Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 28
` Date: October 7, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 28
` Date: October 7, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of
`claims 6–12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,366,908 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’908 patent”).
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). In accordance with Board
`authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to the Preliminary Response (Paper 9)
`and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 11). Upon review of the papers,
`we instituted inter partes review, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, as to
`claims 6–12 based on the challenges set forth in the Petition. Paper 14
`(“Decision to Institute” or “Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 17, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Response (Paper 19, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply
`(Paper 20, “Sur-reply”). On July 15, 2021, we held an oral hearing. A
`transcript of the hearing is of record. Paper 27 (“Tr.”).
`For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6–12 of the ’908 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’908 patent is the subject
`of court proceeding, Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00553
`(E.D. Tex.). Pet. 93; Prelim. Resp. 3. Petitioner’s motion to transfer the
`district court case to the Northern District of California was granted.
`Ex. 1046. According to Petitioner, “the Northern District of California
`found that at least Fortress Credit Co. LLC held sufficient rights in the
`challenged patent that Uniloc lacked standing to sue. The court then
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`dismissed the litigation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Paper 18, 1
`(citing Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 4:20-cv-05345-YGR (N.D.
`Cal. Entered Dec. 22, 2020 (single order addressing eleven cases)).
`Petitioner states “Uniloc filed a notice of appeal on December 31, 2020.” Id.
`
`B. The ’908 Patent1
`The ’908 patent describes a keyfact-based text retrieval method and a
`keyfact-based text index method. Ex. 1001, 1:6–7. The ’908 patent states
`that a keyfact is “an important fact contained in sentences which constitute a
`document,” where the keyfact is “represented by an object and property
`information through syntactic analysis of a sentence.” Id. at 1:15–18. As
`described in the ’908 patent, a keyword-based text retrieval method was the
`mainstream in conventional text retrieval methods, but the precision of a
`keyword-based text retrieval method was less than ideal for several reasons.
`Id. at 1:19–22. First, the meaning of the document was not precisely
`represented because the document was represented by keywords, which are
`nouns. Id. at 1:22–25. Second, when a query included a natural language
`phrase, sentence, or keywords, the intention of the user’s query was not
`reflected precisely in a keyword-based text retrieval method. Id. at 1:27–32.
`Therefore, the keyword-based text retrieval method had a fundamental
`limitation in retrieval precision because it performed document retrieval by
`keywords. Id. at 1:32–34. Phrase-based text retrieval methods perform
`more precise text retrieval than the keyword-based text retrieval method, but
`performs less precise text retrieval than a concept-based text retrieval
`method, which expresses text by concept units. Id. at 1:45–49.
`
`
`1 The ’908 patent appears to be expired.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`The ’908 patent further describes a new approach to keyfact-based
`text retrieval that overcomes the shortcomings of the keyword-based text
`retrieval method and generalized phrase-based text retrieval methods. Id.
`at 1:50–53. In a keyfact-based text retrieval method, parts of text that
`represent the same meaning are described as a keyfact, where the phrases or
`words having the same meaning are indexed as the same indexing terms. Id.
`at 1:53–55, 1:60–62. According to the ’908 patent, since the keyfact-based
`retrieval method is a concept-based retrieval method, indexing and retrieval
`of the keyfact-based retrieval method are performed with the unit of the
`keyfact, and precision of the retrieval is greatly improved. Id. at 1:55–59.
`A block diagram of a keyfact-based text retrieval system is illustrated
`in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram illustrating a keyfact-based text retrieval
`system. Id. at 4:22–23. The keyfact-based text retrieval system comprises
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`keyfact extraction device 11, keyfact index device 12, and keyfact retrieval
`device 13. Id. at 4:23–26. The ’908 patent describes that once a document
`collection 14 or a query 15 is given, the keyfact extraction device 11 extracts
`words without ambiguity by performing morphological analysis and tagging.
`Id. at 4:42–45. The keyfact generation rule is applied to the words and then
`the keyfacts are extracted. Id. at 4:45–46. The keyfact index device 12
`indexes the document collection 14 or the query 15 with the unit of keyfact
`and calculates the frequencies of the keyfacts. Id. at 4:47–49. The
`frequencies of the keyfacts are stored into the index structure 16 with the
`document ID information. Id. at 4:49–51. The keyfact retrieval device 13
`orders documents using a similarity calculation method and shows retrieval
`results. Id. at 4:51–53.
`A block diagram of a keyfact extraction device of a keyfact-based text
`retrieval system is illustrated in Figure 3, reproduced below.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates a block diagram of keyfact extraction device 11
`that analyzes a document and generates keyfacts through the processes of
`morphological analysis, part-of-speech tagging, keyfact pattern extraction,
`and keyfact generation. Id. at 5:15–18. The ’908 patent describes that a
`document is supplied at stage 31 and morphological analysis is performed at
`stage 32. Id. at 5:19–20. More specifically, a sentence in the document is
`divided into words, the morphological analysis is performed with
`dictionaries 36 at stage 32, and various results are obtained. Id. at 5:20–22,
`5:59–60. At stage 33, part-of-speech tagging is performed, where a precise
`sequence of tags is chosen among the various results of the morphological
`analysis. Id. at 5:61–63. Once the final sequence of tags is obtained, the
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`stage of keyfact pattern extraction 34 searches the keyfact pattern rule 37
`and extracts meaningful keyfact patterns necessary for keyfact generation.
`Id. at 6:5–8. “Keyfact terms that have forms of [object, property] are
`generated as to the input keyfact pattern at the stage of the keyfact
`generation 35 by searching the keyfact generation rule 38,” resulting in a
`keyfact list 39. Id. at 6:38–41, 51.
`A block diagram of a keyfact index device of a keyfact-based text
`retrieval system is illustrated in Figure 4, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`Figure 4 illustrates a block diagram of keyfact index device 12 that
`calculates statistical frequencies of keyfacts in a document obtained from the
`keyfact extraction device 11, and that forms an index structure. Id. at 6:58–
`60. The ’908 patent describes that, for each document, a keyfact frequency
`and document frequency of a keyfact 42 are calculated at 43 in order to
`obtain the frequency information of the keyfacts. Id. at 6:65–67. Next,
`supplementary tables, such as a document index table, a document table, and
`a keyfact index table, are generated to form an efficient index structure 44.
`Id. at 7:1–3. Subsequently, an index structure is formed in a unit of the
`keyfact at 45, and an index file is stored at 46. Id. at 7:10–11.
`A block diagram of keyfact retrieval device of a keyfact-based text
`retrieval system is illustrated in Figure 5, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`Figure 5 illustrates a block diagram of keyfact retrieval device 13 that,
`at 54, forms a document vector and query vector with a keyfact supplied
`from a keyfact extraction device 53 and an index file 52 generated by a
`keyfact index device 51. Id. at 7:35–39. At 55, the keyfact weight constants
`(CKfType#), which are fit for the attribute of a document collection, are
`determined. Id. at 7:40–41. Subsequently, at 56, the keyfact weights are
`calculated from the document and query vector. Id. at 7:42–43. Further,
`at 57, the similarity of each document appropriate for the query is calculated
`by employing a keyfact retrieval model 58, where the result of a similarity
`calculation determines an order of appropriate documents. Id. at 8:20–24.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 6–12 of the ’908 patent. Pet. 1. Claim 6
`is an independent claim, and claims 7–12 depend therefrom. Claim 6 is
`reproduced below.
`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.
`Ex. 1001, 9:54–10:7.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`D. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted inter partes review based on the following grounds of
`unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as follows (Dec. 9–10, 38):
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`6–12
`6–12
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`7–9
`
`7–9
`
`9
`
`9
`
`9
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Braden-Harder3, Grossman4
`Braden-Harder, Heidorn5,
`Messerly6, Grossman
`Braden-Harder, Grossman,
`Kucera7
`Braden-Harder, Heidorn,
`Messerly, Grossman, Kucera
`Braden-Harder, Grossman,
`Miller8
`Braden-Harder, Heidorn,
`Messerly, Grossman, Miller
`Braden-Harder, Grossman,
`Kucera, Miller
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended several provisions of 35 U.S.C., including § 103.
`Because the ’908 patent has an effective filing date before the effective date
`of the applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA version of
`35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that
`each relied upon reference is prior art under the pre-AIA version. Pet. 2, 7,
`9, 12, 15–16; see generally PO Resp.
`3 US 5,933,822, issued Aug. 3, 1999 (Ex. 1020, “Braden-Harder”).
`4 David A. Grossman and Ophir Frieder, Information Retrieval: Algorithms
`and Heuristics, Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer
`Science (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Springer Science + Business Media
`New York prtg.) (1st. ed. 1998) (Ex. 1010, “Grossman”).
`5 US 5,966,686, issued Oct. 12, 1999 (Ex. 1022, “Heidorn”).
`6 US 6,076,051, issued June 13, 2000 (Ex. 1025, “Messerly”).
`7 US 4,868,750, issued Sept. 19, 1989 (Ex. 1011, “Kucera”).
`8 George A. Miller et al., Introduction to WordNet: An Online Lexical
`Database, International Journal of Lexicography, Vol. 3, No. 4, 235–244
`(1990) (Ex. 1027, “Miller”).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`9
`
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Braden-Harder, Heidorn,
`Messerly, Grossman, Kucera,
`Miller
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Principles of Law
`To prevail in its challenges to Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019). A patent
`claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between
`the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter,
`as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary
`skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of
`nonobviousness.9 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`
`
`9 Patent Owner does not present any objective evidence of nonobviousness
`as to the challenged claims.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(citation omitted). Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of
`Dr. Bernard J. Jansen, who testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the
`art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, information
`technology, or the equivalent, and one to two years of experience working
`with at least one of information retrieval systems, the structure and
`organization of databases, and natural language processing.” Pet. 22 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 142). According to Dr. Jansen, “significant work experience in
`any of these areas could substitute for formal education, and vice versa.”
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 142.
`Patent Owner indicates Petitioner’s proposed assessment is improper
`because it does not define thresholds for “significant work experience” or
`“formal education.” PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner, however, does not offer its
`own assessment of the level of skill in the art, or indicate that the resolution
`of any issue depends on a specific type of work experience or a specific
`level of education. See id. Patent Owner additionally states that even if
`Petitioner’s proposed level of qualifications were applied, the Petition does
`not establish unpatentability. Id. at 5.
`We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with
`the ’908 patent and the asserted prior art. We further note that the prior art
`of record in the instant proceeding reflects the appropriate level of ordinary
`skill in the art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir.
`2001) (holding the Board may omit specific findings as to the level of
`ordinary skill in the art “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate
`level and a need for testimony is not shown”).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review for a petition filed on or after November 13,
`2018, “[claims] of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim
`construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the [claims] in
`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`pertaining to the patent.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see also
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`“step for” limitations
`Petitioner argues that the claim 6 “keyfact extracting step for,”
`“keyfact indexing step for,” and “keyfact retrieving step for” (collectively,
`“keyfact steps”) should each be construed as “step-for” limitations in
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Pet. 25–31. For the same reasons
`presented in its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues that these claim
`6 terms should not be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`Compare PO Resp. 10–14, with Prelim. Resp. 15–19. Although we
`preliminarily agreed that the claims should not be construed in accordance
`with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, we also determined that whether the claim 6 terms
`invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 “is not material to resolving the issues currently
`before us, because Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`under either construction.” Dec. 17 (explaining how Petitioner’s proposed
`construction is narrow, whereas Patent Owner’s proposed construction is
`broad, and that Petitioner contends that the prior art renders the claims
`obvious “regardless of whether § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). Petitioner agrees with
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`our initial determination that we need not “address the issue because the
`claims are unpatentable even under Uniloc’s argument.” Pet. Reply 5.
`Patent Owner, however, presents numerous arguments why the claims
`should not be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 without
`clearly explaining why it is necessary to address § 112, ¶ 6 in order to
`resolve the controversies on the merits that are before us. PO Resp. 9–19;
`Sur-reply 7–9. As discussed below, beside the arguments directed to the
`sufficiency of the prior art teaching the “keyfact steps” limitations based on
`Patent Owner’s construction of the term “keyfact,” Patent Owner fails to
`explain sufficiently what is lacking from Petitioner’s challenges and related
`analyses provided that assert that claims 6–12 would have been obvious
`based on the cited prior art under either construction. For example, Patent
`Owner argues that “Petitioner fails to recognize that the claim language
`recites various acts” and that Petitioner construes each recited act as a
`function. PO Resp. 9. In applying a 112, ¶ 6 analysis to claim 6, however,
`Petitioner looks to the ’908 patent for the corresponding acts associated with
`the recited function. See, e.g., Pet. 26–31. Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments
`appear to us to be a matter of form over substance because Petitioner
`addresses the corresponding acts by looking to the Specification of the ’908
`patent. Tr. 8:12–25. Patent Owner does not persuade us otherwise. For
`example, Patent Owner argues that the claim 6 “keyfact extracting step”
`requires “a respective set of acts” such as “‘analyzing …,’ ‘extracting …,’
`and ‘respectively extracting … .’” PO Resp. 12–13 (alterations in original).
`Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner fails to comprehend the logical
`interrelationship between groups of acts and the underlying respective result,
`expressed as a ‘step,’ that each group of acts operated to collectively
`achieve.” Id. at 14. Patent Owner, however, fails to identify or explain how
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of the claim language and prior art fails to address the
`claimed acts. As explained in detail below, we determine that Petitioner
`shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, how Braden-Harder and
`Grossman teach or suggest each of the claimed steps, such as the “keyfact
`extracting step.” Pet. 33–47. As further explained below, Patent Owner
`does not present meaningful arguments to the contrary.
`Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner’s proposed constructions
`“violate[] both the doctrine of claim differentiation and the ‘all elements’
`rule.” PO Resp. 14–19. In particular, Patent Owner argues that dependent
`claim 7 recites additional acts required for the “keyfact extracting step” of
`claim 6 that are distinct from what claim 6 recites. Id. at 15–16. Patent
`Owner argues that “the ‘analyzing’ act of claim 6 (expressly directed to both
`‘a document collection and a user query’ together) must require something
`more than the distinct ‘analyzing’ of dependent claim 7 (which is directed,
`instead, to ‘morphology of an input sentence’).” Id. at 15. Patent Owner
`contends that Petitioner erroneously conflates the acts of claim 6 with the
`acts of the dependent claims “thereby failing to give meaningful effect to
`those acts affirmatively recited in claim 6.” Id. at 16–19.
`Petitioner argues that the dependent claims “all identically recite
`‘wherein said step of … comprises the steps of …’ language.” Pet. Reply 5
`(alterations in original). As such, Petitioner argues that the dependent claims
`should be “construed as describing details required as part of performing the
`previously introduced steps” and that the dependent claims do “not add new
`‘distinct and additional’ steps—contrary to Uniloc’s contentions.” Id. at 5–9
`(citing Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019)),
`24–25 (arguing that dependent claims 7, 10, and 11 do not add new distinct
`and additional steps, but “give details of the more general steps previously
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`claimed”). As such, Petitioner argues that “Uniloc’s arguments fall with its
`own erroneous interpretation of the dependent claims.” Id. at 24–25.
`Petitioner further argues that whether 112, ¶ 6 applies “[t]he challenged
`claims are unpatentable either way.” Id. at 8–9. Petitioner contends that the
`“all elements” rule is not applicable here, because that “rule relates to the
`doctrine of equivalents for infringement.” Id. at 9 (citing Warner-Jenkinson
`Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29 (1997)).
`We agree with Petitioner that the dependent claims do not add new
`distinct steps or acts, but “give details of the more general steps previously
`claimed.” Id. at 5–9, 24–25. That is, we agree with Petitioner that claim 7
`recites “wherein said step of keyfact extracting comprises the steps of,”
`which should be construed as describing details required as part of
`performing the previously introduced step. Id. at 5. On the other hand,
`Patent Owner fails to explain sufficiently why we should construe the
`dependent claims as reciting additional acts to the steps recited in claim 6.
`Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s arguments
`regarding claim differentiation necessarily fail because the arguments are
`based on an erroneous interpretation of the dependent claims to include
`additional steps or acts untethered from the steps recited in claim 6.
`Additionally, we agree with Petitioner that whether § 112, ¶ 6 applies “[t]he
`challenged claims are unpatentable either way.” Id. at 8–9.10
`
`
`10 Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner fails to address or rebut our
`preliminary determination that “claim 6 does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`¶ 6” (Sur-reply 7) are misplaced because, as discussed, whether the claim 6
`terms invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 is not material to resolving the issues
`here.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`Accordingly, consistent with the Decision to Institute, we determine
`that it is not necessary to construe the claim 6 “step for” terms because
`whether the claim 6 keyfact steps invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 is not material
`to resolving the issues currently before us because Petitioner has shown that
`the challenged claims are unpatentable under either construction. See Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`(holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy,
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec
`Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013,
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes
`review).
`
`“keyfact”
`Claim 6 recites the term “keyfact” several times. For example,
`claim 6 recites, “extracting keyfacts of said document collection and said
`user query from said keywords.” Patent Owner argues that the term
`“keyfact” means “a factual extraction of a sentence which expresses
`semantic relation between words in the sentence in the form of [object,
`property].” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:58–60). Patent Owner further
`argues that “[t]his form represents a paired relationship between an ‘object’
`that is the head and a ‘property’ that is the modifier.” Id. at 7 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 1:8–10). Petitioner argues that we need not construe the term
`“keyfact,” because the challenged claims are unpatentable over the asserted
`prior art even under Patent Owner’s construction. Pet. Reply 1–2.
`For the reasons provided in this Decision discussed below, we agree
`with Petitioner that Braden-Harder’s “extracted logical forms are each ‘a
`factual extraction of a sentence which expresses semantic relation between
`words in the sentence in the form of [object, property].’” See id. at 10
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`(citing Pet. 47; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 221–222). As explained below, we disagree,
`however, that a “keyfact” must be in the exact paired form “[object,
`property]” and nothing else. For purposes of this Decision, we need not
`otherwise expressly construe any claim terms.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 6–12 over Braden-Harder, Heidorn,
`Messerly, and Grossman
`
`1. Braden-Harder
`Braden-Harder describes an information retrieval system that utilizes
`natural language processing to process results retrieved by an information
`retrieval search engine that ultimately yields a set of retrieved documents.
`Ex. 1020, code (57). Each document is subjected to natural language
`processing to produce a set of logical forms, where each logical form
`encodes, in a word-relation-word manner, semantic relationships between
`words in a phrase. Id. A user-supplied query is analyzed in the same
`manner to yield a set of corresponding logical forms, where documents are
`ranked as a predefined function of the logical forms from the documents and
`the query. Id.
`A high-level block diagram of an information retrieval system is
`illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a high-level block diagram of an information retrieval
`system 5. Id. at 7:25–27. In operation, a user supplies a search query to
`system 5. Id. at 7:35–36. System 5 applies this query both to information
`retrieval engine 20 and natural language processor 30. Id. at 7:40–41. In
`response to the query, engine 20 searches through a dataset 10 of stored
`documents to yield a set of retrieved documents. Id. at 7:41–43. The set of
`documents is then applied, as symbolized by line 25, as an input to
`processor 30. Id. at 7:43–46. Within processor 30, each of the documents in
`the set is subjected to natural language processing, specifically
`morphological, syntactic and logical form, to produce logical forms for each
`sentence in that document. Id. at 7:46–50. Each such logical form encodes
`semantic relationships between words in a linguistic phrase in that sentence.
`Id. at 7:50–53. Processor 30 analyzes the query in an identical fashion to
`yield a set of corresponding logical forms. Id. at 7:53–55. Processor 30 then
`compares the set of forms for the query against the sets of logical forms
`associated with each of the documents in the set in order to ascertain any
`match between logical forms in the query set and logical forms for each
`document. Id. at 7:55–59. Documents that produce no matches are
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`eliminated from further consideration, where each remaining document that
`contains at least one match is retained and heuristically scored by
`processor 30. Id. at 7:59–63. Finally, processor 30 presents the retained
`documents to the user rank-ordered based on their respective scores. Id.
`at 8:2–4.
`
`2. Heidorn
`Heidorn describes a method and system for performing semantic
`analysis of an input sentence within a natural language processing (“NLP”)
`system. Ex. 1022, 6:28–30. A semantic analysis subsystem receives a
`syntax parse tree generated by morphological and syntactic subsystems. Id.
`at 6:30–32. The semantic analysis subsystem applies two sets of semantic
`rules to make adjustments to the received syntax parse tree. Id. at 6:32–34.
`The semantic analysis subsystem then applies a third set of semantic rules to
`create a skeletal logical form graph from the syntax parse tree. Id. at 6:34–
`36. The semantic analysis subsystem finally applies two additional sets of
`semantic rules to the skeletal logical form graph to provide semantically
`meaningful labels for the links of the logical form graph, to create additional
`logical form graph nodes for missing nodes, and to unify redundant logical
`form graph nodes. Id. at 6:36–42. The final logical form graph generated by
`the semantic analysis subsystem represents the complete semantic analysis
`of an input sentence. Id. at 6:42–44.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`An example semantic analysis subsystem is illustrated in Figure 43,
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 43 is a block diagram of a computer system for a semantic
`analysis subsystem. Id. at 13:49–50. The computer 4300 contains a
`memory with semantic rules 4304–4308 and rule application engine 4303.
`Id. at 13:50–51. The rule application engine, under control of a central
`processing unit, applies the five sets of rules to a syntax parse tree 4301 to
`generate a corresponding logical form graph 4302. Id. at 13:51–54. The
`syntax parse tree is generated by the morphological and syntactic
`subsystems, which are not shown. Id. at 13:55–56.
`
`3. Messerly
`Messerly describes performing information retrieval using semantic
`representation of text. Ex. 1025, code (57). A tokenizer generates, from an
`input string information retrieval, tokens that characterize the semantic
`relationship expressed in the input string. Id. The tokenizer first creates,
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`from the input string, a primary logical form characterizing a semantic
`relationship between the selected words in the input string. Id. The
`tokenizer then identifies hypernyms that each have an “is a” relationship
`with one of the selected works in the input string. Id. The tokenizer then
`constructs one or more alternative logical forms from the primary logical
`form. Id. For each of one or more of the selected words in the input string,
`the tokenizer constructs each alternative logical form by replacing the
`selected word in the primary logical form with an identified hypernym of the
`selected word. Id. Finally, the tokenizer generates tokens representing both
`the primary logical form and the alternative logical forms. Id.
`An example overview flow diagram showing steps performed in order
`to construct and access an index semantically representing target documents
`is illustrated in Figure 3, reproduced below.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is an overview flow diagram showing the steps performed by
`a facility in order to construct and access an index semantically representing
`target documents. Id. at 5:31–34. As represented in steps 301–304, the
`facility: converts each sentence of each target document into a number of
`tokens representing an expanded logical form portraying the relationship
`between the important words in the sentence (including hypernyms having
`similar meanings); and stores the semantic tokens in an index along with a
`location in the target documents where the sentence occurs. Id. at 5:34–41,
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00755
`Patent 6,366,908 B1
`
`
`5:56–59. After all of the target documents have been indexed
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
