trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01481, Paper No. 39
`November 10, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`Technology Center 2100
`Oral Hearing Held: Wednesday, September 14, 2016
`
`BEFORE: MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK; JENNIFER S.
`BISK; and SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`September 14, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 1
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01481, Paper No. 39
`November 10, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`Technology Center 2100
`Oral Hearing Held: Wednesday, September 14, 2016
`
`BEFORE: MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK; JENNIFER S.
`BISK; and SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`September 14, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 1
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KENNETH R. ADAMO, ESQ.
`BRENT P. RAY, ESQ.
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`312-862-2000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 2
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES P. MURPHY, ESQ.
`Polsinelli, P.C.
`1000 Louisiana Street, 53rd Floor
`Houston, Texas 77002
`713-374-1631
`
`HENRY A. PETRI, ESQ.
`Polsinelli, P.C.
`1401 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`202-783-3300
`
`TIM R. SEELEY, ESQ.
`Intellectual Ventures Representative
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` (9:00 a.m.)
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. We are here
`today for a hearing in IPR2015-01481 . Who is here for
`Petitioner?
`MR. ADAMO: Good morning, Your Honor. Ken
`Adamo, lead counsel, joined by my partner, Mr. Brent Ray.
`With the court's permission Mr. Ray will do all of the arguing
`this morning.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay. And for the Patent
`
`Owner?
`
`MR. MURPHY: Good morning, Your Honor.
`James Murphy at Polsinelli P.C., along with Hank Petri, also
`at Polsinelli. And here with us is Tim Seeley from
`Intellectual Ventures.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. Thank you. If
`you could, before leaving, give your business card to the court
`reporter so he has the correct spelling of your name. That
`would be appreciated.
`So each side has 45 minutes today. There are no
`motions to amend or other motions. So the order will be
`Petitioner, Patent Owner, and should Petitioner choose to
`reserve rebuttal time, they may.
`Do you choose to reserve rebuttal time?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`
`MR. ADAMO: I apologize, Your Honor, I didn't
`mean to interrupt you. Are you going to allow Patent Owner
`to have the last word, to reserve rebuttal time?
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: I'm sorry, it is Petitioner,
`not Patent Owner, Petitioner.
`MR. ADAMO: Yes, my apologies. I just wanted
`to make sure that was clear.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: I'm asking if you would
`like to reserve rebuttal time?
`MR. RAY: Yes, Your Honor, we will.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: How much?
`MR. RAY: Approximately 15 minutes.
`MR. ADAMO: And any objections, Your Honor,
`that one party might have to something the other party says
`will be held? In other words, if IV has an objection to
`something we are saying, they will use their time to do it. If
`we have an objection to something they have said, we will be
`required to hold it to our rebuttal time.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: If you make an objection
`during their time, you want that to come out of your time?
`MR. ADAMO: No. Many Panels don't like
`counsel interrupting each other during their presentation,
`which is fine, just as long as I understand what the ground
`rules are.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`
`So if they have an objection to something we have
`said, they are not going to interrupt Mr. Ray. They are going
`to hold it and object --
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: I would rather have you
`make the objection at the time.
`MR. ADAMO: Thank you. That's why I asked.
`Thank you for the clarification, Your Honor. I appreciate it.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Mr. Ray, when you are
`ready you can approach the podium and start.
`MR. RAY: Thank you, Your Honor. Good
`morning and may it please the Panel. This is IBM's
`presentation regarding IPR2015-1481 regarding Patent
`Number 6,510,434. Slide 1 is before you of our presentation.
`Slide 2. There are two grounds for argument at
`today's hearing. Ground 1 is obviousness regarding Wical in
`view of Lassila. Ground 2 is obviousness in view of Morita
`and Lassila. Claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6 are at issue in
`today's hearing.
`Slide 3. We will first cover obviousness based on
`
`Wical.
`
`Slide 4. Wical discloses several key concepts
`relevant to the '434 patent claims. First, Wical discloses a
`search and retrieval system used to locate information in a
`database using an index.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`
`Second, Wical discloses what is called a
`knowledge catalog. A knowledge catalog is a list of
`categories.
`Third, Wical discloses what is called a knowledge
`base. A knowledge base are categories arranged in a
`hierarchical manner.
`Fourth, Wical discloses directed graphs. Directed
`graphs are information about relationships of categories in the
`knowledge base. And particularly the last two terms,
`knowledge base and directed graph, will be relevant to our
`discussion today.
`Slide 5. This slide provides more information
`about the knowledge catalog and the knowledge base. As seen
`from the figure on this slide 8C, this is an arrangement of
`categories in a hierarchical manner. The knowledge catalog is
`the mere list of categories. The knowledge base arranges
`these categories in a hierarchical manner.
`Slide 6. This slide provides more detail about the
`interaction between the knowledge base and the directed
`graph. The knowledge base is augmented with links and
`cross-references among categories. This augmentation may be
`done by a linguist in whichever way he or she wishes to create
`relationships between categories in the knowledge base.
`The resulting augmentation results in a directed
`graph. An example of a directed graph is shown in figure 4 at
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`the top left-hand corner of slide 6 where links and
`cross-references are indicated between categories in the
`knowledge base.
`Slide 7. IV disputes four discrete issues regarding
`Wical. First, IV disputes that Wical discloses creating an
`index and creating a metafile.
`Second, IV disputes that Wical discloses a
`metafile corresponding to a domain tag.
`Third, IV disputes that Wical discloses selecting a
`set of domain tags related to the first domain tag and, last, IV
`disputes that Wical discloses creating a hierarchy between
`tags. IBM will address each one of these disputes in order
`and demonstrate that IV's arguments are without merit.
`Before doing that, however, IV notes that IV does
`not dispute that it would have been obvious to combine Wical
`with Lassila. IV has waived any argument to this effect.
`Slide 8. The crux of IV's argument that in its
`opinion Wical does not have an index and a metafile is the
`argument that the knowledge base and the directed graph in
`Wical are the same thing. In fact, they are not.
`Slide 9. The differences between the knowledge
`base and the directed graph in Wical are evident by the
`comparison of the knowledge base in Wical on the left and an
`example of a directed graph on the right. Certainly there are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`similarities. There are categories in each and relationships
`between categories in each.
`But what makes the directed graph a distinct entity
`is that it is an augmentation of the knowledge base with added
`links and cross-references by a linguist to create a data
`structure that the knowledge base by itself does not provide.
`This difference is further magnified by the fact
`that the directed graph on the right is merely an example of a
`directed graph that can be created by augmenting a knowledge
`base. A linguist can choose to link and cross-reference
`categories based upon that person's objectives in creating
`relationships between categories.
`As a result, more than one directed graph can be
`created based upon an augmentation of a knowledge base.
`Slide 10. IV's own expert agrees that the step of
`augmenting a knowledge base, such as making a
`cross-reference as described in Wical, must necessarily occur
`after the categories are already in place. If the knowledge
`base and the directed graph are the same thing, then this
`makes no sense.
`Slide 11. To the extent that IV is trying to argue
`that an index and a metafile must be completely separate and
`distinct, there is no basis for this assertion in the claim.
`Instead, the claimed index includes metafiles. And this is
`precisely what Wical discloses. The directed graph augments
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`the knowledge base to create relationship information in the
`form of cross-references and links.
`IV will tell you through its expert today that Wical
`does not disclose the metafile because the directed graph is
`"not a stand-alone data structure." But there is no
`requirement in the claim that it need be. Instead, consistent
`with Wical, the metafile of claim 1 is a data structure that is
`included in the index by creating relationships between tags in
`the index. And that's exactly what the directed graph does in
`Wical. It creates relationships between the tag that is
`contained in the knowledge base.
`Slide 12. IV next argues that Wical is deficient
`because a directed graph does not correspond to a domain tag.
`In other words, using figure 4 of Wical as an example, as
`shown on slide 12, that the directed graph shown here does
`not correspond to the domain tag, Leisure and Recreation,
`indicated at the top of figure 4. IV's position is incorrect for
`several reasons.
`First, the directed graph in figure 4 is an example
`of a directed graph. Wical states that a linguist creates
`directed graphs. And the disclosure of Wical describes to one
`of skill in the art that a directed graph may be created by
`augmenting a knowledge base in a way that a linguist sees fit.
`Second, a directed graph does not erase existing
`relationships in a knowledge base -- and this is a critical
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`point -- instead, it augments them to identify additional
`related categories and, as a result, the link of figure 4 between
`leisure and recreation and, for example, places of interest
`does not disappear just because the directed graph has been
`created involving one of those terms and not the other.
`Slide 13. IV's position on this point is also
`incorrect to the extent that IV is arguing for a claim
`interpretation that requires the metafile to correspond only to
`a first domain tag. IV already tried this and the Board
`rejected it in the Institution Decision.
`IV next argues that Wical does not disclose
`selecting a set of domain tags related to the first domain tag.
`In other words, using the directed graph example again in
`figure 4 of Wical, IV argues that geography cannot be related
`to leisure and recreation. IV is wrong.
`Slide 15. First, Wical discloses that just because
`categories exist within independent ontologies in a knowledge
`base, it does not mean that they cannot be related by way of a
`directed graph. Indeed, that's the very point. You have
`different ontologies in a knowledge base. A directed graph,
`which is additional relationship information set forth by a
`linguist, makes connections that otherwise aren't there.
`And in the example of figure 4, Wical states that
`the categories of France is related to the categories in leisure
`and recreation ontology by way of cross-references and/or
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`links. It is a bit small but you can see the lines that have been
`created by way of a linguist that connect France to various
`categories within that ontology.
`Slide 16. Second, Wical discloses traveling up a
`classification hierarchy to identify related categories. The
`example of a directed graph in figure 6 here is instructive.
`Here a user begins a search using the term A. There is a box
`at the very bottom of this figure, query term A.
`That search term corresponds to a node in the
`directed graph which is indicated in yellow highlighting on
`slide 16. Node X highlighted in blue on slide 16 is not
`directly related to node A and it is upstream of node A. Yet
`Wical expressly discloses that a directed graph here describes
`a data structure where node X is included in the expansion of
`the user's search.
`Why? Because the linguist that created this
`example directed graph augmented the knowledge base
`containing these categories to cross-reference and/or link
`node A and node X.
`Slide 17. IV also argues that IBM's reading of
`Wical would create inefficiencies in the form of loops, which
`means that you might go around in a circle on a knowledge
`base or directed graph. The problem with this argument is
`that loops already exist in Wical's example of directed graphs,
`and this is not unusual.
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`
`Sometimes when cross- references or links are
`created, they could result in such a loop. And that's indicated
`by way of the red arrows on slide 17 in view of figure 4. But
`as set forth in the reply declaration of IBM's expert, not only
`were directed graphs well known in the art as of the time of
`the filing of the '434 patent, but also the use of algorithms to
`detect and account for such loops.
`So if you identified redundancies or inefficiencies
`in a directed graph, algorithms were known to help traverse
`those and avoid those and still preserve the linguist's intent to
`cross-reference or link different categories.
`Slide 18. To the extent that IV attempts to argue
`that IBM's expert has somehow changed his mind on this
`topic, he hasn't. The domain tags in Wical are related via the
`directed graph.
`The fact that one of skill in the art could
`affirmatively choose to limit the relatedness between
`categories in a particular directed graph is not determinative
`of whether the directed graph described in Wical will be
`understood by one of skill in the art to include relationships
`between high level categories.
`Slide 19. And to the extent that IV is attempting
`to argue that claim 3 requires a threshold level of relatedness,
`that is also incorrect. Claim 3 only requires that some
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`relationship exist between the domain tags, not a strong
`relationship, not a direct relationship, just a relationship.
`If we want to talk about the degree of relationship,
`that is something completely different in Wical. Wical
`describes that variables may be used to denote the strength of
`a relationship and that a linguist can use the variables to limit
`the scope of a search to only certain terms that are
`sufficiently related to the original search.
`There is ways, essentially, to define the
`boundaries of how far the search will be expanded. Again,
`that's up to the linguist. But Wical does not, however,
`disclose or suggest a category sharing a weak relationship are
`not related. They don't lose their relationship merely because
`the relationship may be weak.
`Slide 20. IV's last dispute is whether Wical
`discloses creating a hierarchy between tags. IV's argument is
`premised once again on reading in a claim limitation that
`doesn't exist. It cannot be disputed that Wical discloses a
`hierarchy of categories.
`For example, in the directed graph in figure 4,
`there is a hierarchy between the highlighted categories.
`Leisure and recreation is above tourism. Tourism is above
`places of interest, and so on.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`
`This is sufficient to meet the claim limitation, i.e.,
`creating hierarchy between tags and the metafile.
`Remember --
`JUDGE McSHANE: Mr. Ray, sorry to interrupt,
`but from a, sort of from a logic point of view, if one were
`to -- if one were to create that hierarchy, right, the one that
`you have got highlighted there, then when you go down and
`you do the linking, then temporally that would occur, could
`occur at a different time, or would occur at a different time, at
`a later time?
`MR. RAY: Yes, the claim does not require that
`the hierarchy be done when the metafile itself is created or the
`index is created. It just requires that you need to create a
`hierarchy within the tags of the metafile.
`And what Wical is disclosing is that somebody
`such as a linguist could look at the knowledge base that is in
`figure 4, removing the links and cross- references, and relate
`categories in ways to suit a particular objective. And in the
`sense that a hierarchy is created with those tags, that is
`sufficient to meet the claim limitation.
`There is no requirement that a mere creation of the
`metafile needs to, in fact, create the hierarchy. And the '434
`patent supports that. The hierarchy can be implicit in the
`knowledge base. It can be the result of additional tags or
`metafiles that create that hierarchy.
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`
`So the point is that IV in disputing this claim
`limitation seems to be taking an overly narrow view of what it
`means to create a hierarchy.
`Does that answer your question, Your Honor?
`JUDGE McSHANE: It does. Thank you.
`MR. RAY: Thank you. So finishing up slide 20,
`remember, the metafile does not create tags. It instead
`identifies relationships between tags. The tags are already
`provided in the index. And the purpose of the metafile is to
`supplement this index by identifying relationships between
`tags that will make the search and retrieval more efficient.
`IV's contention that the directed graph in Wical
`excludes hierarchical relationships is wrong. The hierarchy is
`already created in the knowledge base and that is all that
`claim 5 requires.
`Slide 21. IV argues, though, that this is not
`enough. And instead, according to IV, the creating a
`hierarchy language in claim 5 must cover only a "priority
`hierarchy." IV is wrong for several reasons.
`First, the word priority appears nowhere in claim
`5. It just refers to a hierarchy. So while a priority hierarchy
`may be a type of hierarchy, it need not be the only one
`covered by the claims.
`Second, the '434 specification itself describes that
`hierarchical information in a metafile can be provided by
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`more than just prioritizing tags. Instead, other tags in
`hierarchies can be included in the metafile. So while creation
`of a hierarchy in claim 5 may establish a priority, it need not
`be the only mechanism for doing so.
`So put together then is not the broadest reasonable
`construction of claim 5 to restrict hierarchy to a "priority
`hierarchy."
`Slide 22. IV also cannot rely upon claim
`differentiation to support its narrow reading of claim 5. To
`the extent that IV is arguing that IBM's proposed
`interpretation of domain necessarily includes hierarchies, this
`is wrong. Groups of categories do not need to be arranged in
`a hierarchy. They can be arranged, for example, on the same
`level.
`
`I'm now going to move on to our presentation of
`obviousness based on Morita, starting on slide 23, and now
`moving to slide 24.
`Like Wical and the '434 patent, Morita is a
`document retrieval system that uses an index to locate
`information. Several disclosures in Morita are critical to the
`'434 patent.
`First, Morita discloses a database containing
`documents with keywords or tags. Second, Morita discloses a
`list of these keywords into an index called an "inverted file."
`And, third, Morita discloses something known as a keyword
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`connection table that is formed to show how the keywords
`themselves are related.
`Slide 25. An example of a keyword connection
`table is shown in figure 5 of Morita. Across the top cell of
`each column is shown a keyword denoted by the abbreviation
`KW. When a user searches using a keyword, the keyword
`connection table is used to identify other keywords that are
`relevant to a user's search.
`For example, using the system described in Morita,
`if a user searches the term enterprise, the keyword connection
`table would indicate that a company R is an enterprise. And it
`is a bit grainy, but enterprise is indicated as the top- most cell
`in the keyword connection table in the column second from
`the right.
`
`And if you traverse it over to the left, you will
`find that you have an "is-a" box in the left-most column that
`corresponds to the keyword connection number 1, company R.
`The blank boxes in the fifth column in the
`keyword connection table of figure 5 indicate that not only is
`this keyword connection table merely an example, but also
`that more keywords and relationships are contemplated and
`possible in a keyword connection table.
`Slide 26. IV has three disputes regarding Morita.
`First, IV disagrees that Morita describes a metafile
`corresponding to a domain tag. Second, IV disputes that
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`Morita discloses selecting domain tags related to a first
`domain tag. And, last, IV disagrees that Morita discloses a
`hierarchy between tags.
`These deficiencies that IV alleges regarding
`Morita are substantially identical to those identified regarding
`Wical. And IBM will address each in turn. But once, again,
`importantly, IBM notes that IV does not dispute that it would
`have been obvious to combine Morita with Lassila, and IV has
`waived any argument to this effect.
`Slide 27. IV's argument that Morita does not
`disclose a metafile that corresponds to a domain tag is wrong
`for the same reasons it was wrong regarding Wical. Namely,
`the metafile in claim 1 need only correspond to a domain tag.
`And claim 1 does not require that a metafile correspond to
`only one domain tag.
`The keyword connection table of Morita that we
`saw previously in figure 5 corresponds to one or more domain
`tags as indicated by one or more of the keywords in the top
`cell of each column of the keyword connection table.
`Slide 28. Once, again, as an example in figure 5,
`Morita discloses an example of a keyword connection table or
`metafile that corresponds to the domain tag enterprise.
`Slide 29. IV next argues that Morita does not
`disclose selecting another domain tag related to the first
`domain tag. In other words, IV is arguing that the keyword
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`connection table of Morita does not disclose any other domain
`tags than enterprise. This is wrong.
`Slide 30. As with the knowledge base and directed
`graph of Wical, the keyword connection table of Morita is
`expressly disclosed in terms of examples. One of skill in the
`art would take the Morita keyword connection table and the
`disclosure of Morita and be able to build his or her own
`keyword connection table with domain and category tabs.
`And, recall, the fifth column in the keyword
`connection table in figure 5 is blank. There are more columns
`and rows and connections possible. One of skill in the art is
`allowed to make it based on whatever keyword connection
`table and keywords that it wishes to have.
`And there is no restriction in Morita that the
`keyword connection table only have one domain tag, nor
`would one of skill in the art understand it to be so limited.
`Slide 31. Last, IV complains that Morita does not
`disclose a hierarchy because it does not disclose a "priority
`hierarchy." And this is wrong for the same reasons as
`explained earlier. There is no requirement in claim 5 of a
`priority hierarchy.
`There is no justification to read that limitation
`into claim 5 under a broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard, and IV cannot rely upon claim differentiation to
`compel a different result.
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`
`If there are no questions at this time, I would like
`to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: No questions. Thank you.
`MR. RAY: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: You have an extra five
`
`minutes.
`
`(Pause)
`MR. MURPHY: Good morning, Your Honors. I'm
`here on behalf of the Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures.
`And as Petitioner mentioned, there are two grounds of
`rejection here, Wical in view of Lassila and Morita in view of
`Lassila, and Lassila was used for the same premise in both,
`namely that XML tags would have been obvious, and we're not
`disputing that.
`And so that the issues remaining relate simply to
`Wical and Morita and what they disclose regarding the other
`limitations. Petitioner didn't rely on Lassila for any of these
`disputed issues.
`Now, with regards to Wical, there is a factual
`dispute on what the directed graph is in Wical. The Patent
`Owner's position is that the directed graph is all categories
`and all relationships, and Petitioner wants to say it is a
`subset, that it's only specific categories and relationships.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`
`Now, that's inconsistent with their petition. It is
`inconsistent with Wical. It is inconsistent with the expert
`testimony.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Why is that inconsistent
`with their petition? I believe we discussed this issue already
`on a conference call.
`MR. MURPHY: You are right, Your Honor, we
`did have a motion to strike to exclude that, and we want to
`point out the inconsistencies as it relates to the credibility of
`the arguments that they are making.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Well, I'm sort of interested
`because, you know, looking at the petition, for example, on
`page 10, it says the directed graph for a particular category,
`i.e., a metafile.
`So why is that inconsistent with what the petition
`
`is on?
`
`MR. MURPHY: So let's first start with the
`meaning of a directed graph, Your Honor, so we have an
`understanding of what we are talking about in Wical. And
`both experts have substantially the exact same understanding
`of what a directed graph is. And that is a set of nodes
`connected together through a set of directed edges.
`So it is a bunch of boxes and a bunch of arrows
`connecting them. And both Patent Owner's expert and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`22
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`Petitioner's expert have essentially the same understanding
`that that is a directed graph.
`And when we look at figure 4 in Wical, which is
`what a lot of the arguments are based around, you can see that
`the entirety of this figure is a directed graph. All of the
`categories are connected together by directed edges.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Well, that argument sort of
`presupposes that they have to be separate parts, right, that the
`metafile can't be included in the index?
`MR. MURPHY: No, I think the metafile can be
`included in the index. I think with Wical the directed graph is
`not a separate stand- alone data structure.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Why does it have to be a
`separate stand-alone data structure?
`MR. MURPHY: So the claim requires creating an
`index and creating a metafile. And the case law tells us, you
`can look at a Microsoft case that was cited in our response,
`that when you claim two separate components this way you
`have to point to two separate --
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Well, they are steps, right,
`they are actions, so you can create the index, you know, you
`can write down the categories and their domains, and then you
`can take that, there doesn't seem to be anything that precludes
`taking that and then adding the metafile to it.
`MR. MURPHY: Right, but I think --
`
`
`
`23
`
`IPR2016-00020
`Petitioners Old Republic General Ins. Group, Inc., et al. Ex. 1036, p. 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01481
`Patent 6,510,434
`
`
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: And those are two separate
`steps. And it seems that your patent -- and actually I would
`like you to address this topic that came up in the reply.
`It says -- it is column 7, line 27, and it says: In
`the exemplary embodiment discussed herein, the index uses
`XML tags and XML metafiles that include additional XML
`tags.
`
`So in that exemplary embodiment the index is
`including the tags and the metafiles. So why should we read
`this claim -- what you are proposing to read this claim as
`seems to be a little inconsistent with what the patent says.
`And I would like to know your response to that issue.
`MR. MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor. Actually I
`think what
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
