Paper No. 49
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`VEVEO, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 2, 2020
`____________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, SHEILA F. MCSHANE, and
`KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`VEVEO, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 2, 2020
`____________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, SHEILA F. MCSHANE, and
`KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`
`FREDERIC M. MEEKER, ESQUIRE
`JOHN R. HUTCHINS, ESQUIRE
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`1100 13th Street NW
`Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`202-824-3000
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`DANIEL S. BLOCK, ESQUIRE
`TYLER J. DUTTON, ESQUIRE
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue NW
`Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`202-371-2600
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on April 2, 2020,
`commencing at 9:27 a.m., via remote locations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
` (Proceedings begin at 9:27 a.m.)
` MR. MEEKER: Your Honor, Fred Meeker --
` JUDGE MCSHANE: I'm sorry, Mr. Meeker. Go ahead.
` MR. MEEKER: Fred Meeker with the law firm of
`Banner & Witcoff representing Comcast Cable Communications,
`LLC.
` With me today is Heather Faltin, she is
`vice-president and deputy general patents for Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC. Additionally, we have Seth Kramer, who's
`senior counsel at Comcast.
` Also, today with me from Banner and Witcoff are John
`Hutchins, who will be doing the second half of the argument
`dealing with the Howard-King combination, as well as Andy New
`and Ben Engelstad.
` And just for the Court's information, the parties
`got together prior to submitting the demonstratives, and
`agreed amongst themselves that it would be most logical to
`submit to organize the argument on the first half of the
`hearing being on the Gross-Smith ground, and then the second
`half of the hearing on the Howard-King ground; assuming that's
`acceptable to the Court.
` And that's how they submitted their demonstratives,
`in two different sections to deal with the different grounds.
`So they -- for purposes of presentation, they combined 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
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`'011 and '394 on the Gross-Smith grounds, and then the same
`thing, combined the '011 and '394 on the Howard-King grounds.
` JUDGE MCSHANE: Thank you.
` MR. BLOCK: Good morning, Your Honors. This is
`Daniel Block from the law firm of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein,
`& Fox. With me today from Sterne Kessler is Jason Eisenberg,
`as well as Tyler Dutton.
` Your Honor, I will be presenting both of the
`arguments for both portions. My colleague, Tyler Dutton, will
`be presenting the swear-behind facts for Howard-King when we
`get there later on today.
` Also with me, joined on the call, at least, by audio
`only, are Mike Schwartz and (indiscernible), also from Veveo.
` JUDGE MCSHANE: Thank you. All right.
` MR. BLOCK: Your Honor, if I may --
` JUDGE MCSHANE: Sorry.
` MR. BLOCK: Your Honor, if I could interrupt? I
`apologize. Our client can't hear on the other audio number
`that was given to us. I was wondering if you would have
`objection if they dialed into the same WebEx audio that we're
`using so that we -- they could hear the hearing?
` JUDGE MCSHANE: No objection to that.
` MR. BLOCK: Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MCSHANE: Okay. I'm just going to -- here for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`a minute or two, I'm just going to give some general guidance,
`so hopefully in the interim, your clients can dial in.
` So first of all, thank you for your flexibility in
`conducting this video and telephonic hearing today. We
`recognize times are difficult. We know that this is departure
`from our typical practice. Given that, we wanted to start off
`by just going over a few items.
` First, our primary concern is your right to
`be heard. If, at anytime during this proceeding, you have
`technical or any other difficulties that you feel are
`undermining your ability to represent your client, please let
`us know immediately. And there are some team members that, I
`think, you should've set up this call with or video with, that
`you can -- that'll we'll go ahead and try to contact.
` Second, when you're not speaking, please mute
`yourself. Okay? And third, please identify -- try to
`identify yourself each time you speak. This helps, of course,
`the court reporter to provide an accurate transcript. And as
`I indicated when we started, I am Judge McShane, and also on
`the line are Judges Szpondowski and Deshpande.
` Fourth, we have the entire record. We have the
`demonstratives, we have the files -- well, we've got the
`entries and the like. So in particular, when referring to
`demonstratives or any other papers or exhibits, please
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`identify what you're talking about. In particular, for the
`demonstratives, please, you know, call them out by number.
` Also, pause a few seconds after identifying them so
`that we can scroll. This, again, is to provide an
`accurate transcript of the hearing, and we're also, you know,
`we are operating under some unusual circumstances, so we're
`trying to, sort of, deal with all the technology, as well as
`everything else.
` Please be aware that there may be members of the
`public who may be listening to this oral hearing. Also, as
`you probably know, please don't interrupt the other party when
`the party is presenting its arguments. If you have an
`objection, please wait, and raise it during your argument.
` Now, as you indicated, you -- we gave you the option
`of how you wanted to deal with this hearing. You've indicated
`that you want to address the IPR2019-00239 and -00292 cases
`first, and then follow up later with the other ones. Is --
`that's correct, yes?
` MR. MEEKER: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MCSHANE: Thank you.
` So let's see. In general, a way that we've broken
`up these cases -- so we're having the first half done first,
`then the second half. So, as we deal with these respective
`groups of cases, we did indicate in the hearing order 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`general order for how the arguments were going to go.
` So here, each side -- for each group of cases, each
`side will have 60 minutes to present its argument. Petitioner
`will go first and may reserve rebuttal time. Patent Owner may
`argue its opposition, and may reserve surrebuttal time. Then,
`we go ahead and conduct the rebuttal and surrebuttal.
` We'll be keeping time and we'll try to inform you
`when you have five minutes left in the argument time that you
`specify. We'll do our best on that. We're -- we can't
`guarantee that we'll be able to flag you as I indicated, but
`that's what we're going to try.
` And actually, now I'm going to turn this over to
`Judge Szpondowski, and if there's anything
`procedural or what have you, she's going to deal with that.
`So Judge?
` JUDGE SZPONDOWSKI: Okay. Thank you.
` I don't have anything procedural specifically on
`these cases, so if -- whenever Petitioner's are ready to
`proceed, we can begin.
` Do you wish to reserve any rebuttal time?
` MR. MEEKER: We do, Your Honor. 15 minutes.
` JUDGE SZPONDOWSKI: Okay. Just give me a minute to
`get my clock set here.
` Okay. You may begin whenever you're ready.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
` MR. MEEKER: Thank you, Your Honors.
` If I could address your attention then to the slides
`corresponding to IPR 239 and 292, those are the Gross-Smith
`grounds.
` And then if we jump to Slide 3, which is the
`instituted grounds for the IPRs. And it's -- if you're there,
`so starting at Slide 3. The IPR has instituted Gross-Smith
`for the majority of the claims, and then for the abbreviation
`terms being ordered lower than the whole exact match terms of
`those claims also includes Sanders.
` Turning to Slide 4, the status of the prior ITC
`proceeding. The final decision has not been reached in that
`case; it is due to be decided on April 23, 2020. That's the
`conditions review. The ITC found that Gross and Smith
`combination teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and 9,
`including the disputed limitation concerning highlighting,
`which is Limitation 1E.
` Turning to Slide 5, the ITC held that the -- there
`was not clear and convincing evidence on the motivation to
`combine Gross and Smith, simply because the references are in
`the same field. So I would say, in this proceeding, that
`holding on the motivation to combine has no preclusive effect,
`and we have a completely different record in this proceeding.
` So in this proceeding, we have copious amounts of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`evidence on the motivation to combine. We have an expressed
`motivation to combine that Smith teaches the -- how to combine
`their numeric index into a alphanumeric index such as Gross.
`And we also have numerous KSR rationales to combine, which
`we'll get to when we get to Slides 33 to 39, and 53 to 62.
` So now, turning to --
` JUDGE SZPONDOWSKI: So Counsel --
` MR. MEEKER: Okay.
` JUDGE SZPONDOWSKI: So Counsel, so you've presented
`evidence in this case that wasn't presented to the ITC?
` MR. MEEKER: It -- well, so what I would say is the
`ITC judge didn't address -- or didn't mention that evidence in
`her proceeding. So in the ITC case, it's on a very fast
`track, and unfortunately, if you don't give citations to your
`evidence in your post-trial briefing, then it's like the
`evidence doesn't exist.
` And what the ITC judge held in that case is that
`simply because you, you know, you have two references in the
`same field, that's not motivation to combine. So there was
`evidence earlier in that case, but in any event, that was her
`final holding in the case, Your Honor.
` JUDGE SZPONDOWSKI: So there was additional
`evidence, but it possibly wasn't considered?
` MR. MEEKER: Yes. So I don't have the full 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
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`in that case because it's confidential. There was some
`evidence presented early on in that case, it was not cited in
`the post-trial briefing. When the judge reached her decision,
`she looked at the evidence in the post-trial briefing.
` JUDGE SZPONDOWSKI: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. MEEKER: That's as much as I can say about that,
`Your Honor.
` Turning now to Slide 6, there was also a prior
`proceeding at the PTAB involving a related patent. So the
`'696 Patent had a claims priority to the same two provisional
`applications, had substantial overlapping disclosure. So in
`the '696 Patent, both the highlighting provisional application
`and the provisional application related to the numeric index
`are both incorporated by reference into that case.
` And in that case, turning to Slide 8, the PTAB held
`that Gross and Smith were properly combinable for,
`essentially, the same reasons that we presented in this IPR.
`That's there's an expressed motivation to combine, and under
`various KSR rationales.
` So the PTAB previously held in the '696 case that
`Gross and Smith are properly combinable for the rationales
`that we have in this case, and that was affirmed by a Rule 36
`judgment by the Federal Circuit.
` So now, turning to --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
` JUDGE SZPONDOWSKI: Counsel, the '696 Patent is --
`it's a little different than the '011 and the '394 Patent;
`isn't it? In that it doesn't describe the highlighting or
`claim the highlighting that's argued here?
` MR. MEEKER: Correct, Your Honor. The highlighting
`feature is not in the claim of the '696 Patent. So the other
`elements of the claim are, essentially, identical to this
`case, and the only thing that's different is when you enter a
`character using an overloaded key, so -- and we'll get to this
`in a minute, but instead of, you know, pushing the two, the
`two key actually enters the two -- it enters three different
`-- or four different characters when you press the two key.
` So it enters two keys, and that that is used in the
`search term. So -- and those characters are highlighted. So
`the only difference between this patent and the prior '696
`Patent is when you enter your search terms, at least, you have
`to enter two characters, and at least one of those characters
`is highlighted, according to the terms of the claim, which
`we'll go through in a minute. But that's the only difference
`is the highlighting step.
` Okay. Turning now to Slide 11. Slide 11 reviews
`the undisputed issues in this case, so the combination of
`Gross and Smith teaches all elements, except the disputed
`highlighting element. That's the Element 1E. The ITC found
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`that Gross and Smith teach all elements of the claims,
`including the disputed highlighting element. And Claim 1 is
`representative of Claims 9 and 17 of the '011 Patent.
` So now, if we turn to Slide 13, which provides an
`overview of the '011 and '394 Patents. So the claimed
`elements are an index, directly mapped items of unresolved
`keystrokes. A user inputs a search query of unresolved
`keystrokes, and it incrementally finds items and highlights
`characters that match the unresolved keystrokes. And the
`claim found 1E is a highlighting step, which is the one step
`in dispute in this case.
` So it's basically, you get unresolved keys, and then
`you highlight the characters, whatever letters and numbers
`happen to be present at that time. So basically, if you enter
`two or C or B, those characters are what is highlighted in the
`search result. And so that's, essentially, a summary of what
`the elements are in the claims.
` Turning now to Slide 15. Slide 15 shows that the
`'394 Patent is broader than the '011 Patent. So the '394
`Patent lacks the step that's subsequent to indexing. It's not
`really a term in dispute in this case since it's shown by the
`references.
` Turning now to Slide 16. 16 shows the '011 and '394
`disclosure concerning highlighting, so it's a very high level.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`It basically says the user enters characters -- and these are
`alphanumeric characters, they can be letters or numbers. And
`then you highlight those characters as you enter them. So
`it's an incremental search, so if you enter a character, you
`know, whether it's a two or a C or a B, if you hit the
`overloaded key two, then it would highlight those characters
`in the search result.
` Again, the disclosure is very high-level, it never
`really gets into how that highlighting works. It assumes that
`just saying you highlight those characters in response to
`hitting the keystrokes is known in the art. And I would say,
`in this case, Veveo is demanding far more of the prior art
`than assumed disclosure has, as far as details.
` If we turn now to Slide 19, Slide 19 provides an
`overview of the prior art. So Gross teaches this same sort of
`incremental inputs. So the user inputs a character, the
`search results are displayed incrementally, so as the user
`enters each new character, whether it's a one or a two, or a D
`or a D-O, those are highlighted -- or C, or C-A for car,
`they're input incrementally.
` And then if we turn to Slide 20, you'll see that
`Gross teaches as each of those characters are entered, they're
`highlighted incrementally. So if you enter a C, the C is
`highlighted, an A is highlighted. If you enter a two, it's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`highlighted. And they taught highlighting can be -- use
`different colors, different fonts, et cetera.
` So turning to Slide 21 now. Slide 21 is a textbook
`on the field of information retrieval. This textbook happened
`to be written by our expert in 1999, and it basically says the
`reason you highlight search queries, it's the reason you
`highlight search queries in the web.
` So, you know, this is very familiar to anyone who's
`used a web interface, starting in the early 90s. As you type
`in your search term, the term that you're typing in gets
`highlighted and displayed in the search result, so you can
`tell why the search results were included in the list of items
`in the search query.
` So modern information retrieval says, "It is often
`useful to highlight the occurrence of terms or descriptors
`that match those of the users query, and highlighting terms
`has been found time and again to be a useful feature for
`information access interfaces."
` Turning now to Slide 22. This is the teaching of
`Smith. So Smith teaches an overloaded keypad. So on the
`lower left-hand side is an overloaded keypad, and that's
`indicated as prior art in the patent. So essentially, an
`overloaded keypad, it just means when you press one key, you
`input the letters.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
` Like, if you press the key that says two, A, B, C,
`you actually input all of those characters. You input two,
`you input A, you input B, and you input C. If you hit the
`character 1, you only -- the button would -- corresponding to
`one, you only input one character, it's one.
` If you hit the button corresponding to zero, you
`input two characters, zero and space. So basically, you get
`exactly what's shown on the keypad. So if you hit the number
`3 or D-E-F, you input the characters 3, D, E, and F
`simultaneously. So that's basically what an ambiguous search
`query is.
` So some keypads have a smaller number of keys, so
`you don't have to have a big key on your phone or on your
`remote control, and basically, you can hit a smaller number of
`keys and enter a search, and the trade-off is you get less
`precise results.
` So if you're trying to find dog, you hit the 3, the
`6, and the 4, and you'll get search results. If you had hit
`3, D, E, and F; 6, M, N, and O; and 4, G, H, and I, so you get
`all of those permutations. So basically, when you hit one
`key, you get four alphanumeric characters entered.
` Turning now to Slide 23. And this teaches
`conversion of an alphanumeric index, so that's an index used
`on -- in a non-overloaded keypad environment. And it teaches
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`how you convert that index for use in an overloaded keypad
`environment.
` So this is the teaching that we have used as our
`direct motivation to combine, it's the teaching credited by
`the prior PTAB Panel, in finding that Gross and Smith were
`properly combinable. And in effect, it teaches you how to
`convert an entry of 2-2-7 into what would correspond to car
`and bar, or the corresponding numbers, 2-2-7 in a
`non-overloaded keypad environment.
` So basically, Smith teaches all of the direct
`mapping. And as I read the Patent Owner's surreply, I think
`they've conceded that Gross and Smith are properly combinable
`for all elements but the highlighting element.
` So now, if we turn to Slide 26, Slide 26 shows,
`again, the Smith index with direct mapping. So -- all right.
`So -- I'm sorry. Going to 26, this is Gross' disclosure. So
`Gross teaches highlighting of the characters as you enter
`them. So the first matching character or character string may
`be highlighted.
` So if you push the number two, you are going to
`simultaneously enter the three characters -- or four
`characters corresponding to two, so two, A, B, and C, in the
`combine to Gross-Smith system. So Gross says when you enter
`an alphanumeric character, as you enter it incrementally, you
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`highlight it. And it can be shown on the list pane or in the
`search window pane.
` So turning now to Slide 29, Slide 29 is a screen of
`Gross' highlighting. So it works similar to a search engine
`today, except this has incremental search, so it provides
`instantaneous results. So in Gross, if you were to type in
`the I, the N, the T, in intellectual property, as you entered
`those letters on the keypad, they would be highlighted in the
`search results.
` And as you enter more characters -- more
`alphanumeric characters, then in Gross, you get more precise
`results as you enter more characters -- alphanumeric
`characters in your search string. So in this search string,
`the user has entered intellectual property and Knobbe, and
`those are the items that are highlighted on the window in the
`Gross reference.
` So now, turning to Slide 31, the Gross-Smith
`combination is basically, in combination Gross and Smith, so
`as you enter the unresolved keystrokes, for example, the keys
`corresponding to 2-2-7, you would enter a car or bar or 2-2-7.
`And as you push each of those keys, Gross-Smith combination,
`according to Dr. Fox's expert testimony, would, not
`surprisingly, highlight the characters that you entered using
`the overloaded keypad environment.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
` And so Dr. Fox testified that the feature of
`highlighting portions of the results that cause the results to
`be returned would be maintained for ambiguous search queries,
`and then he goes on to use the car and bar and 2-2-7 example.
`So Dr. Fox testified that as you enter the alphanumeric
`characters 2-2-7 or car or bar, which, you know, as you press
`the first key, it's 2 and C and B, all get entered.
` As you press the second key, 2 and A get entered,
`and as you press the third key, 7 and R get entered, along
`with some other characters, which would also be highlighted if
`they're in the search result. So that's Dr. Fox's testimony.
` Turning to, now, Slide 33. So Dr. Fox says
`highlighting any other characters instead of the matching
`characters would undesirably confuse the user. So he -- Dr.
`Fox's testimony is like all search engines, you want to
`highlight the characters that the user entered, so that he can
`see which characters generated the search result. And you'll
`see later, there's a dispute between the two experts.
` So there's really, you know, only two ways that have
`been identified by the experts for entering characters and
`what would be highlighted. So Dr. Fox says you -- if you're
`entering four characters when you press an overloaded key, you
`would highlight all four of those characters.
` Dr. Russ, who's the Petitioner's expert, says when
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`you push an overloaded key and enter four characters, that you
`would only highlight the numeric characters. And, you know,
`we'll talk about the level of skill in the art and other
`things, but that's basically the dispute between the parties.
` Dr. Russ has set up, what we believe is a straw man.
`It's a different combination. But in any event, despite all
`the testimony in this case and the many years the parties have
`litigated either this patent or the parent of this patent, we
`only have two ways that the experts are saying this could
`possibly work.
` You're going to highlight, you know, just the
`numeric numbers; that's Patent Owner's expert. Or you're
`going to highlight each of the characters that the user
`entered, and that's Dr. Fox's testimony.
` So now, turning to Slide 34, Slide 34 provides
`additional evidence of why someone would highlight the
`characters that were actually entered by the overloaded
`keypad. And it's so that the user could easily identify and
`understand what caused the item to be displayed and returned.
` So again, Dr. Fox's declaration and the dispute is:
`Dr. Fox said if you entered less than the characters the user
`entered or more than the characters the user entered, it would
`be confusing. And the POSA, skilled in the art, would, in
`fact, highlight the characters that the user entered. He said
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`that's consistent with what people skilled in the art knew at
`the time.
` And so turning to Slide 35, Dr. Fox, again, relies
`on a textbook from the 90s. This patent has a priority date
`of 2005. And it basically teaches why you highlight search
`terms in a search result.
` And in this textbook, it says, "It's often useful to
`highlight the occurrence of terms or descriptors that matches
`those of the users query. It can also be useful for the
`system to highlight the matched term to help draw the users
`attention to the parts of the documents most likely to be
`relevant to the query. Highlight the query terms has been
`found time and again to be a useful feature."
` Turning now to Slide 36. Dr. Fox teaches that --
`in his declaration that a POSA having ordinary creativity
`would recognize that implementing Gross' highlighting
`technique in the combined system of Gross and Smith requires
`determining the alphanumeric characters to highlight.
` So Dr. Fox's testimony is that if you entered the
`number two, you would, in fact -- or pressed the key that
`corresponds to the numbers and letters associated with it,
`that you would actually highlight the numbers and letters
`associated with the key that you pressed.
` And so turning now to Slide 37, Dr. Fox gives 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
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)¹
`
`
`
`example that if the letter -- the key corresponding to the
`letter D were pressed, that the letters D, E, F, and 3 would
`all be highlighted. So basically, in an overloaded keypad
`environment, when you press one key, you're entering four
`different alphanumeric characters.
` And so the alphanumeric characters that you entered
`by pressing the single key are D, E, F, and 3. And Dr. Fox
`says that those are the alphanumeric characters in the search
`results that one skilled in the art would highlight. So
`turning now -- and he used the example dog, so D-O in dog, you
`would highlight those two characters.
` Turning to Slide 38. Slide 38 shows that a POSA
`would predictability and obviously combine Gross and Smith to
`highlight the characters that match the search query. So
`those are the characters entered by the overloaded keypad.
` Turning to Slide 39. 39 shows that a POSA would
`combine the well-known techniques in the search art, such as
`highlighting on an overloaded keypad environment. So
`basically, highlighting was well-known in the search arts, and
`combining highlighting for use in an overloaded keypad
`environment is simple.
` It's exactly what all of the art -- what Gross
`teaches, what the textbooks teach, what a POSA teach. What,
`really, anybody with common knowledge that ever used a search
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00237 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00239 (Patent 7,779,011 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00290 (Patent 7,937,394 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00292 (P
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
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
