`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ELASTIC N.V.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2021-00875
`
`Patent No. 7,231,379
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3
`
`II. Ground 3: Fratkina explicitly teaches away from Claims 1, 2 and 7 ...................................... 4
`
`III. Ground 4: As Fratkina teaches away from Claims 1, 2, and 7, Fratkina in view of
`
`Rajaraman does not render Claims 3-6 obvious ............................................................................. 7
`
`IV. Grounds 1 and 2 have already been rejected by the Board and Petitioner advances the
`
`same argument ................................................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a), Guada Technologies LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”), hereby submits the following Response to the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,379 (“the ‘379 Patent”).
`
`The Petition proposes four grounds of unpatentability: (1) Wesemann renders
`
`claims 1, 2, and 7 obvious; (2) Wesemann in view of Rajaraman renders claims 3-6
`
`obvious; (3) Fratkina renders claim 1, 2, and 7 obvious; and (4) Fratkina in view of
`
`Rajaraman renders claims 3-6 obvious. Each of these grounds are flawed and in the
`
`case of Grounds 1 and 2, have already been rejected by the Board.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Fratkina renders claims 1, 2 and 7 obvious. This
`
`argument is, however, fatally flawed as Fratkina explicitly teaches away from the
`
`claims by requiring a confirmation step, as Fratkina notes autocontextualization can
`
`make mistakes and that it should not be assumed that the correct tags have been
`
`extracted from a query. This is in contrast to claims 1, 2 and 7, which teach making
`
`the jump to one node with just one entry of one word, with no intermediate
`
`verification step. Thus, not only are claims 1, 2, and 7 not anticipated by Fratkina,
`
`they are not rendered obvious in light of Fratkina either because it would not have
`
`been obvious to remove the verification step disclosed in Fratkina, as Fratkina
`
`explicitly teaches that mistakes happen and a verification step may be needed after
`
`input to correct such mistakes.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`As Fratkina does not render claim 1, 2, 7 obvious, Ground 4—which asserts
`
`that claims 3-6 are obvious in light of Fratkina in view of Rajaraman—is flawed
`
`because claims 3-6 depend on claim 1, and these dependent claims do not claim a
`
`confirmation or verification step. Thus, no combination of Fratkina with any
`
`reference can render claims 3-6 obvious since Fratkina teaches away from these
`
`claims.
`
`Ground 1 and 2 were previously rejected by the Board in the Bloomreach
`
`Institution Decision. Petitioner not only re-raises the same argument, but does so by
`
`literally copying the Bloomreach Petitioner’s argument word for word. Compare
`
`Bloomreach Petition, Case No. IPR2019-01304 (“Bloomreach Petition”), pages 16-
`
`54 to Petition pages 16-65. Having advanced no new argument, the Board should
`
`not alter its previous decision rejecting these grounds.
`
`As there is no basis on any of the grounds presented by Petitioner, the Board
`
`should respectfully enter a final decision on this inter partes review in favor of the
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`II. Ground 3: Fratkina explicitly teaches away from Claims 1, 2 and 7
`
`In the Bloomreach Institution Decision, the Board stated, “Fratkina discloses
`
`that dialog designers may use goal parameters to create a dialog that advances to an
`
`autocontextualized node even without confirmation.” Decision Granting Institution,
`
`Case No. IPR2019-01304 at 15 (citing Fratkina at 33:49-34:3) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`The Board’s assertion, and Petitioner’s argument in reliance thereof, is in
`
`direct contradiction to Fratkina itself. Fratkina states, “[h]owever sometimes other
`
`information can not be fully trusted. In particular, autocontextualization, being an
`
`automatic process, can make mistakes. Therefore it may not be safe to assume that
`
`correct concept tags have been extracted from the query. User preference
`
`information, though human-entered, may be outdated.” See id. at 33:52-57. Fratkina
`
`specifically
`
`requires
`
`confirmation, because—by
`
`its own
`
`admission—
`
`autocontextualization can make mistakes. Fratkina, thus, explicitly teaches a
`
`confirmation step to account for autocontextualization mistakes and outdated user
`
`preference information. The Board in Bloomreach assumed the goal parameters can
`
`be modified, but respectfully failed to take into account that autocontextualization is
`
`not to be trusted.
`
`As noted by the Board, “Fratkina teaches that input a user provides to the
`
`system is autocontextualized against the taxonomies in the knowledge map. Ex.
`
`1006, 29:5‒6. This results in “topic spotter nodes” that represent the system’s
`
`understanding of the user’s input. Id. at 29:6‒8. These nodes are not automatically
`
`accepted as true (unlike confirmed nodes), but these nodes may be verified by asking
`
`follow-up questions to confirm the dialog engine’s understanding of the user’s input.
`
`Id. at 26:8‒14. Thus, autocontextualized topic spotter nodes may become confirmed
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`after follow up. Id. at 26:8‒14; see also id. at 37:56‒57.” Decision Granting
`
`Institution, Case No. IPR2019-01304 at 15 (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, as noted by the Board, Fratkina teaches the user input step and a
`
`separate verification step. The claims of the ‘379 Patent, however, expressly do not
`
`require a verification step. Rather, they teach making the jump to one node with just
`
`one entry of one word, with no intermediate verification step. ‘379 Patent at 22:50-
`
`57.
`
`The claims of the ‘379 Patent, are, thus, not anticipated by Fratkina.
`
`Specifically, Fratkina does not anticipate or teach “identifying at least one node,
`
`other than the first node, that is not directly connected to the first node but is
`
`associated with the at least one keyword, and jumping to the at least one node” of
`
`Claim 1, does not teach Claim 2 which depends on Claim 1 and does not teach
`
`“selecting a vertex in the graph structure that is not connected by an edge to the first
`
`vertex, based upon an association between the meaningful term and the at least one
`
`keyword and a correlation between the at least one keyword and the vertex; and
`
`jumping to the vertex” of Claim 7.
`
`Moreover, the claims are not rendered obvious in view of Fratkina either,
`
`because it would not have been obvious to remove the verification step disclosed in
`
`Fratkina, as Fratkina explicitly teaches that mistakes happen and a verification step
`
`may be needed after input to correct such mistakes.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`III. Ground 4: As Fratkina teaches away from Claims 1, 2, and 7, Fratkina
`in view of Rajaraman does not render Claims 3-6 obvious
`As discussed above, Fratkina teaches away from Claims 1, 2 and 7 by
`
`specifically teaching a verification step to account for autocontextualization
`
`mistakes. Claims 3-6 depend on claim 1, and do not claim a
`
`confirmation/verification step. Since Fratkina explicitly teaches away from claims
`
`1, 2, and 7, not only does Fratkina not anticipate or render obvious these claims, but
`
`Fratkina cannot be combined with any reference, including Rajaraman, to render
`
`dependent claims 3-6 obvious.
`
`IV. Grounds 1 and 2 have already been rejected by the Board and
`Petitioner advances the same argument
`In the Bloomreach Institution Decision, the Board noted that for both Grounds
`
`1 and 2, “Petition has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on [these
`
`grounds].” See Decision Granting Institution, Case No. IPR2019-01304 at 20.
`
`The arguments advanced by the Bloomreach Petitioner and Petitioner are the
`
`same. In fact, the arguments in the Bloomreach Petition are copied by Petitioner.
`
`Compare Bloomreach Petition, pages 16-54 to Petition pages 16-65. Having
`
`advanced no new argument—and in fact advancing the same exact failed argument
`
`down to the very letter—there is no reason for the Board to reconsider its previous
`
`ruling rejecting Grounds 1 and 2.
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`The Board has already rejected Grounds 1 and 2, and Petitioner offers no new
`
`argument concerning these grounds. As to Grounds 3 and 4, Fratkina explicitly
`
`teaches away from claims 1, 2, and 7 (and dependent claims 3-6) by teaching that a
`
`confirmation/verification step may be needed to correct mistakes. Accordingly, the
`
`Petition Prior Art does not describe all of the elements of the challenged claims.
`
`Thus, the Board should, respectfully, enter a final decision in favor of the Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 20, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Sanjay Pant/
`By: Sanjay Pant
` Reg. No. 64,865
`PRA Law
`2800 Bartons Bluff Lane #1902
`Austin, TX, 78746
`(214) 702-1150
`spant@pralawllc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITS
`
`This Patent Owner Response includes 1,226 words, as counted by Microsoft Word
`
`not counting certifications, and is therefore in compliance with the 14,000 work limit
`
`established by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(2). Accordingly, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`42.24(d), lead counsel for Patent Owner hereby certifies that this paper complies
`
`with the type-volume limits established for a patent owner response to a Petition for
`
`Inter Partes review.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 20, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Sanjay Pant/
`By: Sanjay Pant
` Reg. No. 64,865
`PRA Law
`2800 Bartons Bluff Lane #1902
`Austin, TX, 78746
`(214) 702-1150
`spant@pralawllc.com
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Response of Patent Owner Guada Technologies,
`
`LLC is being served on the Petitioner concurrently with the filing of this
`
`document via email to the following persons:
`
`Matthew Argenti
`Michael Rosato
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`margenti@wsgr.com
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`
`Dated: January 20, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`9
`
`
`
`/Sanjay Pant/
`By: Sanjay Pant
` Reg. No. 64,865
`PRA Law
`2800 Bartons Bluff Lane #1902
`Austin, TX, 78746
`(214) 702-1150
`spant@pralawllc.com
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`