Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 66 PageID #: 24660
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 66 PageID #: 24660
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 66 PageID #: 24661
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 66 PageID #: 24661
`
`Paper No.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`
`Petitioner
`V.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.
`
`alleged Patent Owner
`
`US. Patent No. 7,921,356
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET. SEQ.
`
`FOX_0008130
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 66 PageID #: 24662
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 66 PageID #: 24662
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ I
`
`EXHIBIT LIST .......................................................................................................... III
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL ...................................................... 1
`
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY—IN-INTEREST ................................................ 1
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS ......................................................................... 1
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION ................................................................. 1
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................... 2
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ......................... 2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Declaration of Dennis Allison ................................................................ 3
`
`Technical Background ............................................................................ 3
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the '3 56 patent .......................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AT THE CLAIMED PRIORITY DATE .................... 7
`
`III.
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAIMS ............................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1, 12 and 12 — ”Input Device” ................................................. 10
`
`Claims 1, 9, 12, 18 and 20 — ”Contact Information” ........................... 10
`
`Claims 11 and 19 — ”Updating the document” .................................... 10
`
`IV.
`
`CLAIM-BY—CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`
`UNPATENTABILITY. ................................................................................... 1 1
`
`Ground 1.
`
`Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 12, 14, 18 and 20 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over Pandit in view of Luciw. ......................................... 11
`
`1.
`
`Reasons for combining Pandit with Luciw .................................. 14
`
`Ground 2.
`
`Claims 2, 5, 8, 13 and 17 would have been obvious as in
`
`Ground 1, in further view of Goodhand. ................................... 32
`
`1.
`
`Reasons for combining Pandit and Luciw with Goodhand ......... 35
`
`Ground 3.
`
`Claims 7, 10, 11, 16 and 19 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`as described in Ground 1 in further view of Hachamovitch ...... 39
`
`1.
`
`Reasons for combining Hachamovitch with Luciw and Pandit...40
`
`FOX_0008131
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 66 PageID #: 24663
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 66 PageID #: 24663
`
`Ground 4.
`
`Claims 5 , 6 and 15 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
`
`references of Ground 1 in further View of Bonura. ................... 43
`
`1.
`
`Reasons for combining Pandit, Luciw and Bonura ..................... 46
`
`Ground 5.
`
`Claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 16 and 20 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over Tso in View of Pandit ............................................... 48
`
`1.
`
`Reasons for combining Tso with Pandit ...................................... 49
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 59
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................. 61
`
`ii
`
`FOX_0008132
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 66 PageID #: 24664
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 66 PageID #: 24664
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1004
`
`US. Pat. No. 5,859,636 (”Pandit”)
`
`1005
`
`US. Patent No. 5,644,735 (”Luciw”)
`
`1006
`
`Bonura and Miller, ”Drop Zones An Extension to LiveDocs”,
`SIGCHI Bulletin Volume 30, Number 2 April 1998.
`
`1007
`
`US. Patent No. 6,377,965 (”Hachamovitch”)
`
`1008
`
`US. Pat. No. 5,923,848 (”Goodhand”)
`
`1009
`
`US. Patent No. 6,085,201 to Tso (”Tso”)
`
`
`
`1010
`
`Magnanelli, et al., "ACADEMIA: An Agent-Maintained
`Database based on Information Extraction from Web
`
`Documents”, 14th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems
`Research on April 15, 1998.
`
`1011
`
`US. Pat. No. 5,754,306 (”Taylor")
`
`1012
`
`US. Pat. No. 5,790,532 (”Sharma”)
`
`1014
`
`US. App. Ser. No. 09/189,626, Response of Dec. 18, 2000
`
`1015
`
`US. App. Ser. No. 09/189,626, Notice of Allowance of Jan. 4,
`2001
`
`iii
`
`FOX_0008133
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 6 of 66 PageID #: 24665
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 6 of 66 PageID #: 24665
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Google Inc.:
`
`Lead Counsel: Matthew A. Smith (Reg. No. 49,003), Tel: 650.265.6109
`
`Backup Counsel: Zhuanjia Gu (Reg. No. 51,758), Tel: 650 529.4752
`
`Address: Turner Boyd LLP, 702 Marshall St. Suite 640, Redwood City CA
`
`94063. FAX: 650.521.5931.
`
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST
`
`The real-party-in—interest for this Petition is Google Inc.
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`
`US. Patent no. 7,921,356 (”the '356 patent”) at issue has been asserted in the
`
`US. District Court for the District of Delaware in the following cases: 1:13-cv-
`
`00919-LPS filed on May. 22, 2013 (currently pending) and 1:11-cv-00260-LPS
`
`filed on March 29, 2011 (closed as of Nov. 29, 2011).
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the address shown
`
`above. Petitioner also consents to electronic service by email at the following
`
`addresses: smith@turnerboyd.com, docketing@turnerboyd.com,
`
`gu@turnerboyd.com, kent@turnerboyd.com; turner@turnerboyd.com.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the patent for which review is sought is available
`
`for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`FOX_0008134
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 7 of 66 PageID #: 24666
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 7 of 66 PageID #: 24666
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in the petition.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF RES QUESTED
`
`The Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 1-20 of US. Patent No.
`
`7,921,356 (”the '3 56 patent”) (Ex. 1001) be canceled based on the following
`
`grounds of unpatentability, explained in detail in the next section:
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 12, 14, 18 and 20 are invalid under 35 USC. §
`
`103 over Pandit in view of Luciw.
`
`Ground 2. Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 13 and 17 would have been obvious as in
`
`Ground 1, in further view of Goodhand.
`
`Ground 3. Claims 7, 10, 11, 16 and 19 are invalid under 35 USC. § 103 as
`
`described in Ground 1, in further view of Hachamovitch.
`
`Ground 4. Claims 5, 6 and 15 are invalid under 35 USC. § 103 over the
`
`references of Ground 1 in further view of Bonura.
`
`Ground 5. Claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 16 and 20 are invalid under 35 USC. § 103
`
`over Tso in view of Pandit.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`This petition presents ”a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 USC
`
`§ 314(a), as shown in the Grounds explained below.
`
`FOX_0008135
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 8 of 66 PageID #: 24667
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 8 of 66 PageID #: 24667
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Declaration of Dennis Allison
`
`The declaration of Dennis Allison is attached as Exhibit 1002.
`
`B. Technical Background
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the '356 patent
`
`The disclosure of the '356 patent relates to the computerized handling of contact
`
`information. Contact information is information related to a person—e. g. a name,
`
`telephone number, postal address, email address, etc. EX. 1002 at 1143.
`
`The '356 patent ”handles” such contact information with a system that facilitates
`
`interaction between programs that use text documents (like word processors) and
`
`databases of contact information. EX. 1002 at 111143. Such databases can be called
`
`”contact databases” or ”address books.” EX. 1002 at 1143. These databases can
`
`contain information relating to people, such as their names, telephone numbers,
`
`email addresses, postal addresses, and notes. EX. 1002 at 1143-44.
`
`The interaction between programs like word processors and contact databases
`
`can be illustrated with reference to Figures 3 and 4 0f the '356 patent (EX. 1001).
`
`These figures depict screens that a person might see when using a word processing
`
`program. EX. 1002 at 1143-44. The relevant portions of the figures are shown here:
`
`FOX_0008136
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 9 of 66 PageID #: 24668
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 9 of 66 PageID #: 24668
`
`
`
`
`W titivcmaofi Word - Unkumemt
` W Marmot: Wes; Dwmeni‘:
`
`
`623"]
`iii Sedigar gas
`322L591: Format
`‘igttfiuy Ethel? Uigc‘u 5531;:
`5E; Ejt Rectifier ms Selma Fgrmat ‘13:?to latte Wadi:
`
`1
`[3 :2:
`g a fie 1? 3‘.‘P“?‘:‘F§‘l‘.‘?‘9‘i“?
`
`flat“:
`
` {33'}
`
`i
` M19 seam!
`
`flats: Hedlw i",
`
`{*4
`151' University-Ava.
`Pain Aim, CA 94301~1632
`USA
`
`Fig. 3
`
`Fig. 4
`
`Figure 3 on the left shows a word processor window, in which a user has
`
`entered a name. The user selects the name (presumably using a standard mouse
`
`action to select command in the word processor). The selected name is processed
`
`by the '35 6 patent system after the user clicks the ”OneButton” 42 in the upper
`
`right part of the window. Clicking the ”OneButton” causes the system to
`
`”retrieve[] the name[] from the document” and ”search[] a database for the
`
`name... .” Ex. 1001 at 6:1-2. Assuming that the search finds an address associated
`
`with the name, the system then inserts the address into the word processing
`
`document, as depicted in Fig. 4 on the right. Ex. 1002 at 1M4.
`
`The independent claims of the '356 patent include a similar process. Among
`
`other things, the independent claims recite that (a) the user must enter text into a
`
`document editing program to be displayed, and (b) select certain text. After (c)
`
`sending an execute command (e. g. pressing a key or clicking a button), the
`
`document editing program ((1) analyzes the text for contact information. Any
`
`4
`
`FOX_0008137
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 10 of 66 PageID #: 24669
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 10 of 66 PageID #: 24669
`
`contact information so located is used to (e) search a database to find second
`
`contact information, which is then (f) inserted into the document.
`
`There is a family of related patents of which the '356 patent is a part. The '356
`
`patent is somewhat different from other patents in this family, however, because its
`
`independent claims require step (b) above. The relevant limitation reads in full:
`
`”allowing, in the document editing program, the user to select in the document at
`
`least a portion of the textual information while the textual information is
`
`displayed.” Ex. 1001 at cl. 1. (emphasis added). This selected textual information
`
`is then analyzed to determine whether it ”is regarded by the document editing
`
`program as contact information.” Id. Applied to the example shown in Fig. 3,
`
`above, this would mean allowing the user to select the text ”Alte Hedloy.” This
`
`selection would identify the text ”Alte Hedloy” to the system as the information to
`
`analyze. Ex. 1002 at fll45-47.
`
`During the prosecution an application leading to a related patent (US. Pat. No.
`
`6,323,853), however, the applicant distinguished claims over the prior art Pandit
`
`and Tso references (applied below). These references were distinguishable,
`
`according to the applicant, precisely because the references required the user to
`
`select the text on which to operate. In his response received Dec. 18, 2000, the
`
`applicant in fact stated:
`
`”Tso teachlesl a user selecting a text string to be processed by
`
`FOX_0008138
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 11 of 66 PageID #: 24670
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 11 of 66 PageID #: 24670
`
`clicking on the text string using various selection means. In this
`
`respect, the present invention does not require the user to select a
`
`text string... .” Ex. 1014 at 2-3 (emphasis added), Ex. 1002 at 1M6.
`
`The Examiner ultimately allowed the claims over Tso, stating
`
`”The closest prior art, Tso (US. patent 6,085,201) similarly teaches a
`
`context sensitive template engine which ' generates a context-sensitive
`
`
`text message corresponding to an input text string'. However, in Tso,
`
`the text string to be processed is determined by the current cursor
`
`position, as specified by the user [see col. 4, line 31 to col. 5, line
`
`671, whereas the present invention 'does not reguire the user to
`
`select the text string to be processed since it functions automatically
`
`.” Ex. 1015 at 2 (emphasis added).
`
`In the application leading to the '356 patent at issue here, however, the applicant
`
`reversed course, and expressly claimed allowing the user to select the text on
`
`which the system operates. Ex. 1002 at fll46-47.
`
`Not only is the '35 6 patent directed to an embodiment that was previously
`
`disclaimed, the '35 6 patent relates mainly to the end-result of contact information
`
`handling, that is, what the user of the computer system experiences as he or she
`
`uses the system. Exactly how these end-results are achieved is described only at
`
`the highest level. See Ex. 1002 at 150. For example, the '356 patent provides no
`
`source code or pseudo code. High-level flowcharts for some embodiments are
`
`included, Ex. 1001 at Figs. 1-2, but each of these is limited to a general description
`
`FOX_0008139
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 12 of 66 PageID #: 24671
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 12 of 66 PageID #: 24671
`
`of the desired functionality, with no implementation detail. Ex. 1002 at W506 1.
`
`In fact, the '356 patent relies on existing word processors and existing databases
`
`to implement its contact management method, assuming that the person of ordinary
`
`skill can fill in the detail. The methods of the '356 patent are implemented on
`
`standard, well-known operating systems and ordinary commodity computer
`
`hardware, all of which were readily available well before the filing of the
`
`application leading to the '356 patent. Ex. 1002 at MS 1-60.
`
`II.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AT THE CLAIMED PRIORITY DATE
`
`In the years leading up to earliest possible priority date (Sept. 3, 1998),
`
`numerous systems existed that used personal computers to manage personal
`
`contact information. These systems integrated sophisticated contact database
`
`technology available at the time (Ex. 1002 at 111121-42) with applications like word
`
`processors as well as applications that performed communications (such as email
`
`applications). Ex. 1002 at 198-42.
`
`For example, systems had been developed for analyzing text in a document to
`
`detect contact information, and assisting the user in taking appropriate actions
`
`based on the information discovered. US. Pat. No. 5,859,636 to Pandit (Ex.
`
`1004) disclosed a system that allowed a user to select information in a document.
`
`Ex. 1002 at fll28-29. The Pandit system would then analyze the selected
`
`information and allow the user to take a number of appropriate actions. As Pandit
`
`FOX_0008140
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 13 of 66 PageID #: 24672
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 13 of 66 PageID #: 24672
`
`states in the Abstract:
`
`”Text of a predetermined class is recognized in a body of text. After
`
`recognition, operations relevant to the recognized text may be
`
`performed.” Ex. 1004 at Abstract; Ex. 1002 at 1128.
`
`An example of this is shown in Fig. 1d of Pandit (Ex. 1004) (relevant portion at
`
`right). Figure 1d shows that a user
`
`15
`
`has selected an email address. The
`'
`SyStem recognlzes that the seleCted
`
`text is an email address, and
`
`suggests two approprlate actlons
`
`
`
`Hex/A File Help Date
`E
`ail Phone#
`1
`AN mTT'T—i
`phone: +1 202.70g Send mail...
`s
`intcmct: goldber ‘ Add to address book..}\
`
`. *****¥€—f\
`‘MA~~~--»—~—
`j Hit-3.2
`‘ Fr: 1995 CAIS Conference<CAlS@
`RC'. CAIS '95 COHl'ICI‘CUCE Registratio
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`__‘ i 9
`
`(”Send mail” and ”Add to address book”) for the user to choose from. Ex. 1002 at
`
`111129, 73. Another example is found in US. Patent No. 5,644,735 to Luciw (Ex.
`
`1005), which describes a system for detecting
`
`structures in text and using a database to offer the
`
`user options for handling the data so identified.
`
`Figures 6a and 6b, which illustrate entering a name ”I
`and having the system provide a full name, are
`3 1::
`
`shown at right. Ex. 1002 at 1130, 97-98.
`
`-
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAIMS
`
`FOX_0008141
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 14 of 66 PageID #: 24673
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 14 of 66 PageID #: 24673
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the ”broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). As stated by the Federal Circuit
`
`in the case In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc.:
`
`”[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
`
`consistent with the specification. Therefore, we look to the
`
`specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
`
`otherwise apply a broad interpretation.”
`
`496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In particular, claims in interpartes review
`
`should not be limited by party argument (whether in this or a prior proceeding).
`
`To the extent that the Patent Owner desires a claim term to be interpreted more
`
`narrowly than its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the
`
`Patent Owner must show that the specification provides an express definition for
`
`the relevant portions of the claims, or amend the claims. SAP v. Versata,
`
`CBM2012-00001, Pat. App. LEXIS 3788, *8 (PTAB June 11, 2013). As found by
`
`the en banc Federal Circuit:
`
`”If, in reexamination, an examiner determines that particular claims
`
`are invalid and need amendment to be allowable, one would expect an
`
`examiner to require amendment rather than accept argument alone.”
`
`Marine Polymer Tech, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012)(en banc). For the purposes of this proceeding, claim terms are presumed to
`
`take on their broadest reasonable ordinary meaning. This meaning is explained in
`
`FOX_0008142
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 15 of 66 PageID #: 24674
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 15 of 66 PageID #: 24674
`
`certain instances in the following subsections. The Petitioners note that the
`
`standard of claim construction used in district courts differs from the standard
`
`applied before the USPTO. Any claim constructions in this Petition are directed to
`
`the USPTO standard, and are not necessarily the constructions that the Petitioners
`
`believe would be adopted in court. The Petitioners do not acquiesce or admit to
`
`the constructions reflected herein for any purpose outside of this proceeding.
`
`A. Claims 1, 12 and 12 — "Input Device"
`
`Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite an ”input device.” The specification notes that an
`
`input device can be either hardware or a GUI element on a screen. EX. 1001 at
`
`2:11-13, EX. 1002 at 1167.
`
`B. Claims 1, 9, 12, 18 and 20 — "Contact Information"
`
`The specification includes in the concept of ”contact information” names and
`
`addresses, but also ”other information, such as telephone numbers, faX numbers, e-
`
`mail addresses, etc.,” as well as ”mailing lists.” EX. 1001 at 4:15-17. Therefore,
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ”contact information” is
`
`”information related to a person (including a legal person).” EX. 1002 at 1168.
`
`C. Claims 11 and 19 — "Updating the document"
`
`Dependent claims 11 and 19 recite ”updating the document with information
`
`from the information source.” The disclosure of the '356 patent does not discuss
`
`”updating” the document. The broadest reasonable interpretation should include,
`
`10
`
`FOX_0008143
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 16 of 66 PageID #: 24675
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 16 of 66 PageID #: 24675
`
`however, replacing information in a document. Ex. 1002 at 1169.
`
`IV. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`
`UNPATENTABILITY.
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 12, 14, 18 and 20 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over Pandit in view of Luciw.
`
`Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 12, 14, 18 and 20 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over US.
`
`Patent No. 5,859,636 to Pandit (”Pandit") (Ex. 1004) in view of US. Patent No.
`
`5,644,735 to Luciw ("Luciw") (Ex. 1005).
`
`Pandit issued on January 12, 1999. The application leading to the Pandit patent
`
`was filed on Dec. 27, 1995. Pandit therefore qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e). Ex. 1002 at 1170. Luciw is a US. patent that issued on July 1, 1997, and
`
`is thus prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1002 at 1196. The level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is provided in the Allison declaration. Ex. 1002 at 7721-60. The
`
`Background and claim construction sections are incorporated in this Ground.
`
`Pandit teaches a system that recognizes user-selected text and performs
`
`operations related to the selected text. Ex. 1004 at Abstract; Ex. 1002 at 1171. The
`
`system recognizes accented (selected) text strings — i.e., text strings that have been
`
`”shad[ed], underlin[ed] or point[ed] to and click[ed] on .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.” Ex. 1004 at 2:4-12.
`
`After recognizing the selected text strings, Pandit performs operations that depend
`
`on the type of information in the text, specifically including handling of contact
`
`information. Ex. 1004 at 2:51-3:10. These operations are initiated by clicking or
`
`11
`
`FOX_0008144
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 17 of 66 PageID #: 24676
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 17 of 66 PageID #: 24676
`
`keystroke command. Ex. 1004 at 2:33-46, Ex. 1002 at 1171.
`
`For example, in Figures 10 and 1d (relevant portions shown below), when an e-
`
`mail address is selected and recognized, the system allows the user to add it to the
`
`address book. Ex. 1004 at 2:51-3:10. Other operations that Pandit can initiate in
`
`response to the recognized selected text include ”such programs as .
`
`.
`
`. general
`
`address book database .
`
`.
`
`. EMail sending or address storage.” Ex. 1004 at 2:56-63.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 111171—73.
`
`File Help Date EMail Phone#
`
`1
`
`,
`
`
`
`phone: +1 202307—4336; fax+l 202
`internet: goldberg@mail.ioc.gov
`******* '
`
`1113.2
`Fr: 1995 CAIS Corlfcrence<CAlS@
`
`“ Hill}?
`
`I)?!“
`
`1311522111 Phone#
`
`
`
`
`phone +1 202—70,. Send mail
`
`'_ '
`3
`1
`_
`'
`fnf‘ddm “(11.83550ka
`
`,\
`-
`.
`‘ H: 1995 C‘MS Conference<CAIStg
`
`In addition to e-mail addresses, Pandit also teaches the recognition of names,
`
`street addresses, and phone numbers. Ex. 1004 at 2:31, 2:51-3:10, cl. 6-7, Ex.
`
`1002 at 1174. Pandit further teaches the implementation of the system by other
`
`applications via pluggable DLLs and Microsoft Component Object Model Servers.
`
`Ex. 1004 at Abstract; 3:37-39; 4:32-55. Applications such as a document editing
`
`program can, therefore, implement Pandit. Ex. 1004 at Fig. 3, Ex. 1002 at 1175.
`
`Pandit thus teaches analyzing a document to recognize certain types of contact
`
`information, and then allowing the user to take some action specific to that contact
`
`information. Pandit is described overall as a flexible and modular system. Luciw,
`
`12
`
`FOX_0008145
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 18 of 66 PageID #: 24677
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 18 of 66 PageID #: 24677
`
`in turn, teaches using contact information found in a document to search a
`
`database. The database search results in second contact information, which is then
`
`displayed and inserted into the document.
`
`Specifically, Luciw starts by analyzing user-entered text. Ex. 1005 9:22-27;
`
`8:9-43. After text is entered, the system searches an information source (database)
`
`to determine whether the text is recognized and whether assistance can be
`
`provided. Ex. 1005 at 8:10-3, 10:49-60, 11:30-7. If the entered text matches an
`
`entry in the database, the system inserts into and updates the document with data
`
`(second information) from the database. Ex. 1005 at 12:41-60. Ex. 1002 at 197.
`
`A specific focus of Luciw, for example in Figs. 4-6 and 8b, is the handling of
`
`contact information. This includes
`
`providing a list of stored last names if a
`
`first name is entered, and providing a
`
`135 99
`
`“‘-
`
`phone number (and optionally, calling that
`
`1'50“
`
`number) when a specific contact is
`
`identified. Figures 6a and 6b of Luciw,
`
`shown below, depict a specific example
`
` «F iSAAG NEWTON
`
`
`E ESMG ASIMDV l
`38AM: JONEE
`
`« "at”:
`
`"assistance” by proposing last names of
`
`.
`
`...........
`
`persons that the user could be referring to when typing a first name (Ex. 1002 at
`
`198):
`
`13
`
`FOX_0008146
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 19 of 66 PageID #: 24678
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 19 of 66 PageID #: 24678
`
`1.
`
`Reasons for combining Pandit with Luciw
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Pandit with Luciw. Ex. 1002 at W190-
`
`204. As noted above, Pandit discloses a system for analyzing user-selected
`
`information, including contact information, in free-form text areas such as word
`
`processing documents, and taking actions based on that information. The basic
`
`structure of the Pandit invention is the recognizing of certain selected text by
`
`”class," i.e., by analyzing the substance of the text and ascertaining what it means,
`
`and providing an input for further action. Pandit states (Ex. 1002 at fil192):
`
`”The invention selectively recognizes text and performs relevant
`
`operations based on the recognition... [F]or example, a date 11 in
`
`text appearing on a video monitor is accented... for example by
`
`shading, underlining or pointing to and clicking on the text. The
`
`invention recognizes the accented text. .
`
`. , and provides a menu bar 13
`
`in which the name of menu 12 corresponding to the class of text
`
`accented is highlighted or shown in bold type, thereby showing that
`
`the menu is enabled (step 23).” Ex. 1004 at 2:3-13 (referring to Figs.
`
`1a and 2). Ex.1002 at 11191.
`
`Pandit specifically discloses recognizing, and acting upon, contact information,
`
`such as email addresses and phone numbers. Ex. 1004 at 2:51-3:10 and Figs. 1a-
`
`lf; Ex. 1002 at fil192. The actions offered for information recognized in the text,
`
`depend in turn on the content and nature of that text. For example, if an email
`
`address is recognized, ”a user may click on the highlighted menu name Email... to
`
`14
`
`FOX_0008147
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 20 of 66 PageID #: 24679
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 20 of 66 PageID #: 24679
`
`pull-down the menu.” Ex. 1004 at 2:52-53. Furthermore, the menu can include
`
`”such programs as a writable Email or general address book database and an
`
`EMail template and transmitting program, preferably automatically addressed with
`
`the accented address recognized in the text, etc.” Ex. 1004 at 2:53-62 (emphasis
`
`added), Ex. 1002 at1l193. Pandit also makes other references to databases,
`
`indicating that using the recognized text to interact with a database is within the
`
`scope of its disclosure. Ex. 1004 at 2:40-41, 2:56-64, and 3:1-2, Ex. 1002 at1l194.
`
`Along with databases, Pandit discloses integrating with other programs as a
`
`means to provide functionality using the recognized text — for example, a
`
`scheduling program in response to dates (Ex. 1004 at 2:41), an email transmission
`
`program in response to email addresses (Ex. 1004 at 2:58), or a phone dialer in
`
`response to telephone or fax numbers (Ex. 1004 at 3 :3-4). But Pandit emphasizes
`
`that ”any pro gram” related to the recognized text can be invoked to perform actions
`
`using it. Ex. 1004 at 3:8; see also Ex. 1004 at 2:61; Ex. 1002 at W195-l96.
`
`Furthermore, Pandit discloses a modular, dynamic library approach to
`
`implementation, with the express goal of facilitating extensibility: ”Other libraries
`
`may be added to, for example, operate on URLs, nouns, verbs, names[,] street
`
`addresses, etc.” Ex. 1004 at 4:28-31 (emphasis added). See also Ex. 1004 at 4:32-
`
`45 (disclosing additional details of its modular approach), Ex. 1002 at1l197.
`
`15
`
`FOX_0008148
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 21 of 66 PageID #: 24680
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 21 of 66 PageID #: 24680
`
`Like Pandit, Luciw discloses a system for providing computer-user assistance
`
`with tasks such as managing contact information, including in free-form text areas
`
`such as notes. Ex. 1002 at 11198. Luciw focuses on providing a computer-based
`
`implicit or explicit ”assistance” to a computer user based on what the user is doing
`
`with the computer, as for example indicated by the content of text he or she is
`
`entering. Ex. 1005 at 16:1-19; Ex. 1002 at fil198-199.
`
`Part of the Luciw solution is its database, known as a ”frame” system. Ex. 1005
`
`at 1049-1 1 :39. In this system, a ”type frame” is provided to define a type of data
`
`record, such as a ”<PERSON>,” and individual instances of the ”PERSON” data
`
`types are stored in their own respective frames. Ex. 1005 at 10:49-55. This is
`
`shown in the relevant portion of Fig. 5, below. Ex. 1002 at 1i200.
`
`As the ”<PERSON>"
`
`132a
`
`1 82b
`
`<PERSON—3> <lSAAC-3>
`NAME: ISAAC JONES
`
`frame name indicates,
`
`1 82a
`
`
`
`Luciw specifically
`
`discloses storing contact
`
`information, such as the
`
`
`<PERSON—2> <ISAAC-2>
`NAME: ISAAC ASWDV
`
`<PERSON—l > dSAAC-l >
`
`
`NANIE: ISAAC NEWTON
`BIRTHDAY: NULL
`
`
`TELEPHONE: 408—555— 1212
`
`FAX: NULL
`
`
`ADDRESS: l23 MAIN STREET.
`
`HEIGHT: NULL
`
`
`‘WEIGHT: NULL
`
`
` person's name,
`
`telephone number, fax number, and address. Ex 1005 at Fig. 5. Accordingly, one
`
`specific type of computerized ”assistance” option offered by Luciw is to retrieve
`
`more detailed contact information in response to a user's entry of partial contact
`
`16
`
`FOX_0008149
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 22 of 66 PageID #: 24681
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-5 Filed 03/10/21 Page 22 of 66 PageID #: 24681
`
`information. Ex. 1005 at Figs. 6a—6c. In the Fig. 6 example, Luciw discloses
`
`recognizing a partial name, such as a first name (11:43-44), and using that partial
`
`name to query the contact information database (11:61-64). The retrieved
`
`information is then provided to the user who can select a portion for insertion into
`
`the document (12:3-6). Likewise, Luciw discloses obtaining a telephone number
`
`associated in the database with a selected person (12:43-52). Ex. 1002 at 1199-202.
`
`The ”Frame” approach to contact databases and the user assistance module of
`
`Luciw are precisely the types of databases and information processing programs
`
`that Pandit was designed to integrate and cooperate with. Ex. 1002 at 1203. Thus,
`
`adding Luciw’s contact information search and retrieval option to the text
`
`recognition and task delegation system of Pandit represents an extension of Pandit
`
`in the manner in which Pandit was intended to be extended (by adding another
`
`sensible option associated with text recognized as having meaning, whether
`
`selected or typed into a ”smart” field). Ex. 1002 at 11203. For example, Pandit
`
`discloses that its system is flexible and modular (Ex. 1004 at 3:37-39 and 4:32-52),
`
`and ”will benefit any application which displays text to a user, regardless of the
`
`origin of the text.” Ex. 1004 at 1:42-43; See also Ex. 1004 at Abstract, 3:37-49,
`
`4:32-55,