UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________________________
`
`Case Number: IPR2015-01481
`
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`______________________________
`
`Declaration of Dr. Yannis Papakonstantinou
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, Cover
`
`
`________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________________________
`
`Case Number: IPR2015-01481
`
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`______________________________
`
`Declaration of Dr. Yannis Papakonstantinou
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, Cover
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Qualifications ............................................................................................. 2
`
`III. My Understanding of the Obviousness Standard in Determining
`Patentability .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. Basis of Opinion ......................................................................................... 7
`
`V. Overview of the ‘434 Patent ...................................................................... 8
`
`VI. Wical in view of Lassila ............................................................................ 10
`
`VII. Morita in view of Lassila .......................................................................... 13
`
`VIII. Perjury Statement ................................................................................ 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. ii
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Yannis Papakonstantinou, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`stated in this declaration and could testify competently to them if asked to do so.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures
`
`I LLC (IV), to provide this declaration in connection with the inter partes review
`
`(IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,510,434 (“the ’434 patent”) assigned Case Number
`
`IPR2015-01481. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinion relating to
`
`an inquiry into the patentability of claims 1-3, 5 and 6 from the ’434 patent relative
`
`to Wical,1 Morita,2 and Lassila.3
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent on this matter by
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, including independent study, document review,
`
`analysis, and writing, at my standard hourly consulting rates. My compensation is
`
`not dependent upon my testimony or the outcome of this or any other proceeding. I
`
`have no financial interest in Intellectual Ventures I LLC.
`
`
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,038,560 to Wical (“Wical” or “Exhibit 1006”).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,168,565 to Morita (“Morita” or “Exhibit 1007”).
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` Ora Lassila, Web Metadata: A Matter of Semantics, IEEE Internet Computing,
`Vol. 2, Issue 4 (“Lassila” or “Exhibit 1008”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 1
`
`
`
`II. Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`I am an expert in the field of database systems including information
`
`retrieval and databases that utilize Extensible Markup Language (XML). I have
`
`decades of experience in the field of database systems that began in the early
`
`1990’s and continues to the present day. In particular I have written a substantial
`
`number of papers as well as given numerous conference talks related to querying
`
`and searching for information in XML databases. I have given counsel for Patent
`
`Owner a true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae (CV) which I understand
`
`will be submitted as an exhibit in this proceeding. A summary of some of my
`
`qualifications is presented below.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Diploma of Electrical and Computer Engineering from
`
`the National Technical University of Athens in Athens, Greece in 1990. In 1994, I
`
`received a M.S. in Computer Science from Stanford University, and in 1997, I
`
`received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Stanford University. The title of my
`
`thesis was “Query Processing in Heterogeneous Information Systems.”
`
`6.
`
`I am currently a Full Professor of Computer Science and Engineering
`
`at University of California, San Diego (UCSD). I have been a professor of
`
`Computer Science and Engineering at UCSD since 1996. Courses I have taught
`
`while a professor at UCSD relevant to this IPR proceeding include “Database
`
`Application Programming” and “Database Systems: Advanced Topics and
`
`
`
`2
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 2
`
`
`
`Implementation” both of which I designed and introduced into the UCSD
`
`curriculum in 1998.
`
`7.
`
`In addition to my tenure as a professor at UCSD I have provided
`
`technical consulting services to companies such as BEA Corp., Skyler Technology
`
`and Ferring Pharmaceuticals in relation to intellectual property matters, data
`
`integration and data processing. In addition, as indicated in my CV, I have
`
`provided consulting services in connection with many intellectual property
`
`disputes. I have testified in court, provided declarations or expert reports and been
`
`deposed in connection with various patent related legal proceedings in which I was
`
`involved as an expert. In one of these disputes I was retained on behalf of IV in
`
`connection with IPR2014-01385 filed by IBM on U.S. Patent No. 7,984,081.
`
`None of these matters are related to the present proceeding as far as I am aware.
`
`8. My research spans database and Internet-related technologies. I have
`
`published over eighty-five research articles in scientific conferences and journals,
`
`given tutorials at major conferences, and served on journal editorial boards and
`
`program committees for numerous international conferences and symposiums. I
`
`was the co-Chair of WebDB 2002, the General Chair of ACM SIGMOD 2003, the
`
`co-Chair of XIME-P 2004 and the Vice PC Chair for the “XML, Metadata and
`
`Semistructured Data” track of IEEE ICDE 2004. I have also received an invitation
`
`to be a Program Chair of IEEE ICDE 2017. In 1998, I received the NSF CAREER
`
`
`
`3
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 3
`
`
`
`award for my work on integrating heterogeneous data.
`
`9.
`
`In 2000, I founded Enosys Software, which built one of the first two
`
`generally available distributed XML/XQuery processor for information integration
`
`(EII), was subsequently acquired by BEA in 2003, and its product was sold under
`
`the BEA Liquid Data brand name.
`
`10.
`
`I have published the following articles in the fields of information
`
`retrieval and XML-related databases that span from before the filing date of the
`
`‘434 patent and continue to the present. A full list appears in my CV but my
`
`publications include the following: L. Gravano and Y. Papakonstantinou.
`
`“Mediating and Metasearching on the Internet”; In IEEE Data Engineering
`
`Bulletin, 21(2), pp. 28-36, 1998; Y. Papakonstantinou and V. Vassalos
`
`“Architecture and Implementation of an XQuery-based Information Integration
`
`Platform” In IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 25(1), pp. 18-26, March 2002; V.
`
`Hristidis, Y. Papakonstantinou “DISCOVER: Keyword Search in Relational
`
`Databases”; in VLDB 2002: 670-681; Y. Papakonstantinou et.al., “XML Views,
`
`Queries and Algebra in the Enosys Integration Platform”; Data and Knowledge
`
`Engineering Journal, 44(3): 299-322 (2003); V. Hristidis, L. Gravano, Y.
`
`Papakonstantinou “Efficient IR-Style Keyword Search over Relational Databases”;
`
`in VLDB 2003: 850-861; A. Balmin, Y. Papakonstantinou, “Storing and Querying
`
`XML Data Using Denormalized Relational Databases”; in VLDB Journal 14(1):
`
`
`
`4
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 4
`
`
`
`30-49 (2005); Yu Xu, Yannis Papakonstantinou “Efficient LCA-based keyword
`
`search in XML data”; in EDBT Conf 2008: 535-546; V. Hristidis, N. Koudas, Y.
`
`Papakonstantinou, D. Srivastava, “Keyword Proximity Search in XML Trees”;
`
`IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 18(4): 525-539 (2006).
`
`11.
`
`I have been actively involved as a member in conference program
`
`committees, a member of technical working groups, and an editor of technical
`
`journals related to databases and information retrieval from before the filing date
`
`of the ‘434 patent and continue to the present. A full list appears in my CV but my
`
`memberships include the following: multiple times Program Committee member of
`
`the ACM SIGMOD and VLDB conferences; Associate Editor of IEEE
`
`Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2008). Member of the W3C
`
`XML Query working group, 2000-2002; Vice Program Chair of IEEE Data
`
`Engineering Conf. (ICDE), 2006, in charge of “Semi-structured data, metadata,
`
`and XML”.
`
`12.
`
`I have been involved in research regarding information integration,
`
`XML, query processing and retrieval projects that have combined received over
`
`$10,000,000 in grant money from the National Science Foundation and others,
`
`most of which research I was the primary investigator of.
`
`13.
`
`I believe my education, research, conference presence, teaching and
`
`other work experiences adequately well qualify me to testify as to what the
`
`
`
`5
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 5
`
`
`
`understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art would have been at the time the
`
`‘434 patent was filed on Dec. 29, 1999.
`
`III. My Understanding of the Obviousness Standard in Determining
`
`Patentability
`
`14.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is not patentable if the claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the application was filed. This means that even if all of the requirements of
`
`the claim cannot be found in a single prior art reference so as to anticipate the
`
`claim, the claim might still be not patentable if the claimed invention would have
`
`been obvious.
`
`15. To obtain a patent, a claimed invention must have been nonobvious in
`
`view of the prior art in the field. I understand that an invention is obvious when the
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that to prove that a prior art reference or a combination
`
`of prior art references renders a patent obvious, it is necessary to: (1) identify the
`
`particular references that either alone, or in combination, render the patent obvious;
`
`(2) specifically identify which elements of the patent claim appear in each of the
`
`asserted references; and (3) explain how the prior art references could have been
`
`
`
`6
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 6
`
`
`
`combined in order to create the inventions claimed in the particular claim at issue.
`
`IV. Basis of Opinion
`
`17.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I have
`
`considered and relied upon my education, background, and experience. I reviewed
`
`the Petition filed by Petitioner along with relevant exhibits to the Petition. A list of
`
`reviewed materials that is most relevant to my opinion is presented below. I
`
`understand these documents have been or will be submitted as exhibits in this IPR
`
`proceeding with the following exhibit numbers:
`
`Exhibit/Paper
`Number
`
`Document Description
`
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Declaration of Dr. H.V. Jagadish
`U.S. Patent No. 6,510,434
`U.S. Patent No. 6,038,560 to Wical
`U.S. Patent No. 5,168,565 to Morita
`Ora Lassila, Web Metadata: A Matter of Semantics, IEEE
`Internet Computing, Vol. 2, Issue 4
`The ‘434 Patent File History - Notice of Allowance
`
`
`
`18.
`
`In addition, I understand the time of the invention for claims 1-3, 5
`
`and 6 of the ‘434 Patent is the filing date, December 29, 1999.
`
`19.
`
`I have been instructed by Patent Owner’s counsel that for the purposes
`
`of this declaration, I should use the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention as set forth in Dr. Jagadish’s declaration. Ex. 1001,
`
`Jagadish Decl. at ¶¶ 37-40.
`
`
`
`7
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 7
`
`
`
`20. As such, unless otherwise stated, all the opinions I provide in this
`
`declaration are based on the knowledge of “a person with a Bachelor of Science
`
`degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or other similar degree and
`
`one (1) year of work experience related to the field of the ’434 Patent” as of
`
`December 29, 1999.
`
`V. Overview of the ‘434 Patent
`
`21. The ‘434 Patent describes a primary goal is “to locate the requested
`
`information as quickly as possible” and it identifies a variety of problems suffered
`
`in prior art that impede this goal. Id. at 1:39-2:24. Problems in the prior art at the
`
`time of the invention to be solved include “eliminate ambiguity in the search
`
`request, focus the search on the most relevant information, perform the search in
`
`the most efficient manner and support searching multiple databases.” Id. at 2:25-
`
`33.
`
`22. The ‘434 solves the problems that existed in the prior art by “using an
`
`index that includes tags and metafiles to locate the desired information.” Id. at
`
`2:36-39; 4:11-14. Because the index “includes” tags and metafiles one of skill in
`
`the art understands that tags and metafiles are distinct components different from
`
`the index itself. Id. at 7:19-20.
`
`23. An exemplary index of the ‘434 patent includes three different types
`
`of groupings: domains, categories and terms. Id. at 4:17-33. The index may be
`
`
`
`8
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 8
`
`
`
`created so that an extensible markup language (XML) tag “is associated with each
`
`domain (a domain tag) and with each term associated with a category (a category
`
`tag).” Id. at 4:34-39.
`
`24. As stated in the ‘434 patent a “tag is generally associated with data or
`
`text and conveys information about the data or text.” Id. at 7:20-22. In the context
`
`for the ‘434 patent the tags are associated with domains, categories, terms and
`
`hierarchies. Id. at 4:34-43 and 7:32-33.
`
`25. Category tags are generally used to describe information that is
`
`common to many domains, such as business hours and type of payment accepted.
`
`Id. at 7:40-43. Conversely domain tags are used to describe information that is not
`
`generally considered related. For example, domain tags can be associated with
`
`different lines of business such as Restaurant and Automobile. Id. at 7:57-60.
`
`26. The ‘434 patent also describes a hierarchy among the list of related
`
`tags in a metafile, which can be established by a hierarchy tag. Id. at 4:42-43 and
`
`8:1-12. I understand Dr. Jagadish’s opinion is that the hierarchy discussed in the
`
`‘434 patent would encompass a data graph where nodes are included under other
`
`nodes, such as Dr. Jagadish’s example provided of the YAHOO! Search engine or
`
`through “IS-A” or “IS-PART-OF” relationships. See e.g., Ex. 1001 at ¶26, ¶115,
`
`¶146, ¶246. However, it is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`understands hierarchy as used in the ‘434 patent does not refer to a hierarchy
`
`
`
`9
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 9
`
`
`
`between nodes and sub-nodes of a data graph but rather it uses the term hierarchy
`
`to exclusively refer to a hierarchy of priority between tags in a metafile. This is
`
`understood based on the ‘434 patent’s repeated and consistent usage of the term
`
`“hierarchy” as establishing the order of priority among the related tags in a
`
`metafile to search for the most relevant information and never referring to a
`
`hierarchy established by having domains being groups of categories. Id. at 2:31-33,
`
`4:42, 8:55-57, 9:42-47, 9:54-56, 11:64-12:8, 8:1-7, 8:55-57, 9:43-47.
`
`27. Claims 5 and 6 of the ‘434 patent require a “creating a hierarchy
`
`between the tags” in the metafile. In light of the teachings of the ‘434 patent
`
`discussed above and the claim language, the only reasonable understanding of a
`
`“creating a hierarchy between the tags” in the metafile as recited in claims 5 and 6
`
`of the ‘434 patent to one of skill in the art would be establishing a priority between
`
`the tags in the metafile.
`
`VI. Wical in view of Lassila
`
`28.
`
`I understand the Petitioner has asserted that Wical's “knowledge base”
`
`discloses the index recited in claim 1 while Wical’s “directed graph” discloses the
`
`metafile recited in claim 1 of the '434 patent.
`
`29. A directed graph is a term of art that refers to a graph consisting a set
`
`of nodes that are connected together by lines called edges. A graph is directed
`
`when the edges have a particular direction from one node to another node. Thus, a
`
`
`
`10
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 10
`
`
`
`directed graph merely refers to a way one can structure the relationships between a
`
`set of data objects.
`
`30. Wical uses the term “directed graph” as a short-hand way to
`
`characterize to those of skill in the art how the categories of the knowledge base
`
`are related. Ex. 1006 at 11:56-57. To one of skill in the art reading Wical, the
`
`directed graph is the knowledge base, which is reflected in Wical’s interchangeable
`
`usage of the two terms. Id. at 11: 17-20, 11:59-65, 12:58-61. As such, the directed
`
`graph is not a stand-alone data structure that can be created separately from the
`
`knowledge base.
`
`31.
`
`I understand the Petition also alleges that the top level categories, such
`
`as the categories of “Leisure and Recreation” and “Geography” shown in Figure 4
`
`of Wical represent domain tags and that these categories may be related. My
`
`opinion is that one of skill in the art would not consider “Leisure and Recreation”
`
`and “Geography” to be related because those two categories are, at a minimum,
`
`described as "independent static ontologies" by Wical. Id. at 11:24-28. One of
`
`skill in the art would not consider the top level categories of independent
`
`ontologies to be related since that would in effect eliminate the independence of
`
`those ontologies.
`
`32.
`
`In addition, there is neither a direct relationship shown between
`
`“Leisure and Recreation” and “Geography” in Figure 4 nor a discussion in Wical
`
`
`
`11
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 11
`
`
`
`that the two categories are indirectly related. Any semantic, linguistic or usage
`
`connection between the high level categories of “Leisure and Recreation” and
`
`“Geography” is too remote for the two to be considered related by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`33. Furthermore, in light of teaching of Wical, it is my opinion that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable basis to create a relationship
`
`between two top level categories in Wical in separate ontologies. The purpose of
`
`establishing ontologies in a system like Wical’s is to create linguistic and semantic
`
`separation between certain groups of categories so that the categories can be
`
`organized in a logical fashion. If a relationship were made between top level
`
`categories of different ontologies it would greatly diminish this purposeful
`
`separation and undercut the benefit of relying on relationship information to
`
`identify additional categories in Wical.
`
`34. Finally, if there was a direct connection between two top level
`
`categories of Wical it would create a loop in Wical’s directed graph so that the
`
`same categories may be traversed multiple times in response to a search request
`
`creating inefficiencies and possibly preventing the identification of other relevant
`
`categories outside the loop.
`
`35.
`
`I understand the Petition has relied on the relationship of categories to
`
`subcategories, as illustrated in Figure 4 of Wical, to disclose the claimed hierarchy
`
`
`
`12
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 12
`
`
`
`between the tags in the metafile. Yet, as discussed above, the ‘434 Patent does not
`
`use the term hierarchy to describe domains being above categories, but rather to
`
`describe a priority of tags in a metafile to assist further searching. Ex. 1004 at 2:31-
`
`33, 4:42, 8:55-57, 9:42-47, 9:54-56, 11:64-12:8, 8:1-7, 8:55-57, 9:43-47.
`
`36. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand Figure 4 or any
`
`other disclosure in Wical to teach a hierarchical priority of tags in a metafile.
`
`While Figure 4 indicates “distance weights” between categories, Wical uses these
`
`distance weights to calculate which categories exceed a predetermined distance
`
`threshold to determine expanded query terms. Ex. 1004 at 14:1-29. However, the
`
`priority of related categories is a different concept than semantic distance between
`
`categories. For example, if a user searches for “car” one might want to prioritize
`
`the additional category of “insurance” over “truck” despite a lesser semantic
`
`distance of “car” and “truck” than “car” and “insurance.”
`
`37. Lastly, there is also no teaching in Lassila alone or in combination
`
`with Wical that would lead one of skill in the art to consider the top level
`
`categories in Wical to be related. There is also no teaching in Lassila alone or in
`
`combination with Wical to establish a priority among tags in a metafile.
`
`VII. Morita in view of Lassila
`
`38.
`
`I understand the Petitioner has asserted that Morita’s “inverted file”
`
`discloses the index recited in claim 1 while Morita’s “keyword connection table”
`
`
`
`13
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 13
`
`
`
`discloses the metafile recited in claim 1 of the '434 patent.
`
`39. An inverted file is a term of art that refers to a file that maps text to
`
`the documents that the text is located in. Thus, in Morita, the inverted file would
`
`contain the keywords and the documents those keywords are located in. Ex. 1007
`
`at 5:20-24. The inverted file is generated by inverted file generator 40 and the
`
`inverted file is stored as file 41. Id.
`
`40. Morita’s keyword connection
`
`table
`
`is a diagonal
`
`table with
`
`relationship information between keywords in the table. Id at 2:1-5 and 4:49-5:4.
`
`The keyword connection table is updated with new keywords and relationships as
`
`new documents are registered with the system. Id. The keyword connection table
`
`is generated by keyword connection table processor 30 and the keyword
`
`connection table is stored in file 31. Id. at 4:49-56. With regards to the “IS-A”
`
`and “IS-PART-OF” connections, Morita’s keyword connection table can be
`
`depicted as a directed graph, much like Wical’s Figure 4.
`
`41.
`
`I understand the Petition alleges a keyword, such as the keyword
`
`“ENTERPRISE” shown in Figure 5 of Morita corresponds to a domain because of
`
`the “IS-A” relationship between it and other keywords. Figure 5 does not show
`
`any other keywords at the end of an “IS-A” or “IS-PART-OF” relationship. Id. at
`
`Fig. 5. Assuming a keyword connection table did contain more than one keyword
`
`at the end of an “IS-A” or “IS-PART-OF” relationship, one of skill in the art would
`
`
`
`14
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 14
`
`
`
`not reasonably conclude that those two keywords should be related based on
`
`Morita’s teachings that its “graph is normally not a complete graph” where all
`
`keywords are related, as shown in Figure 9. Id. at 7:14-42.
`
`42.
`
`I understand the Petition has relied on the “IS-A” or “IS-PART-OF”
`
`relationship of keywords to disclose the claimed hierarchy between the tags in the
`
`metafile in Morita. Yet, as discussed above, the ‘434 Patent does not use the term
`
`hierarchy to describe domains being above categories, but rather to describe a
`
`priority of tags in a metafile to assist further searching. Ex. 1004 at 2:31-33, 4:42,
`
`8:55-57, 9:42-47, 9:54-56, 11:64-12:8, 8:1-7, 8:55-57, 9:43-47.
`
`43. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand Figure 5 or any
`
`other disclosure in Morita to teach a priority of tags in a metafile. While Figures 5-
`
`8 indicates “relationship values” between keywords, Morita uses these values to
`
`determine the “amplitude of the relation” and to determine which keywords exceed
`
`a certain threshold and are thus considered relevant to the search request. Ex. 1007
`
`at 13:23-26 and 15:7-10. However, the priority of related categories is a different
`
`concept than amplitude of relation between keywords. For example, if a user
`
`searches for “car” one might want to prioritize the additional keyword of
`
`“insurance” over “truck” despite a lesser amplitude of relationship between “car”
`
`and “truck” than between “car” and “insurance.”
`
`44. Lastly, there is also no teaching in Lassila alone or in combination
`
`
`
`15
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 15
`
`
`
`with Morita that would lead one of skill in the art to consider different keywords at
`
`the end of an “IS-A” or “IS-PART-OF” relationship in Morita to be related. There
`
`is also no teaching in Lassila alone or in combination with Morita to establish a
`
`priority among tags in a metafile.
`
`
`
`VIII. Perjury Statement
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true, and that
`
`all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that
`
`these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and
`
`the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section
`
`1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`Executed on March 27, 2016 in Paris, France.
`
`
`
`__________________
`Dr. Yannis Papakonstantinou
`
`
`
`16
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 16
`
`
`
`IV I LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`
`IPR2016-00019
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1035, p. 17
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
