q We've looked at each of the possible
`19 matches. We go through each record; right? Yes?
`20 A Yes.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 3) 247:18-20
`
`19
`
`
`
`Reply quoting Iwamura 9:9-11
`
`‘237 Reply at 7
`
`Actual quote from Iwamura 9:8-11
`
`Iwamura (1012) 9:8-11
`
`20
`
`
`
`Actual quote from Iwamura 9:8-11
`
`Database records consist of pitch values
`
`Iwamura (1012) 9:9-11
`
`Record in the database
`
`5 -1 1 4 3 5 0 -1 -1 -2 -2
`
`21
`
`
`
`Actual quote from Iwamura 9:8-11
`
`Computes absolute difference
`
`Iwamura (1012) 9:9-11
`
`Record in the database
`
`5 -1 1 4 3 5 0 -1 -1 -2 -2
`
`Work to be identified
`
`4 3 5 0 -1 -2 -2 5 -10 2
`
`Computation
`(absolute difference)
`
`0 1 2 6 5 0 10 3
`
`Total: 27
`
`22
`
`
`
`Actual quote from Iwamura 9:8-11
`
`Option 1: shift note by note
`
`Iwamura (1012) 9:9-11
`
`Record in the database
`
`5 -1 1 4 3 5 0 -1 -1 -2 -2
`
`Work to be identified
`
`4 3 5 0 -1 -2 -2 5 -10 2
`
`shifted 1 note
`
`Computation
`(absolute difference)
`
`2 6 1 5 5 7 5 9 3
`
`Total: 43
`
`23
`
`
`
`Actual quote from Iwamura 9:8-11
`
`Option 2: shift to next peak note (Iwamura approach)
`
`Iwamura (1012) 9:9-11
`
`Record in the database
`
`*5 -1 1 4 3 *5
`
`0 -1 -1 -2 -2
`
`Work to be identified
`
`4 3 *5 0 -1 -2 -2 *5 -10 2
`
`Computation
`(absolute difference)
`
`0 1 2 6 5 0 10 3
`
`Total: 27
`
`24
`
`
`
`Actual quote from Iwamura 9:8-11
`
`Option 2: shift to next peak note (Iwamura approach)
`
`Iwamura (1012) 9:9-11
`
`Record in the database
`
`*5 -1 1 4 3 *5
`
`0 -1 -1 -2 -2
`
`shifted to next
`peak note
`
`Work to be identified
`
`Computation
`(absolute difference)
`
`4 3 *5
`
`0 -1 -2 -2 *5 -10 2
`
`0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7
`
`Total: 8
`
`avoided four calculations
`
`25
`
`
`
`nonexhaustive search: “a search that locates a match
`without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`18 Q We've looked at each of the possible
`19 matches. We go through each record; right? Yes?
`20 A Yes.
`
`Actual quote from Iwamura 9:8-11
`
`Option 2: shift to next peak note (Iwamura approach)
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 3) 247:18-20
`
`Iwamura (1012) 9:9-11
`
`Record in the database
`
`*5 -1 1 4 3 *5
`
`0 -1 -1 -2 -2
`
`shifted to next
`peak note
`
`Work to be identified
`
`Computation
`(absolute difference)
`
`4 3 *5
`
`0 -1 -2 -2 *5 -10 2
`
`0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7
`
`Total: 8
`
`26
`
`
`
`nonexhaustive search: “a search that locates a match
`without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a match
`without conducting a brute force comparison of all possible
`matches, and all data within all possible matches.”
`
`Petitioner’s construction
`
`Iwamura (1012) 9:9-11
`
`27
`
`
`
`Board:
`
`Iwamura:
`
`‘237 Decision at 11-12
`
`Iwamura (1012) 7:56-57
`
`28
`
`
`
`Board:
`
`Iwamura:
`
`‘237 Decision at 11-12
`
`Iwamura (1012) 7:56-57
`
`Record in the database
`
`*5 -1 1 4 3 *5 0 -1 -1 -2 -2
`
`Work to be identified
`
`4 3 *5 0 -1 -2 -2 *5 -10 2
`
`Computation
`(absolute difference)
`
`0
`
`Total: 0
`
`limit = 20
`
`29
`
`
`
`Board:
`
`Iwamura:
`
`‘237 Decision at 11-12
`
`Iwamura (1012) 7:56-57
`
`Record in the database
`
`*5 -1 1 4 3 *5 0 -1 -1 -2 -2
`
`Work to be identified
`
`4 3 *5 0 -1 -2 -2 *5 -10 2
`
`Computation
`(absolute difference)
`
`0 1
`
`Total: 1
`
`limit = 20
`
`30
`
`
`
`Board:
`
`Iwamura:
`
`‘237 Decision at 11-12
`
`Iwamura (1012) 7:56-57
`
`Record in the database
`
`*5 -1 1 4 3 *5 0 -1 -1 -2 -2
`
`Work to be identified
`
`4 3 *5 0 -1 -2 -2 *5 -10 2
`
`Computation
`(absolute difference)
`
`0 1 2
`
`Total: 3
`
`limit = 20
`
`31
`
`
`
`Board:
`
`Iwamura:
`
`‘237 Decision at 11-12
`
`Iwamura (1012) 7:56-57
`
`Record in the database
`
`*5 -1 1 4 3 *5 0 -1 -1 -2 -2
`
`Work to be identified
`
`4 3 *5 0 -1 -2 -2 *5 -10 2
`
`Computation
`(absolute difference)
`
`0 1 2 6 5 0 10
`
`Total: 24
`
`limit = 20
`
`32
`
`
`
`Board:
`
`Iwamura:
`
`‘237 Decision at 11-12
`
`Iwamura (1012) 7:56-57
`
`Record in the database
`
`*5 -1 1 4 3 *5 *0 -1 -1 -2 -2
`
`Work to be identified
`
`Computation
`(absolute difference)
`
`shifted to next
`peak note
`
`4 3 *5
`
`0 -1 -2 -2 *5 -10 2
`
`limit = 20
`
`23 Q Now, if we -- and then, as you understand
`24 it, what the search algorithm would do, it would
`25 then shift this peak over to the next peak and start
`1 another calculation; is that right?
`2 A Yes. Yes.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 3) 241:24-242:2
`
`33
`
`
`
`Board:
`
`Iwamura:
`
`‘237 Decision at 11-12
`
`Iwamura compares all possible matches
`
`Iwamura (1012) 6:51-55
`
`15 Q But it does examine each of the possible
`16 musical works -- or each of the musical works that
`17 could be returned as a possible match?
`18 A Yes.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 3) 217:1-18
`
`34
`
`
`
`Iwamura
`
`Independent
`claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`1
`
`5
`
`9
`
`13
`
`25
`
`33
`
`15
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`identify a neighbor
`non-exhaustive search
`
`sublinear
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`non-exhaustive search
`search identifying a neighbor
`
`‘237
`
`‘988
`
`35
`
`
`
`Iwamura
`
`Independent
`claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`1
`
`5
`
`9
`
`13
`
`25
`
`33
`
`15
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`identify a neighbor
`non-exhaustive search
`
`sublinear
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`non-exhaustive search
`search identifying a neighbor
`
`‘237
`
`‘988
`
`36
`
`
`
`approximate nearest neighbor search: identifying a
`close match that is not necessarily the closest match
`
`Board’s construction
`
`Ex. (A2008) at 5
`
`‘237, 9:12-19
`
`37
`
`
`
`approximate nearest neighbor search: identifying a
`close match that is not necessarily the closest match
`
`Board’s construction
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`‘237 Petition at 12
`
`skipping unimportant portions always necessarily
`identifies the closest match
`
`14 Is it the case that if we do the Iwamura
`15 search using the peaks as our basis, and we set up
`16 our database such that the unimportant peaks are
`17 skipped, that we're still going to be identifying
`18 the closest match when we produce our results?
`19 A That would be assuming that no peaks have
`20 been dropped and everything we discussed yesterday.
`21 Dropping an unimportant part is not going to affect
`22 the ability to find the best match.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 4) 317:14-22
`
`38
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new Reply theory:
`
`‘237 Reply at 14
`
`X
`
`‘237 Reply at 12
`
`39
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new Reply theory:
`
`‘237 Reply at 14
`
`approximate nearest neighbor search: identifying a
`close match that is not necessarily the closest match
`
`Board’s construction
`
`Iwamura always finds the closest match
`
`‘237 Petition at 8
`
`40
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new Reply theory:
`
`‘237 Reply at 14
`
`approximate nearest neighbor search: identifying a
`close match that is not necessarily the closest match
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“closest match” is based on criterion stated in Iwamura
`
`22 Q And if it -- it finds one that's an exact
`23 match, it will produce -- it will produce that;
`24 right?
`25 A Yes.
`1 Q If it doesn't find one that's -- that's an
`2 exact match, it's going to produce the one that has
`3 the next best match; right?
`4 A According to the approximate criterion
`5 only.
`6 So, again, "match" was defined with
`7 respect to all the notes. Okay? There's a
`8 criterion that's stated in the Iwamura; it is the
`9 least absolute difference. And then there are
`10 various approximations that are used, and it will
`11 output the best match it finds using that
`12 approximate criterion.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 3) 271:22-272:12
`
`41
`
`
`
`Iwamura
`
`Independent
`claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`1
`
`5
`
`9
`
`13
`
`25
`
`33
`
`15
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`sub-linear time search
`identify a neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`identify a neighbor
`non-exhaustive search
`
`sublinear
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`non-exhaustive search
`search identifying a neighbor
`
`‘237
`
`‘988
`
`42
`
`
`
`Ghias
`• ‘237 Ground 2
`
`• ‘988 Ground 1
`
`• ‘988 Ground 2
`
`• ‘179 Ground 2
`
`• ‘441 Ground 2
`
`Iwamura
`• ‘237 Ground 1
`
`• ‘237 Ground 3
`
`• ‘988 Ground 3
`
`Conwell
`• ‘179 Ground 1
`
`• ‘441 Ground 1
`
`43
`
`
`
`Ghias
`
`‘237
`
`‘988
`
`‘179
`&
`‘441
`
`Independent claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`1
`
`5
`
`9
`
`13
`
`15
`
`1
`
`13
`
`25
`
`sub-linear time search
`
`sub-linear time search
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`non-exhaustive search
`search identifying a neighbor
`determining an action based on the identification
`
`non-exhaustive search
`neighbor search
`
`non-exhaustive search
`neighbor search
`
`non-exhaustive search
`neighbor search
`
`44
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 5-7?
`
`‘237 Reply at 20
`
`‘237 Reply at 1
`
`45
`
`
`
`sub-linear time search: “a search whose execution
`time scales with a less than linear relationship to the
`size of the data set to be searched”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`query
`
`‘237, Moulin Decl. (1004) ¶ 123
`
`6 Well, one possible reason you wanted to
`7 give the Board this information is so that they
`8 would misread it and be misled.
`9 That's a possibility; right?
`10 A It's not at all the -- the reason. So
`11 it alone -- there are four documents. Some, they
`12 are, like, 90 pages each. Some of the words could
`13 have been better chosen. In particular, the word
`14 "query" should have been there. I have acknowledged
`15 that.
`
`Moulin (A2006- Part 2) 157:6-15
`
`46
`
`
`
`Ghias
`
`‘237
`
`‘988
`
`‘179
`&
`‘441
`
`Independent claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`1
`
`5
`
`9
`
`13
`
`15
`
`1
`
`13
`
`25
`
`sub-linear time search
`
`sub-linear time search
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`non-exhaustive search
`search identifying a neighbor
`determining an action based on the identification
`
`non-exhaustive search
`neighbor search
`
`non-exhaustive search
`neighbor search
`
`non-exhaustive search
`neighbor search
`
`47
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a match
`without conducting a brute force comparison of all possible
`matches, and all data within all possible matches.”
`
`Petitioner’s construction
`
`48
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`Patent Owner's Expert:
`
`Karypis Decl. (A2005-Part 3) ¶266
`
`Karypis Decl. (A2005-Part 3) ¶289
`
`Petitioner's Expert:
`
`8 Q Would it be the case that the Ghias search
`9 is going to be performing a comparison to each of
`10 the melodies that are possible matches in the
`11 database?
`12 A It does a comparison, yes, to each of
`13 them.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 4) 323:8-13
`
`49
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`Work F
`Work G
`Work H
`Work I
`Work J
`
`‘179 Reply at 13
`
`50
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“My Way”
`chorus
`
`Work F
`Work G
`Work H
`Work I
`Work J
`
`51
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“My Way”
`chorus
`
`Work F
`Work G
`Work H
`Work I
`Work J
`
`52
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“My Way”
`chorus
`
`“My Way”
`first verse
`
`Karypis Decl. (A2005-Part 3) ¶287
`
`53
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“My Way”
`chorus
`
`“My Way”
`first verse
`
`54
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“My Way”
`chorus
`
`“My Way”
`first verse
`
`Ghias (1010) 7:4-9
`
`Karypis Decl. (A2005-Part 3) ¶288
`
`55
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“My Way”
`chorus
`
`“My Way”
`first verse
`
`13 Q Then we get a list that comes from there
`14 of a set of our best matches?
`15 A Deemed best matches, yes.
`16 Q And then it's going to do another search
`17 on those; right?
`18 A On that list, yes.
`19 Q And the possible matches for that search
`20 are defined to be only the ones that are on the
`21 list; is that right?
`22 A That's correct.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 4) 336:13-22
`
`56
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“My Way”
`chorus
`
`“My Way”
`first verse
`
`13 Q All right. What you're referring to here
`14 is we now have a -- a list -- we do a search, and it
`15 results in a list of possible matches; right?
`16 A Yes.
`17 Q Would you agree, then, that each of the --
`18 it's done a comparison, and what it's identified --
`19 that are on the list are all possible matches;
`20 right?
`21 A Yes.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 4) 325:13-21
`
`57
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“My Way”
`chorus
`
`“My Way”
`first verse
`
`Karypis Decl. (A2005-Part 3) ¶288
`
`58
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“My Way”
`
`“Twist & Shout”
`
`‘179 Reply at 16-17
`
`59
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“My Way”
`
`“Twist & Shout”
`
`Ghias (1010) 7:4-8
`
`60
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“My Way”
`
`“Twist & Shout”
`
`13 Q All right. What you're referring to here
`14 is we now have a -- a list -- we do a search, and it
`15 results in a list of possible matches; right?
`16 A Yes.
`17 Q Would you agree, then, that each of the --
`18 it's done a comparison, and what it's identified --
`19 that are on the list are all possible matches;
`20 right?
`21 A Yes.
`
`Moulin (A2006-Part 4) 325:13-21
`
`61
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new Reply theory:
`
`‘988 Reply at 7
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`database
`
`song
`
`song
`
`song
`
`song
`
`song
`
`62
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new Reply theory:
`
`Ghias (1010) 6:23-28
`
`query
`
`‘988 Reply at 7
`
`database
`
`song
`
`song
`
`song
`
`song
`
`song
`
`63
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new Reply theory:
`
`Ghias (1010) 6:23-28
`
`8 Q So when you wrote "proportional to the log
`9 of the size of the dataset," you meant that to mean
`10 the query dataset?
`11 A Yes. Yes.
`12 Q Not the -- not the database?
`13 A That's -- that's correct. There's no
`14 database here. It's a problem of matching a query
`15 to a single song.
`
`Moulin (2006-Part 2) 103:8-15
`
`query
`
`‘988 Reply at 7
`
`database
`
`song
`
`song
`
`song
`
`song
`
`song
`
`64
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new Reply theory:
`
`‘988 Reply at 7
`
`database
`
`song
`
`query
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`65
`
`
`
`Ghias
`
`‘237
`
`‘988
`
`‘179
`&
`‘441
`
`Independent claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`1
`
`5
`
`9
`
`13
`
`15
`
`1
`
`13
`
`25
`
`sub-linear time search
`
`sub-linear time search
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`non-exhaustive search
`search identifying a neighbor
`determining an action based on the identification
`
`non-exhaustive search
`neighbor search
`
`non-exhaustive search
`neighbor search
`
`non-exhaustive search
`neighbor search
`
`66
`
`
`
`approximate nearest neighbor search: identifying a
`close match that is not necessarily the closest match
`
`Board’s construction
`
`1
`
`2
`
`‘237 Petition at 42
`
`Rank
`
`single most
`approximate
`matching melody
`
`67
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new Reply theory:
`
`‘237 Reply at 21
`
`‘237 Petition at 42
`
`1
`
`2
`
`68
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new Reply theory:
`
`‘237 Reply at 21
`
`approximate nearest neighbor search: identifying a
`close match that is not necessarily the closest match
`
`Board’s construction
`
`69
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new Reply theory:
`
`‘237 Reply at 23
`
`70
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new Reply theory:
`
`‘237 Reply at 23
`
`Rank
`
`single most
`approximate
`matching melody
`
`71
`
`
`
`Ghias
`
`‘237
`
`‘988
`
`‘179
`&
`‘441
`
`Independent claim
`
`Key missing element(s)
`
`1
`
`5
`
`9
`
`13
`
`15
`
`1
`
`13
`
`25
`
`sub-linear time search
`
`sub-linear time search
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`approximate nearest neighbor
`
`non-exhaustive search
`search identifying a neighbor
`determining an action based on the identification
`
`non-exhaustive search
`neighbor search
`
`non-exhaustive search
`neighbor search
`
`non-exhaustive search
`neighbor search
`
`72
`
`
`
`Conwell
`
`Independent
`claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`‘179
`
`&
`
`‘441
`
`1
`
`13
`
`25
`
`neighbor search
`non-exhaustive search
`
`neighbor search
`non-exhaustive search
`
`neighbor search
`non-exhaustive search
`
`73
`
`
`
`Conwell
`
`Independent
`claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`‘179
`
`&
`
`‘441
`
`1
`
`13
`
`25
`
`neighbor search
`non-exhaustive search
`
`neighbor search
`non-exhaustive search
`
`neighbor search
`non-exhaustive search
`
`74
`
`
`
`neighbor search: “identifying a close, but not
`necessarily exact or closest, match”
`
`Board’s construction
`
` a search that can only identify exact
`matches is not a neighbor search
`
`Karypis ‘179 Decl. (2006) ¶92
`
`75
`
`
`
`neighbor search: “identifying a close, but not
`necessarily exact or closest, match”
`
`Board’s construction
`
` a search that can only identify exact
`matches is not a neighbor search
`
`Moulin ‘179 Decl. (1004) ¶45
`
`76
`
`
`
`Google’s desired claim:
`
`‘179 Reply at 8
`
`77
`
`
`
`Google’s desired claim:
`
`result:
`
`by:
`
`claim 13
`
`‘179 Reply at 8
`
`78
`
`
`
`Google’s desired claim:
`
`result:
`
`by:
`
`claim 13
`
`reference
`electronic work 1
`
`reference
`electronic work 2
`
`reference
`electronic work 3
`
`reference
`electronic work 4
`
`reference
`electronic work 5
`
`79
`
`first
`electronic
`work
`
`using a non-exhaustive
`neighbor search
`
`
`
`Actual claim:
`
`result:
`
`by:
`
`claim 13
`
`80
`
`
`
`Google’s desired claim:
`
`,
`
`,
`
`claim 13
`
`81
`
`
`
`Actual claim:
`
`result:
`
`by:
`
`claim 13
`
`reference
`electronic work 1
`
`reference
`electronic work 2
`
`reference
`electronic work 3
`
`reference
`electronic work 4
`
`reference
`electronic work 5
`
`82
`
`first
`electronic
`work
`
`using a non-exhaustive
`neighbor search
`
`
`
`Actual claim:
`
`claim 13
`
`first
`electronic data
`
`representation 1
`
`representation 2
`
`representation 3
`
`representation 4
`
`representation 5
`
`reference
`electronic work 1
`
`reference
`electronic work 2
`
`reference
`electronic work 3
`
`reference
`electronic work 4
`
`reference
`electronic work 5
`
`83
`
`first
`electronic
`work
`
`using a non-exhaustive
`neighbor search
`
`comparing
`
`
`
`Actual claim:
`
`first
`electronic
`work
`
`compact
`electronic
`representation
`
`using a non-exhaustive
`neighbor search
`
`comparing
`
`claim 13
`
`first
`electronic data
`
`representation 1
`
`representation 2
`
`representation 3
`
`representation 4
`
`representation 5
`
`reference
`electronic work 1
`
`reference
`electronic work 2
`
`reference
`electronic work 3
`
`reference
`electronic work 4
`
`reference
`electronic work 5
`
`84
`
`
`
`Conwell
`
`hash values
`
`reference works
`
`first
`electronic
`work
`
`hash of
`extracted
`features
`
`using an exact match
`search
`
`Claims
`
`first
`electronic
`work
`
`compact
`electronic
`representation
`
`using a non-exhaustive
`neighbor search
`
`comparing
`
`first
`electronic data
`
`representation 1
`
`representation 2
`
`representation 3
`
`representation 4
`
`representation 5
`
`reference
`electronic work 1
`
`reference
`electronic work 2
`
`reference
`electronic work 3
`
`reference
`electronic work 4
`
`reference
`electronic work 5
`
`85
`
`
`
`Conwell
`
`hash values
`
`reference works
`
`first
`electronic
`work
`
`hash of
`extracted
`features
`
`using an exact match
`search
`
`13 Q If -- in Conwell, when it does a
`14 comparison of the extracted features of the first
`15 electronic work with the first electronic data, it's
`16 comparing a hash value with a set of hash values;
`17 right?
`18 A Yes.
`
`Claims
`
`Moulin 264:13-25
`
`first
`electronic
`work
`
`compact
`electronic
`representation
`
`using a non-exhaustive
`neighbor search
`
`comparing
`
`first
`electronic data
`
`representation 1
`
`representation 2
`
`representation 3
`
`representation 4
`
`representation 5
`
`reference
`electronic work 1
`
`reference
`electronic work 2
`
`reference
`electronic work 3
`
`reference
`electronic work 4
`
`reference
`electronic work 5
`
`86
`
`
`
`Conwell
`
`hash values
`
`reference works
`
`first
`electronic
`work
`
`hash of
`extracted
`features
`
`using an exact match
`search
`
`13 Q If -- in Conwell, when it does a
`14 comparison of the extracted features of the first
`15 electronic work with the first electronic data, it's
`16 comparing a hash value with a set of hash values;
`17 right?
`18 A Yes.
`19 Q That comparison is always going to produce
`20 either an exact match or no match; right?
`21 A Yes.
`22 Q That -- that comparison will never return
`23 a suggestion that, "Here's something that doesn't
`24 quite match, but it's close"?
`25 A That's correct.
`
`Moulin 264:13-25
`
`87
`
`
`
`Conwell
`
`hash values
`
`reference works
`
`first
`electronic
`work
`
`hash of
`extracted
`features
`
`using an exact match
`search
`
`21 Q You might be able to have a certain
`22 process that would result in identifying neighbors,
`23 but it wouldn't use a neighbor search; right?
`24 A That's possible.
`
`Moulin (2006-Part 3) 266:21-24
`
`first
`electronic data
`
`88
`
`
`
`Conwell
`
`Independent
`claim
`
`Key missing elements
`
`‘179
`
`&
`
`‘441
`
`1
`
`13
`
`25
`
`neighbor search
`non-exhaustive search
`
`neighbor search
`non-exhaustive search
`
`neighbor search
`non-exhaustive search
`
`89
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`‘179 Petition at 24
`
`Karypis Decl. ¶¶365-385
`
`Karpyis Decl.
`(A2005) ¶ 377
`
`90
`
`
`
`non-exhaustive search: “a search that locates a
`match without a comparison of all possible matches”
`
`Board’s construction
`
`‘179 Petition at 24
`
`Karypis Decl. ¶¶365-385
`
`Karpyis Decl. (A2005) ¶ 367
`
`91
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s responsive argument:
`
`Cox ‘179
`
`‘179 Reply at 10
`
`the test is not what is common but rather what is actually disclosed
`
`Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc.,
`344 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`92
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s New Reply Theory:
`
`‘179 Reply at 11
`
`93
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s New Reply Theory:
`
`‘179 Reply at 11
`
`94
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s New Reply Theory:
`
`‘179 Reply at 11
`
`Examples in ‘179:
` excluded middle vantage point forest for nearest search (‘179, 9:17-18)
` sub-linear time search (‘179, 4:34-35)
` approximate nearest neighbor search (‘179, 4:36)
` binary search (‘179, 8:53; 9:3-12)
` nearest neighbor search (‘179, 9:7)
` kd-trees (‘179, 9:14)
` vantage point trees (‘179, 9:14)
` linear search (‘179, 21:37-42)
` clustering (‘179, 9:13)
` fixed radius search (‘179, 22:19)
` classical textual search (‘179, 23:6)
`
`95
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s New Reply Theory:
`
`‘179 Reply at 11
`
`Examples in other evidence in the Record:
` Boyer-Moore (1012 – Iwamura, 9:52-53)
` neighbor searching (Paper 1 – Petition at 3, Paper 4 – Moulin at ¶12)
` lookup in a hash table (Paper 1 – Petition at 24)
` pattern matching (1015, 1:55, 2:8, 2:12, 5: 64-65, 6:7, 6:8, 6:43, 10:38; 10:58, 11:36, 12:26)
` approximate string matching (1010 – Ghias, 6:23-35)
` similarity search (1018 – “Similarity Search in High Dimensions via Hashing,” Abstract)
` priority search (1006 – Arya at 4)
` closest-point queries (1006 – Arya at 1)
` Peak search (1012 – Iwamura, 9:6)
` K-nearest neighbor (k-nn) query (1007 – “Efficient Similarity Search in Digital Libraries,” 2)
` Sequential search (1020 – Karypis Deposition Transcript, 70:3)
`
`96
`
`
`
`Conwell
`
`Independent
`claim
`
`
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
