`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 17
`Entered: August 22, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`ELASTIC N.V., OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, and
`PREGIS LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________________
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`___________________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Tuesday, July 26, 2022
`___________________________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`
` A
`
` P P E A R A N C E S
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`
`
`MATTHEW A. ARGENTI, ESQUIRE
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`(650) 354-4154
`-and-
`RYAN N. MILLER, ESQUIRE
`FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
`2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
`(215) 299-2901
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`GAUTHAM BODEPUDI, ESQUIRE
`IP EDGE
`5300 North Braeswood Boulevard, Suite 4
`Houston, Texas 77096
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`Rohan Kale
`Charles Slay, Coordinator
`James Favor, Technician
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, July 26,
`2022, commencing at 2:11 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE MCNEILL: All right. Welcome, everyone. I'm
`going to start this from the top. It looks like we have
`everybody online now.
` I'm Judge McNeill. Judges McGraw and Quinn are
`also participating in this hearing by video. This is an oral
`argument for IPR2021-00875. The challenged patent is Patent
`Number 7,231,379. Petitioners are Elastic N.V., Ohio Farmers
`Insurance Company, and Pregis LLC. Patent owner is Guada
`Technologies LLC.
` At this time, we'd like to ask counsel for each
`party to please introduce yourselves and all members of your
`team who are attending the hearing, starting with
`petitioners, please.
` MR. ARGENTI: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
` Matt Argenti on behalf of petitioners. Also
`attending today is Ryan Miller, counsel for joinder
`petitioners, and attending via the public link is Rohan Kale
`of Elastic, and there may be some additional representatives
`of the joinder petitioners as well. Thank you.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Thank you.
` Patent owners?
` MR. BODEPUDI: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
` My name is Gau Bodepudi, and I represent Guada
`Technologies. And I'm the only one attending on behalf of
`Guada.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Thank you.
` Thank you all for your flexibility in conducting
`this all-video hearing today. We know this is a departure
`from our typical practice, and given that, we want to start
`off by clarifying a few things for the video.
` First, our primary concern is your right to be
`heard. If at any time during the proceeding you encounter
`technical or other difficulties that you feel fundamentally
`undermines your ability to adequately represent your client,
`please let us know immediately. For example, you can contact
`the team members who provided you with the connection
`information.
` Second, when you're not speaking, please mute
`yourself. And third, please identify yourself each time you
`speak. This helps the court reporter prepare an accurate
`transcript.
` Fourth, we have the entire record, including the
`demonstratives. When referring to demonstratives, papers, or
`exhibits, please do so clearly and explicitly by slide or
`page number. Please also pause a few seconds after
`identifying it to provide us time to find it. This also
`helps prepare an accurate transcript of the hearing.
` Finally, please be aware that members of the public
`may be listening to this oral hearing.
` Now, as set forth in the hearing order, each party
`will have 30 minutes to present their argument. We'll start
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`with petitioner, then patent owner. Petitioner may reserve
`time for rebuttal, and patent owner may reserve time for a
`brief surrebuttal following that. It would be useful, if you
`know how much time you'd like to reserve, to let me know
`ahead of time so that I can track it accordingly. I'll give
`you a warning around five minutes before your time is up.
` Petitioner, we'll start with you. Is there a set
`amount of time you'd like to reserve for rebuttal?
` MR. ARGENTI: Yes, Your Honor. 10 minutes, please.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Okay. Petitioner, you can begin
`when ready.
` MR. ARGENTI: Thank you. And good afternoon again,
`Your Honors. My name is Matt Argenti, on behalf of
`petitioners. Today I'll be referring to the demonstrative
`exhibits that we've submitted as Paper 15 in this IPR.
` Turning to Slide 2 of those demonstratives, we see
`the instituted grounds. At institution, the board found all
`four grounds presented a reasonable likelihood of success.
` Now, I want to very briefly address the Rajaraman
`reference. We cited that reference for disclosing a
`thesaurus that correlates keywords and synonyms, along with
`related limitations in Dependent Claims 3 through 6.
` Petitioners -- sorry. Patent owner has not raised
`any arguments regarding that Rajaraman reference. They don't
`dispute the cited disclosure, nor do they dispute the
`petition's explanation of reasons to combine with the other
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`references.
` So turn to Slide 3 of the demonstratives. Here we
`see Representative Claim 1 of the '379 patent. We see that
`it claims a method of navigating through nodes in a
`hierarchical arrangement. One example discussed in the '379
`patent is an automated telephone response system where a user
`makes menu selections to navigate branching paths to a
`desired menu option.
` Now, the claim that we see here broadly recites
`receiving from a user at least one word that's identifiable
`with a keyword, identifying a node that's associated with
`that keyword, and jumping to that node. So what you're doing
`is you're jumping from one node to another node that isn't
`directly connected to the first node based on a keyword. And
`as we explained in the petition, that was nothing new.
` Now, turning to Slide 4. Before I get to the
`specific disputes in this case -- and there aren't many -- I
`want to point out that the issues here at this stage are the
`same as they were before institution, and so is the record,
`essentially. Patent owner's response merely restated their
`arguments from the preliminary response, which the board had
`already considered when deciding to institute. Patent owner
`submitted no evidence during the trial stage. In fact, they
`submitted no evidence whatsoever during the IPR. They did
`not submit an expert declaration, nor did they cross-examine
`our expert, Dr. Smith. They also elected not to file a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`surreply. So patent owner has submitted nothing new for the
`board to consider that wasn't already before Your Honors when
`deciding to grant institution, so there's no reason to find
`any of the grounds lacking at this stage.
` Now, turning to Slide 5, we see most of the claim
`constructions that we presented in the petition. We propose
`constructions for the terms node, vertex, keyword, and verbal
`description. Patent owner hasn't contested any of these
`constructions, so they're not in dispute.
` Turning to Slide 6, we see one more claim
`construction that was proposed in the petition for the term
`jumping. Now, there are two aspects to this construction.
`First, the claim term requires a direct traversal from one
`node or vertex to another node or vertex that is not directly
`connected to it. That comes straight from patent owner's
`statements during prosecution. And again, they don't dispute
`this construction.
` The second aspect of the construction is that
`jumping is not limited to system jumps, but instead also
`encompasses allowing the user to jump. We noted in our
`petition that in an earlier IPR filed by a different
`petitioner, Bloomreach, patent owner argued jumping should be
`construed as limited to the system jumping, but they have not
`argued that here. So that aspect of our construction is also
`not in dispute.
` Now, turning to Slide 7 and Grounds 1 and 2, which
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`both involve the Wesemann reference. As we explained in the
`petition, like the '379 patent, Wesemann discloses a way of
`navigating a telephone menu system that utilizes keywords,
`which Wesemann refers to as inputs, acceptable responses, and
`requests, and it uses them to navigate directly to a distant
`node of the system. As Wesemann says here in the abstract,
`the invention enabled the user to jump from one menu state to
`another menu state of the telephone service system without
`having to enter input for each menu state between the first
`and second menu states. That's just like the '379 patent.
` If we turn to the next slide, Slide 8, we can take
`a look at what patent owner argues regarding these Wesemann
`grounds. Their entire argument is that the board rejected
`these grounds in the Bloomreach IPR, and patent owner asserts
`that the grounds at issue in this IPR are word-for-word
`identical to that Bloomreach petition, so the board should
`reject here as well. But as the board noted in our
`institution decision, patent owner doesn't actually argue
`that Wesemann fails to disclose any particular claim
`limitation, only that the grounds should be rejected because
`the board previously made a preliminary institution finding
`of no reasonable likelihood of success for the Wesemann
`grounds in Bloomreach.
` Now, that's wrong for a number of reasons. First,
`when reaching a final written decision, the board isn't bound
`by an institution decision, even in the same IPR. We see
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`that from the Federal Circuit's Trivascular decision, cited
`here on this slide. Second, the board actually granted
`institution in the Bloomreach IPR, including the Wesemann
`grounds, and didn't reach a final decision on the merit
`because that IPR settled. There was nothing final or binding
`about the decision that patent owner relies on. Third,
`patent owner is wrong that the grounds here are identical to
`what was at issue in the Bloomreach IPR.
` If you turn to the next slide, Slide 9, we see that
`our petition includes additional explanation addressing that
`perceived deficiency identified in the Bloomreach IPR. We
`see that here in some of the excerpted text from page 17 of
`our petition. And the board in this IPR acknowledged that in
`the institution decision. Taking that additional analysis
`into account, the board found our Wesemann grounds do present
`a reasonable likelihood of success. Yet, in their trial
`stage response, patent owner again made the false claim that
`the petition here is identical to Bloomreach. It's not. And
`patent owner has raised no other dispute regarding Grounds 1
`or 2. The substance of these grounds remains unrebutted.
`The board should therefore find Claims 1, 2, and 7 obvious in
`view of Wesemann and Claims 3 through 6 obvious in view of
`Wesemann and Rajaraman.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Counselor, regarding this annotated
`Wesemann FIG. 6, which is shown on Demonstrative Slide 9 from
`pages 28 to 29 of the petition, it looks like there is an
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`annotation indicating that there's a jump from home computer
`sales 650. The accompanying description to the left
`describes a jump from home laptop sales 652. Is this
`intended to be describing the same embodiment, or are these
`two different examples out of Wesemann?
` MR. ARGENTI: I'm glad you pointed that out,
`Your Honor. I believe that's a typo in the annotated figure,
`and that the arrow was intended to be pointing from Box 652
`to Box 646.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Thank you. You can continue.
` JUDGE QUINN: Does that change materially alter
`your arguments, or do they apply equally?
` MR. ARGENTI: It does not materially alter our
`arguments. As you see in the text, we cited the
`corresponding portion of the text -- in fact, we quoted it in
`the petition -- that identifies the elements that Wesemann
`explicitly describes, the jumping from 652 to 646. So it
`doesn't change our argument or our ground.
` Now, unless there are any other questions about
`Grounds 1 or 2, I'll turn to Grounds 3 and 4, which cite the
`Fratkina reference.
` And I'm moving on to Slide 10. Fratkina discloses
`a system for navigating a hierarchical dialogue or menu.
`Again, like the '379 patent, Fratkina discloses that one
`example of implementation is an interactive telephone system.
`The user can use keywords or natural language queries that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`are converted by a dialog engine into tags that are processed
`using what Fratkina calls autocontextualization. And
`Fratkina explains that rather than processing through a
`series of connected nodes sequentially, using
`autocontextualization, the sytem may jump to a node or set of
`nodes more than one edge away from the previous focus. So
`Fratkina discloses using keywords to jump the nodes, just
`like the '379 patent.
` Turning to Slide 11. Patent owner attempts to
`distinguish Fratkina by arguing that it requires an
`intermediate verification step, rather than just jumping
`directly to the desired node after receiving the keyword from
`the user. That's what we see on this Slide 11. There are
`two problems with that argument, though, that the board has
`already acknowledged at institution. First, the claims don't
`exclude such a verification step. And second, even if the
`claims did exclude verification, patent owner is wrong that
`Fratkina requires it.
` Looking at that in a little more detail, turning to
`Slide 12 and the first of those problems, neither the claims
`nor the specification of the '379 patent exclude an
`intermediate verification step. Claim 1, for example,
`recites a method comprising certain steps. Nothing in the
`claim precludes additional steps as part of that method. And
`that's consistent with the specification, which also doesn't
`exclude intermediate confirmation steps. To the contrary, as
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`we see here on Slide 12, the specification broadly says that
`all manner of jumps are possible. And it also seems to
`contemplate asking for confirmation when it describes
`offering an initial meaning that the user can reject.
` In contrast, patent owner doesn't cite any portion
`of the '379 patent except for Claim 1 itself. They haven't
`pointed to anything in the specification supporting their
`position that the invention excludes verification. So the
`claims do not exclude verification.
` Now, turning to Slide 13, the second problem with
`patent owner's argument is that even if the claims did
`exclude an intermediate verification step, patent owner is
`wrong that Fratkina requires one. What we see is that
`Fratkina says intermediate verification is optional. For
`example, as the board noted in the institution decision, at
`Column 33, going onto the top of Column 34, the reference,
`Fratkina explains that its system includes a parameter
`allowing the designer to set whether or not the user is asked
`to verify the conclusions inferred by the
`autocontextualization system. So Fratkina doesn't require
`verification. In fact, it discloses setting the system up so
`it doesn't ask for verification.
` Patent owner's argument should be rejected for the
`reasons identified in the institution decision. Beyond that,
`they haven't identified any issues with Grounds 3 and 4. So
`Claims 1, 2, and 7 are obvious based on Fratkina, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`Claims 3 through 6 are obvious based on Fratkina and
`Rajaraman.
` Thank you. With that, I will reserve the remainder
`of my time, unless the panel has any questions.
` JUDGE QUINN: Just a quick question. So if we
`agree with you that in Fratkina, the user verification is
`optional, we do not need to reach the issue of whether the
`claim includes or excludes a further verification step in
`between the jumping steps?
` MR. ARGENTI: That's correct. Either one of the
`problems that I identified on its own is enough to reject
`patent owner's argument.
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Thank you, Counselor.
` Patent owner, you can respond now.
` MR. BODEPUDI: Okay. I'd like to reserve 20
`minutes.
` So what I'd like to do is just explain at a high
`level the teachings in the claims of the '379 patent. And
`what I'd like to do is refer to the specification -- the
`claim and the specification. And if it's okay with the
`board, I would like to share my screen, and I have a Google
`Patent link to it. I think it's a little bit easier for me
`to navigate. If that's okay, I'll do that. If not, I'll
`refer to the PDF. What I'd also like to do is then refer to
`a portion in the file history, in which I could also share my
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`screen. And the purpose of that is just to describe at a
`high level what the teachings of the '379 patent are.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: If you're referring to portions of
`the record, please use the paper number and exhibit number,
`and we can pull those up on our own, just so that we have a
`clear record that references everything that is within the
`administrative record.
` MR. BODEPUDI: Sure. Okay. So starting first with
`Exhibit 1. This is the '379 patent. And I'll focus my
`arguments on Claim 1. We believe the arguments with respect
`to Claim 1 are representative with respect to Claim 7 as
`well, the other independent claim.
` And bringing the board's attention to specifically
`Column 22, the first element, line 50. Claim 1 recites, 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.
` So referring back up to the abstract of Exhibit 1
`in the '379 patent. In the last sentence, the specification
`describes that the system has -- and I'm just going to read
`this, and I'll just try to explain it, my understanding, in
`plain English. The system has an inverted index correlating
`keywords with at least some nodes in the arrangement so that
`when the user provides an input or response to a verbal
`description and then responding with a meaningful word
`correlatable with a keyword, the system will identify at
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`least one node correlated to the meaningful word by the
`inverted index and jump to that node.
` So the meaning of that in -- again, in plain
`English, if you scroll down to -- this concept of this
`inverted index, if you scroll down to Column 4, line 66, and
`this will go on to Column 5, it describes an embodiment,
`really describing what this inverted index concept is. It
`says, thus, with respect to the pen application above, the
`keyword, point, might appear in nodes 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, and 15,
`and similarly, the keyword, erasable, might appear at nodes
`3, 4, 5, 6, and 22.
` And in lines 5 and 6, it just gives the -- it just
`clearly points out the keyword points and all the various
`nodes that point refers to as well as the word erasable and
`all the words point to.
` Now, why is this significant? Why is this
`relevant? So I'm just going to verbally describe an argument
`made in the file history. It's not an exhibit, but I'll just
`describe it verbally. This is specifically just for the
`board's reference, again, in the file history.
` JUDGE MCGRAW: I'm sorry. Has the file history
`been entered as an exhibit into the record?
` MR. BODEPUDI: Not the entirety of the file
`history, no.
` JUDGE MCGRAW: So are you attempting to cite to
`something that is not part of the record?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
` MR. BODEPUDI: It's -- correct. Not this portion
`of the file history. But I can verbally describe it.
` JUDGE QUINN: This is a problem. We do not
`consider evidence that is not part of the record. So is
`there any portion of this that is evidenced in the portions
`that we do have in the record? I think we have Exhibit 1002
`is the file history.
` MR. BODEPUDI: Yeah, there's a portion of the file
`history, but not this particular paragraph that I would like
`to refer to. And if the board doesn't want me to refer to
`it, then that's fine. But if it's okay, I can describe just
`in plain words what the argument was.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: If you have an argument to make
`without referencing an exhibit -- or evidence that is not
`part of the record, you can make your argument. But please
`don't refer to evidence that's not part of the record.
` JUDGE QUINN: I'll also question, did you make this
`argument in any brief that you filed?
` MR. BODEPUDI: No. It's not part of the record.
`I'm just describing the teachings of the '379 patent.
` JUDGE QUINN: Just generally? Okay.
` MR. BODEPUDI: So --
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Counselor, also, just to let you
`know -- you asked to reserve 20 minutes out of your 30
`minutes. You've gone through about half of your 10 minutes
`so far.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
` MR. BODEPUDI: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank
`you.
` So just high level, within the prosecution history,
`the patent owner made a distinction with respect to two
`references, Lin and Pooser, and it just describes a very
`simple example distinguishing it. And within the example, it
`gave -- it illustrated an example of if a person is in
`Chicago and the person inputs the word warm, the patent owner
`gave the example that the traveler may be transported to
`Miami, Atlanta, Phoenix, Boston, as examples, illustrating
`what this concept of -- what this jump concept is. And it's
`illustrating the point that it's the system making the jump
`and not the traveler. And the reason why I bring this up is
`because this concept of the inverted index, it illustrates or
`describes a system in which a keyword is associated with more
`than one node, as I referred to with the point and the
`erasable keywords associated in the specification describing
`multiple nodes, and then within that portion of the file
`history that I'm describing, the patent owner made the
`argument that where warm may be associated, as an example,
`with multiple cities, if the user enters the word warm, it's
`giving the example of being transported in the airplane --
`that the user could be transported to either Miami, Boston,
`Atlanta, for example, which would all -- similar to the word
`point, as point is associated with multiple nodes. It's like
`warm might be associated with multiple cities. It describes
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`how -- the distinction is that the system is actually
`choosing. Where there's a keyword and there are multiple
`nodes, it would be the system deciding where the user would
`jump to. So that's just a concept of -- it's just a
`conceptual concept of what the '379 patent teaches and what
`the claims recite within the '379 patent.
` Now, at a high level, what both the Fratkina
`reference and the Wesemann reference describe is something
`conceptually very different. Now, before we get into the
`auto -- focusing first on Fratkina. The Fratkina reference
`described that autocontextualization is one embodiment. But
`all of the embodiments, including the autocontextualization
`embodiment, describe generally a process of arriving to what
`the Fratkina reference describes as what's called a confirmed
`node. And referring to -- just describing how Fratkina
`refers to the confirmed node -- let me just pull that up. So
`this is in Exhibit 6. Just give me one moment to pull down a
`column and line number.
` Okay. Column 25, at line 37, I think, is the
`paragraph describing confirmed nodes. And the first two
`sentences read, from the point of view of dialog engine 232,
`a dialogue with the user involves the process of arriving at
`the set of nodes that best describes the user's information
`need. Confirmed nodes are those nodes whose relevance to the
`user's information need has been established.
` And there are many different embodiments that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`describe, within Fratkina, how to arrive to a confirmed node.
`One example is what Fratkina describes as a drill-down query,
`which is basically a question and answer -- a series of
`questions and answers between the system and the user to
`query what the user may want. The user may give a partial
`answer, and if they have follow-up, another follow-up answer,
`until the dialog engine comes to a confirmed node.
`Basically --
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Counselor, I'm sorry to interrupt
`you. I wanted to let you know you've used your 10 minutes.
`To the extent you want to continue, of course you may. If
`you wanted to reserve 20, you have approximately 20 left.
`But you can continue.
` MR. BODEPUDI: Okay, thank you. Thanks for letting
`me know.
` So the process of -- so the example of this
`drill-down query and the dialog engine that's described in
`Fratkina is basically a way for the dialog engine -- for the
`engine to learn, through a series of questions and answers,
`what is the need of the user. And after this back-and-forth
`of the dialogue between question and answer, the system will
`determine a confirmed node and then take the user to that
`node.
` Now, from the standpoint of the
`autocontextualization embodiment, the autocontextualization
`process describes the user entering natural language and the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`system creating tags, and then using those tags to associate
`those tags with a taxonomy. Now, this intermediate step is
`basically a verification to -- the system is basically trying
`to understand the user's query from plain natural language
`into tags. And before taking the user to a particular
`destination, there is a system of just confirming, basically,
`what the user wants. Now --
` JUDGE MCNEILL: In the autocontextualization
`example that you're giving, is that back and forth of
`confirmation required?
` MR. BODEPUDI: So it is described. So there is
`a -- let me -- okay, so there's a portion in the
`specification. Okay. Let me pull down the column and line
`number. One second. Just give me one moment. I just want
`to find the column number to refer you to.
` Yeah, I'm sorry. Let me just read to you that
`portion. I'm not finding the exact column and line number.
`So this is -- the paragraph begins with all sorts of
`information available to the system are used in the process
`of advancing a subgoal. Now, it's describing multiple
`mechanisms by which it can drill down to a confirmed node.
`It says, the advancing mechanism can make use of
`autocontextualization information -- so it's one embodiment,
`the autocontextualization embodiment -- user preferences,
`confirmed nodes, the nodes explicitly specified by the dialog
`designer, or any other information source available.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
` Now, further down below in that paragraph, it says,
`however, sometimes other information cannot be 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, hence the purpose of the verification step.
` Now, regardless of whether that verification step
`is there or not, whether a goal parameter is modified to
`remove the verification step or not, the end goal that
`Fratkina teaches is to come to a confirmed node. So the
`autocontextualization process, the end goal is still a
`confirmed node. Now --
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Counselor, you would agree, then,
`that there is an embodiment where autocontextualization can
`advance the dialogue to a node without a verification step?
` MR. BODEPUDI: So long as the end result is still a
`confirmed node. So it can, so long as the end result is
`confirmed, meaning it matches what the system determines to
`be the user's need.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: So if the system determines the
`user's need to be a node that it believes is confirmed, then
`it can advance with no verification step and jump directly to
`that node?
` MR. BODEPUDI: Correct.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Thank you.
` MR. BODEPUDI: Now, this same concept of Fratkina
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`determining where the user -- what the need of the user is
`and which node in particular matches to that user -- that
`user need, that same concept is also there in Wesemann.
`Wesemann teaches, if you're in a -- basically, if you're an
`automated voice prompt, you can indicate an audible input
`and, based on the audible input, it can take you to another
`level in the menu. There's less detail in Wesemann, but the
`same concept in Fratkina and Wesemann are basically
`describing understanding the needs of the user, and then
`taking the user to where the system determines where that
`need is, associated with whatever the query or the input of
`the user.
` This is fundamentally different than the teachings
`of the '379 patent, as described by the inverted index where
`the words within the elements -- where the words -- where the
`input containing at least one word identifiable with at least
`one keyword from among multiple keywords, this concept of the
`user entering in the word warm, and then the system
`determining warm may be in Miami or may be in Boston or may
`be Atlanta. The difference is that it's -- the system is not
`determining what the need of the user is, but the system is
`determining where the user may end up base