Comcast Cable Communications v. Veveo, Inc.
`Cases IPR2019-00239, -00292
`Patents 7,779,011 and 7,937,394
`
`Before:
`
`Kalyan K. Deshpande
`
`Sheila F. McShane
`
`Kara L. Szpondowski
`
`Comcast, Ex. 1236
`Comcast v. Veveo
`IPR2019-00239
`
`
`Cases IPR2019-00239, -00292
`Patents 7,779,011 and 7,937,394
`
`Before:
`
`Kalyan K. Deshpande
`
`Sheila F. McShane
`
`Kara L. Szpondowski
`
`Comcast, Ex. 1236
`Comcast v. Veveo
`IPR2019-00239
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`• Status of Prior Proceedings
`
`• Undisputed Issues
`
`• Overview of the ’011 and ’394 Patents
`
`• Prior Art Overview
`
`• Issues in Dispute
`o Gross/Smith Teaches Highlighting
`
`o Gross/Smith Were Obvious to Combine
`
`o Estoppel Effect of Prior Decisions
`
`o Ordering Term Matches Before Abbreviation
`Matches Was Obvious Over Gross/Smith/Sanders
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`2
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds – Gross/Smith
`
`IPR2019-00239 (“011-3”),
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,779,011
`Claims
`Grounds
`
`IPR2019-00292 (“394-3”),
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,937,394
`Claims
`Grounds
`
`1-3, 5, 6, 8-
`11, 13, 14,
`16-19, 21,
`22, 24
`
`4, 7, 12, 15,
`20, 23
`
`Gross-Smith (011-3)
`
`1, 2, 4, 5,
`6, 10, 11
`
`Gross-Smith (394-3)
`
`Gross-Smith-Sanders (011-3)
`
`3, 8, 9
`
`Gross-Smith-Sanders (394-3)
`
`7
`
`Gross-Smith-Weeren (394-3)
`
`011-3 ID, 7-19
`
`394-3 ID, 8-20
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`3
`
`
`
`Prior Proceedings for the ’011 Patent
`
`• The ITC found that Gross/Smith teaches every
`claim limitation, including the disputed
`“highlighting” (step 1[E])
`
`Ex. 2017, 100-110; 011-3 Reply, 5; 394-3 Reply, 5
`
`Ex. 2017 – ITC ID, 100
`
`Ex. 2017 – ITC ID, 110
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`4
`
`
`
`The ITC Found No Motivation to Combine Was Established
`
`011-3 Reply, 5, 20-21; 394-3 Reply, 5, 20-22
`
`• The ITC Decision has no preclusive effect
`
`011-3 Reply, 20; 394-3 Reply, 20-21; Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor
`Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1568-69 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`Ex. 2017 –
`ITC ID, 111
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`5
`
`
`
`Prior Proceedings for the Related ’696 Patent
`’696 Patent
`’011 Patent
`
`Ex. 1201, Cover, Abstract, 1:8-18
`
`Ex. 1205, Cover, Abstract, 1:8-23
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`6
`
`
`
`Prior Proceedings for the Related ’696 Patent
`’696 Patent
`’394 Patent
`
`Ex. 1205, Cover, Abstract, 1:8-23
`
`Ex. 1221, Cover, Abstract, 1:9-23
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`7
`
`
`
`The PTAB (affirmed by the Fed. Cir.) Held That Gross
`and Smith Were Combinable
`
`Ex. 1206 – ’696 FWD, 32
`011-3 Reply, 6-9
`394-3 Reply, 6-9
`
`Ex. 1206 – ’696 FWD, 33
`011-3 Reply, 6-9
`394-3 Reply, 6-9
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`8
`
`
`
`The PTAB Held, and the Fed. Cir. Affirmed, That:
`
`‘696 Final Written Decision - Ex. 1206, 23, 32-33; Ex. 1235 (Rule 36 Affirmance
`in Appeal No. 2018-2422 (Fed. Cir. 2019))
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`9
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`• Status of Prior Proceedings
`
`• Undisputed Issues
`
`• Overview of the ’011 and ’394 Patents
`
`• Prior Art Overview
`
`• Issues in Dispute
`o Gross/Smith Teaches Highlighting
`
`o Gross/Smith Were Obvious to Combine
`
`o Estoppel Effect of Prior Decisions
`
`o Ordering Term Matches Before Abbreviation
`Matches Was Obvious Over Gross/Smith/Sanders
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`10
`
`
`
`Undisputed Issues
`
`• The combination of Gross and Smith
`teaches all elements except the disputed
`“highlighting” element
`
`011-3 POR, 17-18; 011-3 Sur-reply, 7-19
`394-3 POR, 17-18; 394-3 Sur-reply, 7-19
`
`• The ITC found that Gross and Smith teach
`all elements of the claims including the
`disputed “highlighting element”
`
`Ex. 2017, 100, 102; 011-3 Reply, 5
`394-3 Reply, 5
`
`• Claim 1 is representative of Claims 9 and
`17 of ’011
`o Only claims 4, 12, and 20 argued separately by PO for ’011
`
`011-3 POR, 12, 35-39
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`11
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`• Status of Prior Proceedings
`
`• Undisputed Issues
`
`• Overview of the ’011 and ’394 Patents
`
`• Prior Art Overview
`
`• Issues in Dispute
`o Gross/Smith Teaches Highlighting
`
`o Gross/Smith Were Obvious to Combine
`
`o Estoppel Effect of Prior Decisions
`
`o Ordering Term Matches Before Abbreviation
`Matches Was Obvious Over Gross/Smith/Sanders
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`12
`
`
`
`’011 Patent Independent Claim 1
`
`1. An index directly maps
`items to unresolved
`keystrokes
`
`Ex. 1201, claims 1[A], 1[B], 1[D], 1[E]
`
`2. A user inputs a search
`query of unresolved
`keystrokes
`
`Ex. 1201, claims 1[Pre], 1[C]
`
`3.
`
`Incrementally find items
`and highlight characters
`that match the
`unresolved keystrokes
`
`Ex. 1201, claims 1[D], 1[E]
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`13
`
`
`
`’394 Patent Independent Claim 1
`
`1. An index directly maps
`items to unresolved
`keystrokes
`
`Ex. 1201, claims 1[A], 1[B], 1[D], 1[E]
`
`2. A user inputs a search
`query of unresolved
`keystrokes
`
`Ex. 1201, claims 1[Pre], 1[C]
`
`3.
`
`Incrementally find items
`and highlight characters
`that match the
`unresolved keystrokes
`
`Ex. 1201, claims 1[D], 1[E]
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`14
`
`
`
`The ’394 Patent Claims Are Broader
`
`• The ’394 Patent is a continuation of the ’011
`Patent
`o ’394 claim 1 lacks step 1[F] (“ordering”) of ’011
`claim 1
`
`Ex. 1221, 1
`
`394-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, App. A
`
`o ’394 claim 1 lacks the requirement that the search
`query is received “subsequent to said indexing” as
`recited in ’011 claim 1
`
`394-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, App. A
`
`• Therefore, the arguments that the ’011 Patent
`is invalid also apply to render the ’394 Patent
`invalid
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`15
`
`
`
`The ’011 and ’394 Disclosure: Highlighting
`
`Ex. 1201, 1:23-
`26; see also Ex.
`1221, 1:27-31
`
`Ex. 1201, 2:26-
`30; see also Ex.
`1221, 2:31-35
`
`Ex. 1201, 7:51-57;
`see also Ex. 1221,
`7:56-61
`
`Ex. 1201,
`Fig. 4
`
`Ex. 1201, 2:55-58; see also Ex. 1221, 2:61-64
`
`Ex. 1201, 8:12-18; see also Ex. 1221, 8:17-23
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`16
`
`
`
`The ’011 and ’394 Disclosure: Highlighting
`
`Ex. 1201, 3:14-18; see also Ex. 1221, 3:20-24
`
`Ex. 1201, 6:43-47; see also Ex. 1221, 6:48-53
`
`Ex. 1201, 3:35-40; see also Ex. 1221, 3:41-46
`
`Ex. 1201, 7:44-50; see also Ex. 1221, 7:49-55
`
`Ex. 1201, 6:23-30; see also Ex. 1221, 6:29-36
`
`Ex. 1201, 8:7-11; see also Ex. 1221, 8:11-16
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`17
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`• Status of Prior Proceedings
`
`• Undisputed Issues
`
`• Overview of the ’011 and ’394 Patents
`
`• Prior Art Overview
`
`• Issues in Dispute
`o Gross/Smith Teaches Highlighting
`
`o Gross/Smith Were Obvious to Combine
`
`o Estoppel Effect of Prior Decisions
`
`o Ordering Term Matches Before Abbreviation
`Matches Was Obvious Over Gross/Smith/Sanders
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`18
`
`
`
`Gross Incrementally Searches for Items Using an
`Alphanumeric Index with Prefixes
`
`011-3 Pet., 17-20; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 109-114
`394-3 Pet., 17-21; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 108-113
`Ex. 1211, ¶¶ 51-58, Fig. 4B
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 167 (showing annotations to Ex. 1211, Fig. 4B)
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 51
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`19
`
`
`
`Gross’s Disclosure
`
`• Gross highlights characters of an item that match the
`query
`
`011-3 Pet., 17-20; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 109-114
`394-3 Pet., 17-21; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 108-
`113; Ex. 1211, ¶¶ 49, 107, 114, 120
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 49
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 107
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 114
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`20
`
`
`
`Highlighting Search Results Was Well-known In the
`State of the Art
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶ 59
`394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶ 57
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶ 59 (citing Ex. 1204 - “Modern Information Retrieval,” Ch. 10);
`see also 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶ 57
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`21
`
`
`
`Smith Teaches Unresolved Keystroke Search
`
`• Smith teaches searching using unresolved keystrokes from an
`overloaded keypad
`
`011-3 Pet., 20-26; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 114-116
`394-3 Pet., 20-27; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 113-115
`Ex. 1213, 1:24-30, 4:57-5:62, Figs. 5A-5B
`
`Ex. 1213, 2:6-9
`
`Ex. 1213, Fig. 5B
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1213, Fig. 5A
`
`22
`
`
`
`Smith Teaches Index Conversion
`
`• Smith converts an alphanumeric index to a
`numeric index that allows searching using
`unresolved keystrokes
`
`011-3 Pet., 20-26; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 114-116
`394-3 Pet., 20-27; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 113-115; Ex. 1213, 4A, 5A,
`5C, 5:2-32
`
`Ex. 1213, 2:56-64
`
`Ex. 1213, Fig. 4A
`
`Ex. 1213, Fig. 5C
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`23
`
`
`
`Smith’s Index with Direct Mapping
`
`Unresolved keystrokes
`
`Items
`
`• The index directly
`maps unresolved
`keystrokes to items
`
`011-3 Pet., 37-39; Ex. 1214, ¶ 140
`394-3 Pet., 39-41; Ex. 1214, ¶ 141
`
`Ex. 1213 - Smith, Fig. 5C
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`24
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`• Undisputed Issues
`
`• Status of Prior Proceedings
`
`• Overview of the ’011 and ’394 Patents
`
`• Prior Art Overview
`
`•
`
`Issues in Dispute
`
`o Gross/Smith Teaches Highlighting
`
`o Gross/Smith Were Obvious to Combine
`
`o Estoppel Effect of Prior Decisions
`
`o Ordering Term Matches Before Abbreviation Matches Was
`Obvious Over Gross/Smith/Sanders
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`25
`
`
`
`Gross’s Disclosure
`
`• Gross highlights characters of an item that match the
`query
`
`011-3 Pet., 17-20; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 109-113
`394-3 Pet., 17-21; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 108-112; Ex. 1211, ¶¶ 49, 107, 114, 120
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 49
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 107
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 114
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`26
`
`
`
`Gross’s Disclosure
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 49
`
`27
`
`
`
`Gross’s Disclosure
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 120
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`28
`
`
`
`Gross Teaches Highlighting
`
`Ex. 1211, Fig. 3C
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`29
`
`
`
`Gross Teaches Highlighting
`
`Ex. 2029 – Fox depo, 115:2-17
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`30
`
`
`
`Gross/Smith Highlights Characters Matching Unresolved
`Keystrokes
`011-3 Pet., 41-46, 51-54; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 153-164, 178-181; 011-3 Reply, 3-5; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 7-11
`394-3 Pet., 43-48, 53-56; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 153-166, 179-182; 394-3 Reply, 3-5
`
`011-3 Ex. 1233 – Fox reply dec , ¶ 11
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`31
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Know How to Achieve the Claimed Highlighting
`
`011-3 Pet., 41-46, 51-54; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 153-164, 178-181; 011-3 Reply, 3-5; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 7-11
`394-3 Pet., 43-48, 53-56; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 153-166, 179-182; 394-3 Reply, 3-5
`
`011-3 Ex. 1233 – Fox reply dec, ¶ 11
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`32
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Combine Gross With Smith To Highlight
`Matching Characters To Avoid Confusing the User
`
`011-3 Pet., 41-46, 51-54; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 153-164, 178-181; 011-3 Reply, 3-5; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 7-11
`394-3 Pet., 43-48, 53-56; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 153-166, 179-182; 394-3 Reply, 3-5
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox
`dec, ¶ 163
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 59 (citing Ex. 1204 - “Modern Information Retrieval,” Ch. 10)
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`33
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Combine Gross With Smith To Highlight
`Matching Characters To Avoid Confusing the User
`
`011-3 Pet., 41-46, 51-54; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 153-164, 178-181; 011-3 Reply, 3-5; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 7-11
`394-3 Pet., 43-48, 53-56; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 153-166, 179-182; 394-3 Reply, 3-5
`
`Ex. 1233 – Fox reply dec, ¶ 13
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`34
`
`
`
`Highlighting Search Results Was Well-known In the
`State of the Art
`
`Ex. 1204 - “Modern Information Retrieval,” Ch. 10 (1999) (ACM), p. 197;
`011-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 59; 394-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 57
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`35
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Use Ordinary Creativity to
`Implement Gross’s Highlighting to Highlight
`the Characters that Caused the Matching
`
`011-3 Pet., 41-46, 51-54; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 153-164, 178-181; 011-3 Reply, 3-5; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 7-11
`394-3 Pet., 43-48, 53-56; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 160-166, 179-182; 394-3 Reply, 3-5
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 163
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`36
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Implement Gross’s Highlighting to
`Highlight the Characters that Match the Search Query
`
`011-3 Pet., 41-46, 51-54; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 153-164, 178-181; 011-3 Reply, 3-5; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 7-11
`394-3 Pet., 43-48, 53-56; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 160-166, 179-182; 394-3 Reply, 3-5
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 162
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`37
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Predictably and Obviously Combine Gross and Smith to
`Highlight the Characters Present That Match The Search Query
`
`011-3 Pet., 41-46, 51-54; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 153-164, 178-181; 011-3 Reply, 3-5; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 7-11
`394-3 Pet., 43-48, 53-56; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 160-166, 179-182; 394-3 Reply, 3-5
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 181
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`38
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Know How To Combine Well-Known Techniques
`In The Search Arts Such As Highlighting In An Overloaded
`Keypad Environment
`
`011-3 Pet., 41-46, 51-54; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 153-164, 178-181; 011-3 Reply, 3-5; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 7-11
`394-3 Pet., 43-48, 53-56; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 160-166, 179-182; 394-3 Reply, 3-5
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 60
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`39
`
`
`
`Dr. Fox Explained Three Obvious
`Implementations of the Claimed
`Highlighting In Gross/Smith
`
`Ex. 2029 – Fox depo, 88:10-17
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`40
`
`
`
`Dr. Fox Explained Three Obvious
`Implementations of the Claimed
`Highlighting
`
`Ex. 2029 – Fox depo, 88:17-22
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`41
`
`
`
`Dr. Fox Explained Three Obvious
`Implementations of the Claimed Highlighting
`
`Ex. 2029 – Fox depo,
`89:1-4
`
`Ex. 2029 – Fox depo,
`89:11-17
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`42
`
`
`
`Disclosures of Gross and the ’011 Patent Regarding
`Highlighting
`
`The ’011 Patent
`
`Gross
`
`Ex. 1201, 7:41-50
`
`Ex. 1201, 6:25-28
`
`Ex. 1201, 3:35-40
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 49
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 107
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 114
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`43
`
`
`
`Issue in Dispute: Level of Skill in the Art
`
`Comcast:
`
`Veveo:
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox
`dec, ¶ 48
`
`011-3 Ex. 2014 –
`Russ dec, ¶ 18
`
`44
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`
`
`Level of a POSA in the Related ’696 Proceeding
`
`Ex. 1206 – ’696 Final Written
`Decision, 10
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`45
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Be Skilled in Search Query Processing
`
`’011 Patent
`
`011-3 Pet., 16; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 44-48
`011-3 Reply, 19-20; 011-3 Ex. 1233, ¶ 6
`
`Ex. 1201, Title
`
`Ex. 1201, 1:22-26
`
`’394 Patent
`
`Ex. 1221, Title
`
`Ex. 1221, 1:27-31
`
`’696 Patent
`
`Ex. 1205, Title
`
`Ex. 1205, 1:27-31
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`46
`
`
`
`Based On a POSA With No Experience In Search
`Query Processing, Dr. Russ Argues Highlighting Is
`Non-trivial And Complex
`
`• Dr. Russ fails to give due credit to a POSA
`
`Ex. 2014 – Russ dec, ¶ 71
`
`011-3 Reply, 19-20; 394-3 Reply, 20; Ex. 1233 – Fox reply dec, ¶ 6
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`47
`
`
`
`Dr. Russ’s Testimony Regarding Highlighting
`
`Ex. 1032 – Russ depo, 128:11-19
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit Not Evidence
`
`48
`
`
`
`Dr. Russ’s Testimony Regarding Highlighting
`
`Ex. 1032 – Russ depo, 82:8-16
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit Not Evidence
`
`49
`
`
`
`Even Under Veveo’s POSA, Dr. Russ Agrees
`Gross/Smith Would Highlight “866” For
`Overloaded Keypad Searching
`
`011-3 Ex. 2014 – Russ dec, ¶ 63; see also 394-3 Ex. 2014, ¶ 64
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`50
`
`
`
`Gross Teaches Entry And Highlighting Of Numeric
`Character Strings
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1211, Fig. 3H
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 111
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 49
`
`Ex. 1211, ¶ 118
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`51
`
`
`
`’011 Patent Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1201, claim 1
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`52
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`• Undisputed Issues
`
`• Status of Prior Proceedings
`
`• Overview of the ’011 and ’394 Patents
`
`• Prior Art Overview
`
`•
`
`Issues in Dispute
`
`o Gross/Smith Teaches Highlighting
`
`o Obvious to Combine Smith’s Index With Gross
`
`o Estoppel Effect of Prior Decisions
`
`o Ordering Term Matches Before Abbreviation Matches Was
`Obvious Over Gross/Smith/Sanders
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`53
`
`
`
`Smith Provides an Explicit Motivation to Combine
`
`011-3 Pet., 30-32, 40; 394-3 Pet., 32-34, 42; 011-1 Reply, 3-5
`394-3 Reply, 3-5; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶ 129; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 12, 15
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 129
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`54
`
`
`
`Smith Provides an Explicit Motivation to Combine
`
`011-3 Pet., 30-32, 40; 394-3 Pet., 32-34, 42; 011-1 Reply, 3-5
`394-3 Reply, 3-5; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶ 129; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 12, 15
`
`Ex. 1233 – Fox reply dec, ¶ 12; see also ¶ 15
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`55
`
`
`
`Dr. Fox Explains Additional Motivations to Combine Gross and Smith
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 126-130, 153-164, 178-181; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 7-12, 15
`394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 160-166, 179-182
`
`Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 126
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`56
`
`
`
`Dr. Fox Explains Additional Motivations to Combine Gross and Smith
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 126-130, 153-164, 178-181; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 7-12, 15
`394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 160-166, 179-182
`
`Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 128
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`57
`
`
`
`Dr. Fox Explains Additional Motivations to Combine Gross and Smith
`
`011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 126-130, 153-164, 178-181; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 7-12, 15
`394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 160-166, 179-182
`
`Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 129
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`58
`
`
`
`Dr. Fox Explains The Motivation to Combine Gross and Smith
`011-3 Pet., 30-32, 40; 394-3 Pet., 32-34, 42
`
`Ex. 1214 – Fox dec, ¶ 130
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`59
`
`
`
`Smith Provides Improved Efficiency on
`Overloaded Keypads On Wireless Phones
`
`• Gross:
`o Searching using an alphanumeric index
`
`o Searching on wireless phones
`
`• Smith:
`o Converting an alphanumeric index to a numeric index
`
`011-3 Pet., 27, 30-32; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 127-131
`394-3 Pet., 29, 32-34; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 128-132
`
`o More efficient search on small devices with overloaded
`keypads such as wireless phones
`011-3 Pet., 29-32, 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 127-131
`394-3 Pet., 31-34, 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 128-132
`
`• Motivation to Combine: Smith was designed to
`improve efficiency on devices like the wireless
`phones used by Gross when used in overloaded
`keypad environment
`
`011-3 Pet., 30-32; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 128-131, 146; 011-3 Reply, 9-10
`394-3 Pet., 32-34; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 128-132, 394-3 Reply, 10
`Ex. 1233, ¶ 14
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`60
`
`
`
`Tradeoffs of Increasing Efficiency Using
`Smith’s Method
`• Gross/Smith allows for more efficient search on overloaded
`keypad devices such as wireless phones
`
`011-3 Pet., 29-32; 394-3 Pet., 31-34
`011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 128-131; 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 128-132
`
`• Tradeoff when searching using Smith’s method:
`o Fewer keystrokes required (more efficiency), but
`
`o Results are ambiguous (less precision)
`
`011-3 Pet., 30-32, 40; 011-3 Ex. 1214,
`¶¶ 128-131, 146; 011-3 Reply, 9-11;
`394-3 Pet., 32-34, 42; 394-3 Ex. 1214,
`¶¶ 128-132; 394-3 Reply, 10-12;
`Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 14, 17, 18
`
`Prior Art according to Smith
`
`Smith’s invention
`
`Ex. 1213, 1:43-46
`
`Ex. 1213, 2:6-9
`
`Ex. 1213, 1:62-65
`
`Ex. 1213, 5:24-28
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`61
`
`
`
`PO’s Patents Describe the Same Tradeoff
`
`• The ’011/’394 Patents describe the fact that fewer
`keystrokes means more ambiguity
`
`Ex. 1201, 2:1-4
`
`Ex. 1201, 5:32-38
`
`• A tradeoff is not a teaching away, and does not
`preclude obviousness
`
`011-3 Reply, 11; 394-3 Reply, 11; In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fec.
`Cir. 2004); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`62
`
`
`
`PO Argues No Motivation to Combine for Three
`Reasons
`
`011-3 POR, ii; see also 394-3 POR, i-ii
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`63
`
`
`
`The PTAB and Fed. Cir. Already Rejected All
`Three Reasons
`
`011-3 Reply, 6-8;
`394-3 Reply, 6-8
`
`• Patent Owner:
`
`011-3 POR, 26
`see also 394-3 POR, 25
`
`• PTAB (’696 Panel)
`(affirmed):
`
`Ex. 1206, 32
`
`Ex. 1206, 33
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`64
`
`
`
`The PTAB and Fed. Cir. Already Rejected All
`Three Reasons
`
`011-3 Reply, 6-8;
`394-3 Reply, 6-8
`
`• Patent Owner:
`
`• PTAB (’696 Panel) (affirmed):
`
`011-3 POR, 29; see also 394-4 POR, 28
`
`Ex. 1206, 30
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`65
`
`
`
`The PTAB and Fed. Cir. Already Rejected All
`Three Reasons
`
`011-3 Reply, 6-8;
`394-3 Reply, 6-8
`
`• Patent Owner:
`
`• PTAB (’696 Panel) (affirmed):
`
`011-3 POR, 32; see also 394-3 POR, 31
`
`Ex. 1206, 30
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`66
`
`
`
`The PTAB and Fed. Cir. Already Found That
`Smith’s Tradeoff Did Not Preclude Obviousness
`
`011-3 Reply, 6-8; 394-3 Reply, 6-8
`
`Ex. 1206 ’696 FWD, 31
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`67
`
`
`
`The PTAB and Fed. Cir. Previously Found It
`Obvious To Use Smith to Modify Gross in the
`Same Way as in This Proceeding
`
`011-3 Reply, 6-8; 394-3 Reply, 6-8
`
`Ex. 1206 – ’696 FWD, 33
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`68
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`• Undisputed Issues
`
`• Status of Prior Proceedings
`
`• Overview of the ’011 and ’394 Patents
`
`• Prior Art Overview
`
`•
`
`Issues in Dispute
`
`o Gross/Smith Teaches Highlighting
`
`o Gross/Smith Were Obvious to Combine
`
`o Estoppel Effect of Prior Decisions
`
`o Ordering Term Matches Before Abbreviation Matches Was
`Obvious Over Gross/Smith/Sanders
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`69
`
`
`
`Elements of Collateral Estoppel
`
`•
`
`In the prior action the party against whom estoppel is sought had a full and
`fair opportunity to litigate the issue
`
`• The issue was actually litigated
`
`• The controlling facts and applicable legal rules were the same in both
`actions
`
`• Resolution of the particular issue was essential to the final judgment in the
`first action
`
`• The identical issue was decided in the first action
`
`Comair Rotron, Inc. v. Nippon Densan Corp., 49 F.3d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`011-3 Sur-reply, 2
`394-3 Sur-reply, 2
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`70
`
`
`
`’696 PTAB Decision
`
`•
`
`Issue Preclusion: The PTAB already decided it would have been
`obvious to combine Gross and Smith
`
`011-3 Reply, 5-6
`394-3 Reply, 5-6
`Ex. 1206, 29-33
`
`• The Federal Circuit affirmed (Rule 36 Judgment)
`
`011-3 Reply, 6; 394-3 Reply, 6; Ex. 1235
`
`• The combinability of Gross and Smith was fully and fairly tried, and
`need not be re-litigated
`
`011-3 Reply, 6-8
`394-3 Reply, 6-8
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`71
`
`
`
`The Issue of the Combinability of Gross and
`Smith Was Identical in the ’696 Proceeding
`
`• PO only disputes whether the issues were identical
`
`011-3 Sur-reply, 2-3; 394-3 Sur-reply, 2-3
`
`011-3 Sur-
`reply, 3
`
`011-3 Sur-
`reply, 3
`
`• But estoppel can apply even if the claims are not identical
`
`Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1351-1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`011-3 POR, 41; see also 394-3 POR, 40
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`72
`
`
`
`The Modification Is Identical In Both Proceedings
`
`011-3 Reply, 6-8; 394-3 Reply, 6-8
`
`’696:
`
`’011:
`
`Ex. 1206 - ’696 FWD, 29
`
`011-3 Pet., 31; see also 394-3 Pet., 33
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`73
`
`
`
`The Motivation to Combine Is Identical In Both Proceedings
`011-3 Reply, 6-8; 394-3 Reply, 6-8
`
`’696:
`
`’011:
`
`Ex. 1206 – ’696 FWD, 29
`
`011-3 Pet., 30; see also 394-3 Pet., 32
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`74
`
`
`
`The Only Issue Not Decided By The ’696 Panel
`Is The Motivation To Apply Gross’s
`Highlighting To Gross/Smith
`
`• This issue was addressed above
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`75
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`• Undisputed Issues
`
`• Status of Prior Proceedings
`
`• Overview of the ’011 and ’394 Patents
`
`• Prior Art Overview
`
`•
`
`Issues in Dispute
`
`o Gross/Smith Teaches Highlighting
`
`o Gross/Smith Were Obvious to Combine
`
`o Estoppel Effect of Prior Decisions
`
`o Ordering Term Matches Before Abbreviation Matches Was
`Obvious Over Gross/Smith/Sanders
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`76
`
`
`
`’011 Claims 4, 12, 20 and ’394 Claim 3
`
`• Representative ’011 claim 4:
`
`•
`
`’394 Claim 3:
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`77
`
`
`
`’011/’394 Specification Illustrates Ordering
`Term Matches Before Abbreviation Matches
`
`Term Matches
`
`011-3 Pet., 68-73
`011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 209-230
`011-3 Reply, 14-17
`394-3 Pet., 64-69
`394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 200-223
`394-3 Reply, 14-18
`Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 20-21
`
`Ex. 1201, Figs. 6A-B
`
`Abbreviation matches
`correspond to an
`abbreviation of the
`search query
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`78
`
`
`
`Sanders Teaches Abbreviation Matches
`
`• A user enters “divine”
`
`• System generates a stem “divin” – an abbreviation of the search query
`
`• System finds words such as “divinity” that match the abbreviation “divin,”
`i.e., “divinity” is an abbreviation match
`
`011-3 Pet., 68-73; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 209-230; 011-3 Reply, 14-17
`394-3 Pet., 64-69, 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 200-223; 394-3 Reply, 14-18
`Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 20-21
`Ex. 1210, 6:42-61, 11:48-62
`
`Ex. 1210 - Sanders, 6:42-49
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`79
`
`
`
`Sanders Ranks Term Matches Over
`Abbreviation Matches
`
`011-3 Pet., 68-73; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 209-230; 011-3 Reply, 14-17
`394-3 Pet., 64-69, 394-3 Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 200-223; 394-3 Reply, 14-18
`Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 20-21
`Ex. 1210, 6:42-61, 11:48-62
`
`Ex. 1210 - Sanders, 11:57-62
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`80
`
`
`
`PO Argues Differences That Are Not in the Claims
`
`011-3 Reply, 14-17; 394-3 Reply, 14-18; Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 20-21
`
`• PO argues that Sanders ranks longer words after shorter words
`
`• But the claims do not require longer words to be ranked before shorter
`words
`
`011-3 Reply, 14-17; 394-3 Reply, 14-18
`Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 20-21; Ex. 1201, claims 4, 12, 20; Ex. 1221, claim 3
`
`011-3 POR, 36-39
`see also 394-3 POR, 35-38
`
`Ex. 1201, claim 4
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`81
`
`
`
`PO’s Patents Show Ranking Shorter Words
`Before Longer Words
`
`Ex. 1233 – Fox reply dec, ¶¶ 20-22
`011-3 Reply, 14-17; 394-3 Reply, 14-18
`
`Ex. 1201, Fig. 6B
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`82
`
`
`
`Appendix: Additional Slides
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative
`Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`83
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`
`• Highlighting in response to each unresolved keystroke – rejected
`
`011-3 Pet., 6; Ex. 1202, 44, 76; Ex. 1214, ¶¶ 69-70
`
`Ex. 1202, 44
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`84
`
`
`
`Reasons for Allowance
`
`•
`
`Index with direct mapping of items to unresolved keystrokes – allowed
`
`011-3 Pet., 7-8; Ex. 1202 at 10; Ex. 1214, ¶ 78
`
`Ex. 1202, 10
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`85
`
`
`
`Smith Teaches The “Allowable” Feature
`
`• Smith teaches the index with direct mapping of items to unresolved
`keystrokes
`
`011-3 Pet., 36-39; 011-3 Ex. 1214, ¶ 140
`
`Ex. 1213, Fig. 5C
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`86
`
`
`
`Comparison of the ’011 and ’394 Patents
`
`• Elements 1[Pre], 1[B], 1[D], and 1[E] are substantially identical for ’011
`and ’394
`
`•
`
`1[A] comparison:
`
`Ex. 1014, App. A
`
`’011 Claim 1[A]
`indexing said items by associating
`subsets of said items with
`corresponding strings of one or more
`unresolved keystrokes for overloaded
`keys so that the subsets of items are
`directly mapped to the corresponding
`strings of unresolved keystrokes for
`various search query prefix
`substrings;
`
`
`
`’394 Claim 1[A]
`providing access to an index of the
`items, the index having an
`association between subsets of the
`items and corresponding strings of
`one or more unresolved keystrokes
`for overloaded keys so that the
`subsets of items are directly mapped
`to the corresponding strings of
`unresolved keystrokes for various
`
`search query prefix substrings;
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`87
`
`
`
`Comparison of the ’011 and ’394 Patents
`
`•
`
`1[C] comparison:
`
`’011 Claim 1[C]
`subsequent to said indexing,
`receiving from a user a search query
`for desired items composed of
`unresolved keystrokes, said search
`query comprising a prefix substring
`for at least one word in information
`associated with the desired item;
`
`’394 Claim 1[C]
`
`receiving from a user a search query
`for desired items composed of
`unresolved keystrokes, the search
`query comprising a prefix substring
`for at least one word in information
`associated with the desired item;
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`88
`
`
`
`Comparison of the ’011 and ’394 Patents
`
`• 1[F] is omitted from the ’394 Patent:
`
`’011 Claim 1[F]
`ordering the displayed items in
`accordance with one or more given
`criteria.
`
`’394 Claim 1
`
`Petitioner's Demonstrative Exhibit
`Not Evidence
`
`89
`
`
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.
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 unable to display this document.
No download link given.
