Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`
`Google LLC,
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`Case IPR2020-00755
`U.S. Patent No. 6,366,908
`
`Oral Hearing
`June 15, 2021
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Google LLC,
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`Case IPR2020-00755
`U.S. Patent No. 6,366,908
`
`Oral Hearing
`June 15, 2021
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim 6, the only challenged independent claim
`
`6. A keyfact-based text retrieving method comprising:
`keyfact extracting step for analyzing a document
`collection and a user query, and extracting keywords
`without part-of-speech ambiguity from said document
`collection and said user query, and respectively
`extracting keyfacts of said document collection and
`said user query from said keywords;
`keyfact indexing step for calculating the frequency of
`said keyfacts of said document collection and
`generating a keyfact list of said document collection
`for a keyfact index structure; and
`keyfact retrieving step for receiving said keyfact of said
`user query and said keyfacts of said document
`collection and defining a keyfact retrieval model in
`consideration of weigh factors according to a keyfact
`pattern and generating a retrieval result.
`
`2
`
`
`
`The “keyfact” term
`
`“keyfact” means “a factual extraction of a sentence which expresses semantic
`relation between words in the sentence in the form of [object, property].’”
` The parties agree the “keyfact” term is coined by the challenged ’908 patent,
`is not a term of art, and hence the term requires construction.
` The ’908 patent universally qualifies “all” keyfacts as follows:
`“All keyfacts express semantic relation between words in the
`form of [object, property].” Ex. 1001, 4:58-60.
` All “keyfact” examples disclosed in the specification express semantic relation
`between words in the paired form of [object, property]. POR 7-8, POSR 2
`(citing Ex. 1001 at Table 1, 1:8-10, 1:16-18, 4:58-60, 6:15-30, and 6:38-44).
` The Abstract emphasizes the paired form of a keyfact as follows:
`“A keyfact-based text retrieval method and a keyfact-based text
`index method that describes the formalized concept of a document
`by a pair comprising an object that is the head and a property that
`is the modifier and uses the information described by the pairs as
`index information for efficient document retrieval.” Ex. 1001, Abstract.
` The paired form of [object, property] itself intrinsically conveys certain
`information. Different information is conveyed, for example, when a keyfact
`tag is represented as an object as opposed to a property, or when tags are
`listed in a particular order. POR 21-22; POSR 16-17.
`
`3
`
`
`
`The “keyfact” term
`
`The ’908 patent specification disparages and distinguishes what
`it refers to as word-based and phrase-based approaches:
`
` “[T]he keyword-based text retrieval method has a fundamental
`limitation in retrieval precision because it performs document
`retrieval by keywords. As a result, because the keyword-based
`text retrieval system provides such low level of retrieval
`precision, it causes a number of unnecessary retrievals and
`therefore precious resources, Such as time and effort, are wasted.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:32-28.
`
` “The phrase-based text retrieval methods extract a precise
`phrase pattern though a morphological-syntactic normalization
`process and perform indexing and retrieval by extracted phrase.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:19‒28; see also id., 1:42‒45.
`
`4
`
`
`
`The “keyfact” term
`
`The proper construction should reflect all definitive statements
`in the intrinsic evidence, including the explicit disavowal:
`
` The ’908 patent universally qualifies “all” keyfacts as follows:
`“All keyfacts express semantic relation between words in the
`form of [object, property].” Ex. 1001, 4:58-60.
`
` The ’908 patent also states “A keyfact means an important fact
`contained in sentences which constitute a document.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:15-16.
`
` Only Patent Owner has proposed and defended a construction that
`reflects all definitive statements:
`
`“keyfact” means “a factual extraction of a sentence which expresses semantic
`relation between words in the sentence in the form of [object, property].’”
`
`5
`
`
`
`The “keyfact” term
`
`Google fails to reconcile its Petition with Google’s
`inconsistent statements offered in litigation:
`
` In its claim construction briefing in parallel litigation, Google
`acknowledged that “[t]he ’908 patent teaches that keyfacts are
`represented ‘by a pair comprising an object that is the head and
`a property that is the modifier’ in the form of ‘[object, property].’”
`Ex. 1005 at 10 (citing ’908 patent at Abstract, 4:58-60, 6:38-44);
`see also id. at 17 (“keyfact terms are represented in the form
`‘[object, property]’”).
`
` A construction which simply reflects what Google acknowledged
`(in parallel litigation) are definitive teachings in the specification
`cannot reasonably be characterized as contradicting the intrinsic
`evidence.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Claim 6 does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`The Board preliminary held that “35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`does not apply to claim 6, because the claim
`contains acts to perform the cited functions.”
`Inst. Dec. 17; POR 9-14.
`
`Google’s briefing offers no basis for the Board to
`revisit its preliminary determination.
`
`Google does not expressly dispute in its Reply that
`independent claim 6 recites respective acts for each
`recited step.
`
`Patent Owner identified certain example deficiencies
`of the Petition arising from a proper interpretation
`of the challenged claims as reciting affirmative acts.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Challenged dependent claims recite distinct acts
`
`Google misstates the claim differentiation issue as whether
`the dependent claims recite distinct and additional steps.
`
`The identified claim differentiation issue arises from certain
`dependent claims reciting distinct and additional acts for
`performing one of three overarching “steps” or functions recited
`in independent claim 6─namely, (i) “keyfact extracting step,”
`(ii) “keyfact indexing step,” and (iii) “keyfact retrieving step.”
`
`Google violates the doctrine of claim differentiation by advancing
`theories, for example, which fail to differentiate distinct acts
`directed to the same step introduced in claim 6.
`
`Google failed, for example, to recognize claim 6 recites the
`affirmative act of “analyzing a document collection and
`a user query” and claim 7 (depending therefrom) recites
`the distinct and additional act of “analyzing morphology
`of an input sentence.” Both distinct acts are differentiated
`from one another as being separate requirements for the
`same “keyfact extracting step.” POR 15-18; POSR 7-8.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Example deficiencies arising from “keyfact” term
`
` Patentable distinctions arise from the factual derivation aspect
`of the recited “keyfact” term.
`
` In contrast to the disparaged approaches (e.g., word-based
`and phrase-based), the ‘keyfact’ term itself connotes, and the
`surrounding context set forth in the claim language confirms,
`that generation of a keyfact involves a factual derivation
`extracted from keywords.” POR 8; POSR 10.
`
` Google’s briefing overlooks the specific distinction that the
`verbatim representation of a sentence in Braden-Harder is
`“more akin to the word-based or phrase-based approach
`disparaged in the specification” and lacks “a factual derivation
`extracted from keywords.” POSR 11; POR 21-22.
`
` Patent distinctions arise from the required form of the
`recited “keyfact” term—i.e., under a proper interpretation that
`“keyfact” means “a factual extraction of a sentence which
`expresses semantic relation between words in the sentence in the
`form of [object, property].’”
`
`9
`
`
`
`Example deficiencies arising from “keyfact” term
`
`The ’908 patent makes an express distinction
`between keyfact patterns and a list of keyfacts
`that are extracted using keyfact patterns:
`
`(Ex. 1001, 6:33-41)
`
`10
`
`
`
`Example deficiencies arising from “keyfact” term
`
`(Ex. 1001, Table 1, 6:14-32)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Example deficiencies arising from “keyfact” term
`
`(Ex. 1001, Table 3, 7:47-57)
`
`Table 3 identifies “[KEY2 KEY1 KEY3]” as being a
`keyfact pattern, and not as a keyfact extracted from such a
`pattern and having the form of [object, property].
`
`12
`
`
`
`Example deficiencies arising from “keyfact” term
`
`Braden-Harder’s “triples” ≠ “keyfacts”
` Braden-Harder describes its “triples” as requiring the “form
`of ‘word-relation-word’” in order to operate as intended:
`
`A logical form is a directed acyclic graph in which words
`representing text of any arbitrary size are linked by labeled
`relations. In particular, a logical form portrays semantic
`relationships, particularly argument and adjunct relationships,
`between important words in an input string. This portrayal
`can take various specific forms, such as, a logical form graph
`or any sub-graph thereof, the latter including, for example, a
`list of logical form triples, with each of the triples being
`illustratively of a form "word-relation-word"; wherein, any
`one of these forms can be used with our invention.
`
`(Ex. 1020, 5:16-26)
`
`13
`
`
`
`Example deficiencies arising from “keyfact” term
`
`Braden-Harder’s “triples” ≠ “keyfacts”
` Braden-Harder describes its “triples” format as requiring
`three parts: (1) a first word and (2) a labeled “relation”
`which by its content interlinks the first word with
`(3) a second word.
`
`Each triple contains two node words as depicted in
`the graph linked by a semantic relationship therebetween.
`(Ex. 1020, 14:3-4)
`
` Using so-called “triples”’ to symbolically represent the
`‘semantic information’ of an input string, quite literally
`verbatim, is distinguishable on its face at least from ‘keyfact’
`extraction as disclosed and claimed. POR 21-22; POSR 18.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Google failed to recognize claim 6 recites distinct acts
`
`Among other deficiencies, Google fails at least to appreciate:
`
` Claim 6 recites the “analyzing” [act 6-1] and “extracting”
`[acts 6-2 and 6-3] as distinct and separately required acts.
`
` The “analyzing” act [6-1] of claim 6 is distinct and expressly
`distinguished from the “analyzing” act [7-1] of claim 7.
`
`(Claim 6)
`… keyfact extracting step for
`
`7. The key fact-based text retrieving
`method of claim 6, wherein said
`Step of key fact extracting
`comprises the steps of:
`[act 7-1] analyzing morphology of an
`input Sentence and obtaining tag
`Sequences of part-of-Speech by
`attaching part-of-speech tags,
`
`(different analyzing)
`
`[act 6-1] analyzing a document
`collection and a user query, and
`[act 6-2] extracting keywords without
`part-of-speech ambiguity from said
`document collection and said user
`query, and
`[act 6-3] respectively extracting keyfacts
`of said document collection and said
`user query from said keywords; …
`
`15
`
`
`
`“keyfact retrieving step” of claim 6
`
`Google asserts that the “keyfact retrieving step” of claim 6
`not only encompasses, but also affirmatively requires . . .
`determin[ing] keyfact weight constants . . . .’”
`POR 25-26 (quoting Pet. 30); POSR 21.
`
`The ’908 patent teaches the keyfact weight contents are newly
`determined “experimentally” based on the “distribution of
`keyfact patterns” presently at issue.” POR 26; POSR 21.
`
`Predetermined weights alone cannot satisfy the claim language
`in question. Id.
`
`Google fails to map anything in Braden-Harder to the disclosed
`(and allegedly required) keyfact weight constants of the ’908
`patent, which are “determined experimentally on the basis
`of distribution of keyfact pattern of document collection.”
`POR 26 and POSR 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:62-64).
`
`16
`
`
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
