International Business Machines Corp.
`v.
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC
`U.S. Patent No. 6,510,434
`IPR2015-01481 – September 14, 2016 Oral Argument
`
`1
`
`IBM v. IV, IPR2015-01481
`
`
`v.
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC
`U.S. Patent No. 6,510,434
`IPR2015-01481 – September 14, 2016 Oral Argument
`
`1
`
`IBM v. IV, IPR2015-01481
`
`
`
`Issues for Argument
`
` Ground 1: Wical
` § 103: claims 1-3, 5, 6 over Wical in view of Lassila
`
` Ground 2: Morita
` § 103: claims 1-3, 5, 6 over Morita in view of Lassila
`
`
`
`Inst. Dec. (Paper 12 at 18-25)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Obviousness Based on Wical
`
`3
`
`
`
`Wical – Concept Knowledge Base Search and Retrieval System
`
`4
`
`
`
`Pet. (Paper 2 at 9-10).
`
`
`
`Wical – Concept Knowledge Base Search and Retrieval System
`
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at 6:7-11), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at 9-10, 28-29).
`
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at 11:14-17), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at 9-10, 28-29).
`
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at Fig. 8C), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at 23, 28).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Wical – Concept Knowledge Base Search and Retrieval System
`
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at 11:36-45), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at passim).
`
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at Fig. 4), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at passim).
`
`6
`
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at 11:56-65), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at passim).
`
`
`
`IV disputes four discrete issues regarding Wical
`1) Wical discloses “creating the index…creating a first metafile”
`as recited in claim 1
`2) Wical discloses “a first metafile that corresponds to a first
`domain tag” as recited in claim 1
`3) Wical discloses “selecting a first set of domain tags . . . related to the
`first domain tag” as recited in claim 3
`4) Wical discloses “creating a hierarchy” between tags as recited
`in claims 5 and 6
`
`
`
`POR (Paper 17 at 9-24).
`
` IV does not challenge IBM’s assertion that it would have been obvious to
`implement Wical’s teachings using XML as taught by Lassila.
` IV has thus waived any argument regarding the combinability of Lassila with
`Wical.
`
`
`
`POR (Paper 17 at 9-24); Scheduling Order (Paper 13 at 4).
`
`7
`
`
`
`1) Wical discloses “creating the index…creating a first
`metafile” (claim 1)
` Wical’s knowledge base (i.e., index) and directed graph (i.e.,
`metafile) are not the same thing.
`
`
`
`Reply (Paper 24 at 3); see also Wical (Ex. 1006 at 11:36-45, 11:56-65), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at passim).
`
`
`
`Reply (Paper 24 at 3); see also Wical (Ex. 1006 at 11:36-45, 11:56-65), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at passim).
`
`8
`
`
`
`1) Wical discloses “creating the index…creating a first
`metafile” (claim 1)
`
`
`
`Reply (Paper 24 at 2-3); see also Wical (Ex. 1006 at 11:36-45, 11:56-65), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at passim).
`
`9
`
`
`
`1) Wical discloses “creating the index…creating a first
`metafile” (claim 1)
`
`
`
`Reply (Paper 24 at 3).
`
`
`
`Papakonstantinou Dep. (Ex. 2012 at 80:6-17); see also Papakonstantinou Dep. (Ex. 2012 at 81:9-16).
`
`10
`
`
`
`1) Wical discloses “creating the index…creating a first
`metafile” (claim 1)
` IV’s implicit claim construction argument is incorrect.
` Nothing in the language of claim 1 suggests complete separation
`between the index and metafile.
` Instead, the specification of the ’434 patent explains that the claimed
`invention is directed to a method for locating information in a
`database using an index that includes tags and metafiles.
`
`
`
`Reply (Paper 24 at 4).
`
`
`
`’434 patent (Ex. 1004 at 4:10-13).
`
`11
`
`
`
`’434 patent (Ex. 1004 at 7:18-20); see also ’434 patent (Ex. 1004 at 8:65-67).
`
`
`
`2) Wical discloses “a first metafile that corresponds to
`a first domain tag” (claim 1)
` In Wical, the directed graph (i.e., metafile) for a particular
`category describes its relationships with other categories.
` For example, the lines and arrows in Fig. 4 below show how the high
`level category (i.e., domain tag) “Leisure and Recreation” is related to
`different categories (i.e., tags), such as “Places of Interest,” etc.
`
`12
`
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at 6:7-22, 11:14-45, 11:56-65, Fig. 4), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at 29-30).
`
`
`
`2) Wical discloses “a first metafile that corresponds to
`a first domain tag” (claim 1)
` IV’s implicit claim construction argument is incorrect.
` Nothing in the language of claim 1 (or elsewhere in the intrinsic
`record) limits the number of domain tags to which the claimed
`metafile could correspond.
` The Board has already rejected IV’s impermissibly narrow reading of
`claim 1
`
`13
`
`
`
`Inst. Dec. (Paper 12 at 20, 23); Reply (Paper 24 at 4-6).
`
`
`
`3) Wical discloses “selecting a first set of domain tags
`. . . related to the first domain tag” (claim 3)
` In Wical, the directed graph (i.e., metafile) for a particular
`category describes its relationships with other categories, which
`are selected manually by linguists, and by extracting information
`from documents in the database.
` For example, Fig. 4 below shows how the high level categories (i.e.,
`domain tags) “Leisure and Recreation” and “Geography” are related.
`
`14
`
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at 4:39-44, 6:8-20, 11: 14-45, Fig. 4), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at 33-34).
`
`
`
`3) Wical discloses “selecting a first set of domain tags
`. . . related to the first domain tag” (claim 3)
` Wical’s arrangement of categories into “independent” ontologies
`does not preclude a relationship between high level categories
` Wical’s knowledge base begins with independent ontologies (e.g., taken from
`a knowledge catalog), and is then augmented to include linking and cross
`referencing among categories.
` For example, Wical expressly states that the category “France” (belonging to
`the Geography ontology) is “cross referenced and/or linked” to categories in
`the “Leisure and Recreation” ontology.
`
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at , 11:36-45, Fig. 4) and Jagadish Responsive Decl. (Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 5-7), cited in Reply (Paper 24 at 7-8).
`
`15
`
`
`
`3) Wical discloses “selecting a first set of domain tags
`. . . related to the first domain tag” (claim 3)
` Wical expressly discloses travelling up the classification hierarchy when
`identifying related categories relevant to a user’s search.
`
` Identifying relationships with categories higher up in a classification hierarchy allows
`Wical’s system to locate documents that may have only been classified for the more
`general category.
` A PHOSITA would have understood that Wical discloses relationships at all levels of
`the directed graph, including relationships between high level categories.
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at 14:1-36, Fig. 6) and Jagadish Responsive Decl. (Ex. 1022 at ¶ 7), cited in Reply (Paper 24 at 7-8).
`
`16
`
`
`
`3) Wical discloses “selecting a first set of domain tags
`. . . related to the first domain tag” (claim 3)
` A relationship between two high level categories does not create
`inefficiencies as stated by IV.
` Wical expressly discloses a directed graph containing loops.
`
` A PHOSITA would have understood how to account for such loops
`when implementing Wical’s system at the time of the alleged
`invention claimed in the ’434 patent.
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at 11:39-41, Fig. 4) and Jagadish Responsive Decl. (Ex. 1022 at ¶ 8-9), cited in Reply (Paper 24 at 8-10).
`
`17
`
`
`
`3) Wical discloses “selecting a first set of domain tags
`. . . related to the first domain tag” (claim 3)
` Dr. Jagadish has consistently maintained that Wical discloses that
`the high level categories “Geography” and “Leisure and
`Recreation” in Fig. 4 are related.
`
`
`
`Jagadish Responsive Decl. (Ex. 1022 at ¶ 11), cited in Reply (Paper 24 at 10-11).
`
` Although a PHOSITA could choose to implement an algorithm to
`traverse the directed graph to limit relationships between
`categories, such implementation choices do not alter the basic
`architecture disclosed by Wical, which includes relationships
`between high level categories.
`
`
`
`Jagadish Responsive Decl. (Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 11-12), cited in Reply (Paper 24 at 10-11).
`
`18
`
`
`
`3) Wical discloses “selecting a first set of domain tags
`. . . related to the first domain tag” (claim 3)
` IV’s implicit claim construction argument is incorrect.
` Claim 3 does not require any particular degree or strength of
`relationship between tags. Claim 3 only requires that some
`relationship exist between tags.
` Even IV’s expert agrees.
`Papakonstantinou Dep. (Ex. 2012 at 101:15-102:11), cited in Reply (paper 24 at 12); see also Reply (Paper 24 at 11-12).
`
`
`
` Wical’s system tracks both relationships between categories and
`the strength of those relationships.
` Wical explains that a variety of variables may be used to determine
`the strength of the relationship between two categories, including the
`distance weight between them, association markers, etc.
` But Wical never discloses or even suggests that categories that
`share a weak relationship are unrelated.
`
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at 12:18-62, 13:45-14:55) and Jagadish Responsive Decl. (Ex. 1022 at ¶ 10), cited in Reply (Paper 24 at 11-12).
`
`19
`
`
`
`4) Wical discloses “creating a hierarchy” between tags
`(claims 5 and 6)
` It is undisputed that Wical discloses creating a hierarchy between
`categories.
` For example, Fig. 4 below shows a hierarchy between the categories
`“Leisure and Recreation,” “Tourism,” “Places of Interest,” etc.
`
`20
`
` Wical (Ex. 1006 at 6:8-20, 11:14-45, 11:56-65, Fig. 4), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at 35-36).
`
`
`
`4) Wical discloses “creating a hierarchy” between tags
`(claims 5 and 6)
` The phrase “creating a hierarchy” should be given its plain,
`ordinary meaning.
` The intrinsic evidence relied on by IV does not establish that the
`inventors re-defined the term “hierarchy” to only cover a priority
`hierarchy.
` While a priority based hierarchy may be within the scope of the
`claimed invention, the record does not support limiting the claims to
`only covering a priority based hierarchy.
` For example, the ’434 patent states “[t]he metafile can also establish a
`hierarchy by prioritizing” the tags of the metafile, but the
`specification also states that “other tags and hierarchies can be
`included in the metafile.”
`
`
`
`’434 patent (Ex. 1004 at 8:55-57, 9:57-58); Reply (Paper 24 at 13-15).
`
`21
`
`
`
`4) Wical discloses “creating a hierarchy” between tags
`(claims 5 and 6)
` IV’s attempted claim differentiation argument to save claim 5 is
`unavailing.
` IBM proposed that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`“domain” is a “grouping of categories.”
` Contrary to IV’s position, this construction of domain does not require
`a hierarchy, implicitly or otherwise.
`
`
`
`Pet. (Paper 2 at 5); see also Reply (Paper 24 at 15-16).
` A domain could be a grouping of categories that are not arranged
`in any hierarchy at all but instead are all at the same level.
` For example, in Wical, the domain “Geography” could be a grouping
`of all the same categories as described in Fig. 4 (e.g., “Political
`Geography,” “Europe,” etc.) but those categories need not be arranged
`hierarchically to satisfy claim 3 (from which claim 5 depends).
`Reply (Paper 24 at 13-15).
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Obviousness Based on Morita
`
`23
`
`
`
`Morita – Document Retrieval System
`
`24
`
`
`
`Pet. (Paper 2 at 37-38).
`
`
`
`Morita – Document Retrieval System
`
` Morita (Ex. 1007 at 3:36-60), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at passim).
`
` Morita (Ex. 1007 at Fig. 5), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at passim).
`
`25
`
`
`
`IV disputes three discrete issues regarding Morita
`1) Morita discloses “a first metafile that corresponds to a first
`domain tag” as recited in claim 1
`2) Morita discloses “selecting a first set of domain tags . . . related
`to the first domain tag” as recited in claim 3
`3) Morita discloses “creating a hierarchy” between tags as recited in
`claims 5 and 6
` IV’s arguments regarding Morita’s deficiencies are virtually
`identical to its arguments regarding Wical.
`
`POR (Paper 17 at 25-36).
` IV does not challenge IBM’s assertion that it would have been obvious to
`implement Morita’s teachings using XML as taught by Lassila.
` IV has thus waived any argument regarding the combinability of Lassila with
`Morita.
`
`
`
`
`
`POR (Paper 17 at 25-36); Scheduling Order (Paper 13 at 4).
`
`26
`
`
`
`1) Morita discloses “a first metafile that corresponds to
`a first domain tag” (claim 1)
` IV’s argument regarding Morita is identical to IV’s argument
`regarding whether or not Wical discloses “a first metafile that
`corresponds to a first domain tag.”
`Compare POR (Paper 17 at 25-27) with POR (Paper 17 at 12-14).
`
`
`
` As explained earlier, the Board has already rejected IV’s incorrect
`reading of claim 1 that limits the number of domain tags to which
`the claimed metafile could correspond.
`
`
`
`Inst. Dec. (Paper 12 at 20, 23); Reply (Paper 24 at 4-6, 17).
`
`27
`
`
`
`1) Morita discloses “a first metafile that corresponds to
`a first domain tag” (claim 1)
` Morita discloses keyword connection tables (i.e., metafiles),
`which correspond to keywords that are domain tags.
`
`28
`
`
`
`Pet. (Paper 2 at 48, 53); see also Reply (Paper 24 at 16-18).
`
`
`
`2) Morita discloses “selecting a first set of domain tags
`. . . related to the first domain tag” (claim 3)
` Morita discloses creating keyword connection tables, which store
`keywords (i.e., tags) and information about relationships between
`keywords.
` For example, in Fig. 5, Morita shows a keyword connection table with
`relationship entries for the domain tag KWM-1 (“ENTERPRISE”).
` All relationships for this domain tag are entered into the keyword
`connection table, including its relationships with other domain tags.
`
` Morita (Ex. 1007 at 3:36-4:3, 14:23-55), cited in Pet. (Paper 2 at 56); see also Jagadish Responsive Decl. (Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 13-14),
`cited in Reply (Paper 24 at 18-19).
`
`29
`
`
`
`2) Morita discloses “selecting a first set of domain tags
`. . . related to the first domain tag” (claim 3)
` Morita discloses that all relationships for a given keyword are
`recorded in the keyword connection table, including keywords that
`are domain tags.
`
` Contrary to IV’s position, Morita does not disclose, nor does it
`suggest, that the “ENTERPRISE” keyword cannot be related to
`another keyword that is itself a grouping of keywords (i.e., a domain
`tag).
`
` Even though Morita’s figures only show one example of a domain
`tag, a PHOSITA would have understood that other domain tags
`related to the “ENTERPRISE” domain would be added to the
`keyword connection table.
`
`
`
`Jagadish Responsive Decl. (Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 13-14), cited in Reply (Paper 24 at 18-19).
`
`30
`
`
`
`3) Morita discloses “creating a hierarchy” between tags
`(claims 5 and 6)
` For claims 5 and 6, again IV’s argument regarding Morita is
`identical to IV’s argument regarding whether or not Wical
`discloses “creating a hierarchy” between tags.
`Compare POR (Paper 17 at 30-36) with POR (Paper 17 at 19-24).
`
`
`
` As explained earlier:
` the phrase “creating a hierarchy” should be given its plain, ordinary
`meaning; and
` the board should reject IV’s attempted claim differentiation argument
`to save claim 5
`
`
`
`Reply (Paper 24 at 13-16).
`
`31
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
