Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`18-2422
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`VEVEO, INC.,
`
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Appellee
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-00715
`
`
`APPELLANT’S CORRECTED PRINCIPAL BRIEF
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`Byron L. Pickard
`Kristina Caggiano Kelly
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`202.371.2600
`
`Counsel for Appellant,
`VEVEO, INC.
`
`Dated: February 1, 2019
`
`
`
`Comcast, Ex. 1234
`Comcast v. Rovi
`IPR2019-00239
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 10/12/2018
`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Form 9
` Rev. 10/17
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Veveo, Inc.
`Comcast Cable Communications
`
`
` v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18-2422
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`
`Counsel for the:
`(cid:133) (petitioner) (cid:133) (appellant) (cid:133) (respondent) (cid:133) (appellee) (cid:133) (amicus) (cid:133) (name of party)
`
`
`
`Veveo, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`certifies the following (use “None” if applicable; use extra sheets if necessary):
`
`
`1. Full Name of Party
`Represented by me
`
`Veveo, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Name of Real Party in interest
`(Please only include any real party
`in interest NOT identified in
`Question 3) represented by me is:
`Rovi Guide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Parent corporations and
`publicly held companies
` that own 10% or more of
`stock in the party
`Rovi Corp.
`TiVo Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now
`represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court (and who have not
`or will not enter an appearance in this case) are:
`Ropes & Gray LLP - Mark D. Rowland, Gabrielle E. Higgins, Scott A. McKeown, James R. Batchelder,
`Kevin J. Post and Josef B. Schenker.
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 10/12/2018
`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Form 9
` Rev. 10/17
`
`
`5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this or any other court or agency
`that will directly affect or be directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal. See Fed. Cir.
`R. 47. 4(a)(5) and 47.5(b). (The parties should attach continuation pages as necessary).
`
`None
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10/12/2018
`
`
`
`
` Date
`
`
`
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel of Record
`cc:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jason D. Eisenberg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature of counsel
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Printed name of counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`Reset Fields
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 4 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..................................................................... v 
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1 
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ................................................................................. 2 
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3 
`I. 
`Background of the Technology ....................................................................... 3 
`II. 
`Background of the Present Dispute ............................................................... 12 
`III.  The Alleged Prior Art .................................................................................... 15 
`A.  U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004/0133564 “Gross” ................................ 15 
`B. 
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,529,903 “Smith” ......................................................... 19 
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 21 
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 26 
`I. 
`Standard of Review ........................................................................................ 26 
`II. 
`Relevant Legal Principles .............................................................................. 26 
`III.  The Challenged Claims are Not Obvious In View of Smith and Gross ........ 29 
`A. 
`The “associating” step requires directly mapping content items to
`ambiguous prefix strings ..................................................................... 30 
`The combination of Smith and Gross does not disclose a method of
`directly mapping content items to ambiguous prefix strings .............. 34 
`CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT .............................................................. 38 
`
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 5 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 28
`
`Application of Irmscher, 262 F.2d 85 (CCPA 1958) ............................................... 28
`
`Belden Inc., v. Berk-tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 26
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed.Cir.2004) ............................................................................ 29
`
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 29
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule
`Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 29
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 28
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 28
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 28
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 27
`
`Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA Entm’t., Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1314 (Fed.Cir.2011) ............................................................................ 29
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 26, 27
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 27
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 6 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`849 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 27
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 27
`
`Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .................................................................... 32, 33
`
`Trivascular, Inc., v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 26
`
`Yamanouchi Pharm. Co. v. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc.,
`231 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S. § 103 ............................................................................................................ 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 7 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`No related cases are currently pending before this Court. The patent at issue
`
`in this appeal is not currently asserted in any copending litigation.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 8 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §
`
`141(c). The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board issued the Final Written Decision on appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 on July 25, 2018. Veveo, Inc., timely appealed that decision
`
`on September 24, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 9 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
`
`Whether claims 1-10, 12-24, and 26-31 are obvious in view of Gross and
`
`Smith, where the combination of Gross and Smith does not disclose “content items
`
`[] directly mapped to the corresponding strings of one or more overloaded keys by
`
`a direct mapping.”
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 10 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Veveo, Inc. is a member of the Rovi, Inc. family of companies. Following
`
`the 1953 launch of TV Guide Magazine, the Rovi family of companies (which has
`
`included, through strategic joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, TV Guide
`
`Onscreen, StarSight Telecast, Prevue, TV Guide, Video Guide, Gemstar, Aptiv
`
`Digital, United Video, Macrovision, Veveo, and FanTV) has pioneered
`
`technologies that facilitate consumer access to television and other audiovisual
`
`media.
`
`Today, Rovi’s market-leading digital entertainment solutions are featured in
`
`interactive television program guides, program-search and channel-browse
`
`functions, video recording and retrieval, viewer-profile and favorites settings, and
`
`data analytics supporting program recommendation capability. Companies around
`
`the world use Rovi’s solutions in a wide variety of applications such as cable,
`
`satellite, and internet protocol television (“IPTV”) receivers (including digital
`
`television set-top boxes (“STBs”) and digital-video recorders (“DVRs”)).
`
`I.
`
`Background of the Technology
`
`In the past decade, Cable-television services and various subscription-based
`
`entertainment-content providers have exploded in popularity. These services allow
`
`a user to select content from large libraries or broadcast offerings for download,
`
`recording, queuing, or on-demand viewing in the context of a traditional
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 11 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`entertainment system, i.e., a television set with a set-top box for receiving signals
`
`from a provider and processing those signals for viewing on the television. Today,
`
`these services are standard in most American households.
`
`Finding desired content became more difficult for users as the amount of
`
`available media content massively increased in the 1990s and 2000s. In 1990, the
`
`average person had access to roughly 33 television channels. See Television
`
`Audience 2008, NIELSEN.COM, at 13, http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/
`
`corporate/us/en/newswire/uploads/2009/07/tva_2008_071709.pdf (last visited Mar.
`
`16, 2016). By 2012, that number was nearly 800. See Cable’s Story, NCTA,
`
`https://www.ncta.com/who-we-are/our-story (last visited Mar. 16, 2016). The
`
`explosion in available television channels was accompanied by the growth of
`
`video-on-demand programming, which further increased the content available to
`
`consumers.
`
`The increasing search space created new problems with electronic program
`
`guides. One such problem was the challenge of giving users quick, easy-to-use,
`
`and accurate ways to find desired content using available input means and
`
`processing capabilities of existing entertainment-system devices. For example, not
`
`only was the user interface limited in a television environment, but the
`
`computational-load capacity of the hardware and networks through which
`
`television services are delivered was limited.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 12 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`The defining user-interface tool in the television environment is the
`
`handheld remote control, typically the dominant, if not sole means for user input in
`
`normal operation of an entertainment system. As system functionality increased,
`
`remote controls needed more buttons to command those additional functions. At
`
`the same, there is a limit to how large and complicated a remote control can get,
`
`both due to physical size restrictions and user-friendliness. The size and
`
`complexity limitations of the handheld user interface were thus in tension with the
`
`ever-increasing functionality of the entertainment system.
`
`The patent at issue in this appeal, U.S. Pat. No. 8,433,696 (“the ’696
`
`patent”), describes and claims a system that searches a content database, such as a
`
`program schedule or video library, by inputting alphanumeric search terms using a
`
`handheld remote control. To limit the size and complexity of the remote, the
`
`alphanumeric symbols are presented on an overloaded keypad, which was a
`
`generally known apparatus at the time of the ’696 patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 13 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`Because an overloaded key represents multiple alphanumeric characters, the
`
`use of overloaded keys presents the problem of ambiguity. For example, pressing
`
`the “2” key can mean any one of the alphanumeric characters “a,” “b,” “c,” or “2.”
`
`Thus, the use of overloaded keys requires some step to resolve this ambiguity
`
`(sometimes referred to as “disambiguation”). For example, as described in the
`
`Background section of the ’696 patent, it was known in the prior art that this
`
`ambiguity can be resolved by the user when inputting the keystrokes. In one
`
`method of disambiguation, the user presses the overloaded key multiple times,
`
`cycling through each character using repeated pushes until the desired letter is
`
`selected. Appx65, 1:50-55. For example, a user might push the “2” key once for
`
`the letter “A” and twice for the letter “B.” This method allowed the user to select
`
`the particular alphanumeric character desired, but the multiple presses were time-
`
`consuming, cumbersome, and prone to typographical error. Id. at 1:60-61.
`
`Another method of disambiguation by the user upon input was known as T9, which
`
`provided vocabulary based completion choices for each word entered. Id. at 1:55-
`
`57. The T9 method of disambiguation suffered from the drawback that it required
`
`that the user take the additional step of making a choice from a list of all of the
`
`possible word matches that were generated. Id. at 1:61-2:3.
`
`The ’696 patent went in an entirely different direction. Rather than require
`
`the user to disambiguate the overloaded keystroke, the system would simply accept
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 14 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`the ambiguous keystroke. Thus, for example, pressing the “2” key would
`
`intentionally correspond to any of the alphanumeric characters “A,” “B,” “C,” or
`
`“2.” The keystroke itself has no ability to specify among those characters. Entering
`
`multiple successive keystrokes in this fashion thus created ambiguous strings of
`
`numeric text, in which a particular numeric string could correspond to a number of
`
`different words or phrases. When ambiguous strings are used, more sophisticated
`
`algorithms are needed to process the input.
`
`The ’696 patent describes a unique algorithm for searching using ambiguous
`
`prefixes. The prefixes are pre-indexed with a direct mapping of each substring to
`
`one or more content items. The ’696 patent system allows a user to input search
`
`terms corresponding to various different descriptors associated with the content
`
`item, such as film genre, movie title, or actor name, using the overloaded keypad,
`
`and arrive at a desired content item. An example of the translation between
`
`alphanumeric search terms and ambiguous numeric prefix strings is shown in
`
`Figure 5, below.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 15 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`
`As described in the specification, “[t]he exemplary terms ‘TOON’, ‘TOM’,
`
`‘TOMMY’, which can be search terms entered by a television viewer to identify
`
`television content, are mapped to the numeric equivalents of their prefix strings:
`
`‘T’(8), ‘TO’(86), ‘TOO’(866), ‘TOON’(8666), ‘TOMMY’(86669).” Appx67,
`
`5:50-65. The ’696 patent explains that “[t]his many-to-many mapping scheme
`
`enables incremental search processing by enabling even a single character entered
`
`by the user to retrieve relevant results. This many-to-many mapping is done during
`
`an indexing phase for all terms that can be used to discover a result.” Appx67,
`
`5:66-6:4.
`
`The exemplary search terms TOON, TOM, and TOMMY correspond to the
`
`descriptors “Toon: cartoon,” “Tom Hanks,” and “Tommy Boy,” respectively. Each
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 16 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`of these descriptors is associated with one or more content items. The index
`
`associates each numeric character corresponding to an ambiguous overloaded
`
`keystroke of the prefix string with all of the content items that correspond to the
`
`descriptors that the prefix might represent. During a search, a user enters an
`
`ambiguous prefix string by pressing a series of overloaded keys, one keystroke at a
`
`time. The search algorithm displays the subset of content items that are directly
`
`mapped to that prefix. The algorithm parses each keystroke incrementally,
`
`continuously refining the subset of content items as the user enters each subsequent
`
`character. For example, if a user inputs the overloaded key “8” (representing “T,”
`
`“U,” “V,” and “8”), the system would return at least the items “Toon: Cartoon,”
`
`“Tom Hanks,” and “Tommy Boy,” because each item has the letter “T” in the first
`
`position of a word in the title for each item. A graphic illustration of the
`
`association between the strings of ambiguous keystrokes and the content items that
`
`are stored internally and used for searching is shown in Figure 7, below.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 17 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`
`Figure 7 shows the mapping algorithm for each successive ambiguous
`
`keystroke entered on an overloaded keypad. The direct mapping of each
`
`ambiguous prefix to the corresponding content items is represented by the dotted
`
`line from the numeric entry to “TOP M 704.” Figure 7 illustrates the “TOP M”
`
`search results for each of 8, 86, 866, and 866…9, as well as more complicated
`
`entries like 86_2. Each “TOP M” box represents a different subset of content
`
`items. As more keystrokes are entered, the subset of content items represented by
`
`“TOP M” becomes more refined.
`
`The incremental search feature of the algorithm saves time by allowing the
`
`user to make a final selection of a content item based on the shortest successful
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 18 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`search string, rather than entering an entire descriptor and then executing a search.
`
`In other words, the user can stop entering the characters in a descriptor and make a
`
`selection as soon as the desired result is displayed.
`
`Because matching the ambiguous input will result in an increased set of
`
`matching content items—when compared to matching to an unambiguous input—
`
`the algorithm of the ’696 patent includes additional processing to optimize the
`
`display of search results. Accordingly, the results are displayed in a particular
`
`order when presented to the user based on criteria, including, e.g., temporal
`
`relevance, location relevance, popularity, and personal preferences.
`
`Overall, the system of the ’696 patent accommodates ambiguous search
`
`strings in combination with incremental searching, allowing the user to receive the
`
`most relevant matching search results with as few keystrokes as possible. This
`
`system for mapping ambiguous search strings to content items produces the most
`
`accurate and comprehensive search results, from the broadest possible universe of
`
`descriptor search terms, with the shortest possible search string, created from the
`
`fewest possible keystrokes. The ’696 patent thus describes a unique search
`
`algorithm combined with the groundbreaking concept of implementing that
`
`algorithm in an interactive program guide for a television-entertainment system.
`
`The quality of Rovi’s innovative interactive program guide technologies,
`
`such as the technology described in the ’696 patent, have been recognized through
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 19 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`numerous industry awards and accolades. For example, in 2012, Rovi was awarded
`
`a Technology and Engineering Emmy® Award for its “Pioneering On-Screen
`
`Interactive Program Guides” that assist “viewer[s] in rapidly locating their desired
`
`program.” These Emmy® awards are designed to recognize “developments . . .
`
`involved in engineering technologies which either represent so extensive an
`
`improvement on existing methods or are so innovative in nature that they
`
`materially have affected the transmission, recording, or reception of television.”
`
`Technology & Engineering, The National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences,
`
`http://emmyonline.com/tech (last visited Mar. 28, 2016).
`
`II. Background of the Present Dispute
`Veveo has pioneered media technology innovation, including the technology
`
`used to facilitate consumer access to, and discovery of, television and other
`
`audiovisual media. Veveo’s technology is used daily in millions of American
`
`homes, and the ’696 patent is essential to any cable provider with an overloaded-
`
`keypad remote. Due to the importance and value of Rovi’s patented technologies,
`
`every major U.S. Pay-TV provider, including Defendant-Appellee Comcast Cable
`
`Communications, LLC, has taken a license to a portfolio of Rovi’s patents.
`
`Comcast first licensed Rovi’s technology around 15 years ago. Comcast
`
`spent the next decade building a cable empire on the back of that technology.
`
`Comcast still uses Veveo’s technology in various Xfinity products on the market
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 20 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`today. Comcast’s license expired on March 31, 2016. Rather than renew its license,
`
`Comcast decided to infringe Rovi’s patents, including Veveo’s patents, and file
`
`IPRs on all patents that Rovi and Veveo attempted to assert. The ’696 patent at
`
`issue in this appeal is one of those patents.
`
`The original provisional applications that led to the issuance of the ’696
`
`Patent were filed on August 26, 2005 and September 12, 2005. Comcast filed two
`
`petitions for inter partes review of all claims of the ’696 patent on January 19,
`
`2017, alleging that various combinations of prior art rendered the claims obvious.
`
`The Board declined to institute review for one of the two petitions. The Board
`
`instituted review for the other petition on July 28, 2017.
`
`The instituted petition challenges all claims of the ’696 patent as obvious.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites a method and independent claim 15 recites a
`
`corresponding system for performing that method. Claim 1 is representative of the
`
`challenged claims:
`
`1. A method, comprising:
`
`associating subsets of content items with corresponding strings of one or
`more overloaded keys of a keypad so that the subsets of content items are
`directly mapped to the corresponding strings of one or more overloaded keys
`by a direct mapping, wherein at least one overloaded key of the one or more
`overloaded keys is associated with a plurality of alphabetical and/or
`numerical symbols;
`
`ranking content items within at least one of the subsets of content items
`according to one or more ordering criteria;
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 21 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`subsequent to the associating and ranking, receiving entry of a first
`overloaded key;
`
`selecting and presenting a first of the subsets of content items that is
`associated with the first overloaded key based on the direct mapping;
`
`subsequent to receiving entry of the first overloaded key, receiving entry of a
`second overloaded key the same as or different than the first overloaded key,
`the second overloaded key forming a string with the first overloaded key;
`and
`
`selecting and presenting a second of the subsets of content items that is
`associated with the string of overloaded keys formed by the first overloaded
`key and the second overloaded key based on the direct mapping.
`
`Appx68, 7:62-8:20.
`
`
`
`The Board recognized that content items, as used in the patent, refer to
`
`movies, television shows, and similar video files that can be indexed in a video
`
`library or database using descriptors. Appx515-518. The Board also noted that
`
`descriptors are words that describe a content item, such as a title, director, or actor,
`
`and are not the content items themselves. Appx6 (“A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art reading the claims in light of the specification would therefore understand that
`
`‘content items’ are not ‘descriptors.’”); Appx515-516. Descriptors are used as
`
`search queries to search for content items that are matched to those descriptors in
`
`an index. Subject to this understanding, the Board construed “content item” as “an
`
`item which contains information and is identifiable and selectable from a set of
`
`items through use of a search query.” Appx6.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 22 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`The Board then construed “direct mapping” to mean “matching each
`
`alphanumeric character of a descriptor identifying a content item with its
`
`corresponding numeric key equivalent on an overloaded keypad.” Appx9. In other
`
`words, the Board found that content items are directly mapped to strings of
`
`overloaded keys by matching the descriptors corresponding to those content items
`
`with the numeric key equivalents of each letter in the descriptor. Appx8-9. The
`
`step of mapping strings of overloaded keystrokes to prefix strings of descriptors is
`
`more specifically recited in claims 3 and 17, which depend from claims 1 and 15,
`
`respectively, and recite a process of building the index that achieves the direct
`
`mapping recited in claim 1. Appx68, 8:25-31.
`
`The Board then found that “Gross teaches or suggests all the limitations of
`
`independent claims except for the recited ‘overloaded keys of a keypad,’” which it
`
`found in the Smith reference. Appx32. Based on these findings, the Board found
`
`that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have
`
`combined Gross with Smith to arrive at the claims of the ’696 patent.
`
`III. The Alleged Prior Art
`A. U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004/0133564 “Gross”
`Gross relates to a personal-computer program. It describes an incremental
`
`search tool for searching a variety of text-based files, such as word documents,
`
`emails, and web pages. Appx775 ¶ [0010]. Gross explains that incremental
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 23 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`searching displays and narrows search results continuously as each character of a
`
`search term is entered, thereby providing the user faster results. Id. Returning a
`
`search result before the complete search term is entered is referred to in the art (and
`
`in the record in this case) as searching based on “prefixes.” The example given in
`
`Gross is for the search term “dog,” delivering results based on the prefixes “d” and
`
`“do” as the user types each letter of the word.
`
`The search terms in Gross are not descriptors as described in the ’696 patent
`
`because they are words that appear within the content item—not words that
`
`describe the content item. Put differently, the search terms in Gross are words that
`
`appear in the body text of the documents being searched. A user enters the search
`
`terms based on the user’s familiarity with the content of the word document that he
`
`desires to locate. The search algorithm in Gross merely matches the letters in the
`
`search term to the letters in the words of the documents. No index or metadata is
`
`required to perform the search.
`
`While the Board also found that Gross teaches generating indices that
`
`contain content information and attribute information corresponding to the search
`
`targets, such as file name, date created, and author, these indices are not the indices
`
`discussed in the ’696 patent. Appx11. The index in Gross is designed to help a user
`
`determine which document among the search results is the document he is looking
`
`for, by providing information about the document rather than the mere fact that the
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 24 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`search term appears somewhere within it. Appx777 ¶ [0045]. The indexing
`
`functionality in Gross, therefore, is a different operation than the indexing
`
`described in the ’696 patent and serves an entirely different purpose. Appx778 ¶
`
`[0051].
`
`Contrastingly, the index in the ’696 patent is the tool with which the search
`
`algorithm matches each character in the ambiguous search prefixes to
`
`corresponding content items, such that the system is able to incrementally return
`
`results with each subsequent key entered. The many-to-many mapping used to
`
`create the index allows the system to return results without a disambiguation step.
`
`Gross does not contemplate ambiguous search terms at all, and its index does
`
`nothing to map content items to numeric prefix strings.
`
`For example, a user of Gross’s system may search based on a word in the
`
`body of the desired document. The search results, delivered incrementally, would
`
`show the files that contain the search term in the file name and would display
`
`information like the file type, author, or creation date in column format. Id. The
`
`indexing system in Gross also allows faster searching by confining searches to
`
`words that appear in certain attribute fields. Id. For example, a user can refine his
`
`search to a character string that appears in the “sender” field of an email, rather
`
`than anywhere in the file, to narrow the search task. Id.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 25 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`The ’696 patent does not use indexing to limit the universe of a search.
`
`Indeed, the method described in the ’696 patent does the opposite. The ’696 patent
`
`uses indexing to compile all possible search fields into a single operation. Thus, a
`
`user entering the search string “866” would obtain search results for the actor
`
`“Tom Hanks,” the title “Tommy Boy,” and the genera “cartoon.” The index in the
`
`’696 patent is therefore designed to expand the universe of search results—not
`
`narrow it as in Gross—and does so using a completely different methodology than
`
`the system in Gross.
`
`Furthermore, there is no dispute that Gross does not contemplate use with an
`
`overloaded keypad, processing ambiguous search strings, or use in a television
`
`environment. Appx17. Indeed, the method in Gross is implemented in a personal
`
`computer environment, where a user has a full “qwerty” keyboard with which to
`
`enter unambiguous search terms. The user in Gross, who is searching for files on a
`
`computer, has different search priorities and objectives than the user looking for
`
`entertainment on TV. It is therefore unsurprising that Gross’s methodology is
`
`focused on precision and organization in searching, while the ’696 patent
`
`methodology is designed to maximize breadth and flexibility in processing results.
`
`Because Gross only accepts input of conventional, unambiguous
`
`alphanumeric keys (e.g., where pressing the “a” key alone has only one meaning—
`
`“a”), Gross has no need for, and therefore does not disclose “direct mapping,” as
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case: 18-2422 Document: 26 Page: 26 Filed: 02/01/2019
`
`required by the claims of the ’696 patent. For example, Gross discloses an index
`
`that simply contains prefix strings of words, e.g., “d” and “do” for the word “dog,”
`
`that appear in the documents themselves. Appx778 ¶ [0051]. Thus, the reference in
`
`Gross to the use of a “computer networkable wireless phone” (Appx779 [0060]),
`
`relied on by the Board,Appx14, Appx30, Appx32, Appx33, Appx41, does not
`
`suggest the use of the overloaded keypad of the wireless phone for the input of
`
`ambiguous overloaded keys, e.g., where the pressing of the “2” key has the
`
`ambiguous input of “a,” “b,” “c

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

No download link given.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket