`Elastic N.V. et al. v. Guada Technologies LLC
`
`IPR2021-00875
`U.S. Patent No. 7,231,379
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`July 26, 2022
`
`
`
`Grounds of Challenge
`
`Ground
`
`Challenge
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`§103: Wesemann
`§103: Wesemann, Rajaraman
`§103: Fratkina
`§102: Fratkina, Rajaraman
`
`Claims
`
`1, 2, 7
`3-6
`1, 2, 7
`3-6
`
`Reasonable
`Likelihood at
`Institution?
`Yes
`Yes
`Yes
`Yes
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Representative Claim 1
`
`1. A method performed in a system having multiple navigable
`nodes interconnected in a hierarchical arrangement
`comprising:
`at a first node, receiving an input from a user of the
`system, the input containing at least one word
`identifiable with at least one keyword from among
`multiple keywords,
`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.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`No New Issues Post-Institution
`
`• Patent Owner’s response merely restated arguments from
`preliminary response
`• No evidence submitted post-institution
`• No Patent Owner evidence at all
`• No Patent Owner surreply
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Term
`
`“node”
`
`“vertex”
`
`“keyword”
`
`“verbal description”
`
`Undisputed Construction
`A specific choice or option in a
`hierarchy
`A specific choice or option in a
`hierarchy that can be represented
`in a graph
`One or more words or pieces of
`information, such as a specific
`data pattern, that is associated
`with the at least one node or
`vertex
`A set of words relating to the
`subject matter whether presented
`audibly or in written form
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`-Pet., 13-16; Reply 2
`
`
`
`Term
`
`“jumping”
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Undisputed Construction
`A direct traversal from one node
`or vertex to another node or
`vertex that is not directly
`connected to it (i.e., without
`traversal through any intervening
`nodes or vertices or to a node or
`vertex whose only least common
`ancestor with that node or vertex
`is the root node or vertex).
`
`“Jumping” does not require that
`the system jump between nodes.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`-Pet., 15; Reply 2, 11
`
`
`
`Grounds 1 & 2: Wesemann
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-Pet., 16-17
`
`7
`
`
`
`Grounds 1 & 2: Wesemann
`
`POPR/POR:
`“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
`[Bloomreach] ruling rejecting Grounds
`1 and 2.”
`
`-POPR, 7; POR, 7
`
`“The Board is not bound by any
`findings made in its institution
`decision.”
`
`-Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`“Patent Owner does not
`specifically argue that Wesemann
`fails to teach or suggest this
`[“jumping”] limitation. Instead,
`Patent Owner generally argues
`that … the Board should reject
`Ground 1 for the same reasons
`that the Board concluded the
`petition in IPR2019-01304 had
`failed to show a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-D.I., 13
`
`-Reply 5-9
`
`8
`
`
`
`Grounds 1 & 2: Wesemann
`
`-Pet., 28-29 (annotated Wesseman Fig. 6)
`
`-Pet., 17
`
`-See also EX1007 (Smyth) ¶¶51, 55-56, 62, Pet., 16-19; Reply 3-5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 & 4: Fratkina
`
`-EX1006, 27:38-43, 34:40-45, Fig. 10; see also Pet., 52, 57-58
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`10
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 & 4: Fratkina
`
`Patent Owner’s attempt to distinguish Fratkina:
`
`-POR, 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 & 4: Fratkina
`
`Neither claims nor specification exclude an intermediate verification step.
`
`-EX1001, claim 1
`
`-EX1001, 12:50-56
`
`-EX1001, 10:45-55
`
`-See also Reply, 12-13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Grounds 3 & 4: Fratkina
`
`Fratkina does not require an intermediate verification step.
`
`“[A] reference need not state a
`feature’s absence in order to
`disclose a negative limitation.”
`
`-AC Techs. S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`912 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`-EX1006, 34:1-3
`
`-EX1006, 37:31-63
`
`-See also Pet., 57-58; Reply, 15-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`