Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: September 11, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`KCURA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBIRD TECH LLC d/b/a BLACKBIRD TECHNOLOGIES,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00899
`Patent 7,809,717 B1
`_______________
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and MINN CHUNG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: September 11, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`KCURA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBIRD TECH LLC d/b/a BLACKBIRD TECHNOLOGIES,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00899
`Patent 7,809,717 B1
`_______________
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and MINN CHUNG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`kCura LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. US 7,809,717 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’717 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Blackbird Technologies (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4, 42.108. Upon considering the Petition and the
`Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one
`challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims
`1–30 of the ’717 patent.
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`According to Petitioner, the ’717 patent has been asserted by Patent
`Owner against Petitioner in Blackbird Tech LLC v. kCura LLC, No. 1-16-cv-
`00418, filed by Patent Owner in the District of Delaware on June 7, 2016. A
`consolidated proceeding with other parties is pending as Blackbird Tech
`LLC d/b/a Blackbird Tech. v. Advanced Discovery, Inc., No. 1-16-cv-00413
`(D. Del.). Pet. 2.
`
`B.
`
`The ’717 Patent and Relevant Background
`The ’717 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Concept-Based
`Visual Presentation of Search Results,” issued to Orland Hoeber, Xue-Dong
`Yang, and Yiyu Yao from U.S. Application No. 11/526,409 (“the ’409
`application”), filed September 25, 2006. Ex. 1001, at [21], [60], [71], [72].
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`The ’409 Application claimed priority to Canadian Application 2,549,536,
`filed June 6, 2006. Id. at [30].
`The instant invention relates to a method for visually coding search
`results based upon at least one concept. Ex. 1001, 2:30–31. Figure 9, which
`we reproduce below, illustrates the concept and indicator.
`
`
`Figure 9 is a graphical interface displaying a number of returned
`documents with an accordance indicator.
`
`As phrased by Patent Owner, the inventors of the ’717 patent
`“conceived of a way of layering both keyword and a particular variant of
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`concept searching, to improve the relevancy determinations made by search
`engines.” Prelim. Resp. 5.
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1 and 16 are illustrative of the claimed invention, and
`read as follows:
`
`1. A computer implemented method of displaying search
`results, the computer comprising at least one processor for
`executing computer readable instructions stored in a memory,
`the method comprising:
`receiving at the computer a search query containing at
`least one of search term to conduct a search of a plurality of
`computer readable documents;
`obtaining search results comprising a first document and
`second document based on the at least one search term of the
`search query;
`determining at least one concept related to the search
`query by matching the at least one search term to the at least
`one concept in a concept knowledge base;
`evaluating the similarity between the first and second
`documents and the at least one concept by determining an
`accordance value indicating a similarity between the first and
`second documents and the at least one concept by:
`determining a first accordance value by evaluating the
`similarity between the first returned document and the at least
`one concept;
`determining a second accordance value by evaluating the
`similarity between the second returned document and the at
`least one concept; and
`displaying the first returned document and second
`returned document sorted in an order based on the first
`accordance value and the second accordance value.
`
`Ex. 1001, 17:21–48.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`16. A data processing system for displaying search
`results comprising:
`at least one processor;
`a memory operatively coupled to the at least one
`processor;
`a display device operative to display data; and
`a program module stored in the memory and operative
`for providing instructions to the at least one processor, the at
`least one processor responsive to the instructions of the
`program module, the program module operative for:
`receiving a search query containing at least one search
`term to conduct a search of a plurality of computer readable
`documents;
`obtaining search results comprising a first returned
`document and a second returned document on the at least one
`search term of the search query;
`determining at least one concept related to the search
`query by matching the at least one search term to the at least
`one concept in a concept knowledge base;
`evaluating the similarity between a returned document
`and the at least one concept to determine an accordance value
`by determining a first accordance value by evaluating the
`similarity between the first returned document and the at least
`one concept and a second accordance value by evaluating the
`similarity between the second returned document and the at
`least one concept; and
`displaying the first returned document and second
`returned document sorted in an order based on the first
`accordance value and the second accordance value.
`
`Id. at 19:1–28.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`D.
`
`
`The Asserted Prior Art and Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 21):
`
`Ground Claims
`1
`1–4, 6, 9–13, 15–19,
`23–26, 28, and 30
`5, 20, and 27
`7, 8, 14, 21, 22, and
`29
`
`2
`3
`
`References
`Lindh1 and Crow2
`
`Lindh, Crow, and Mohan3
`Lindh, Crow, and Melman4
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Petitioner further relies on the testimony of Dr. Jaime Carbonell5 (Ex.
`1002).
`
`ANALYSIS
`II.
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if 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 to which that
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). In analyzing the obviousness of a combination of prior art elements,
`it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted one of
`
`
`1 Lindh et al., WO 03/060766 A1, published July 24, 2003. Ex. 1003.
`2 Crow et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0080656 A1,
`published April 14, 2005. Ex. 1004.
`3 Mohan et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,890,514 B1, issued February 15, 2011. Ex.
`1006.
`4 Melman, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0091204 A1, published
`April 28, 2005. Ex. 1005.
`5 Dr. Carbonell appears, based upon the present record, to be qualified to
`testify to the subject matter of this proceeding by virtue of his training and
`experience. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 6–15 and Appendix A.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`skill in the art to combine the elements in the way the claimed invention
`does. Id.
`A precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of a
`challenged claim is not necessary to establish obviousness. Id. Rather, “any
`need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
`addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
`the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. Accordingly, a party that petitions the
`Board for a determination of unpatentability based on obviousness must
`show that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
`teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and
`that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`doing so. In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`2016).
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`date of the invention would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer
`science or computer engineering, plus two or more years of either work
`experience or graduate study involving search engines, as well as some
`familiarity with databases and knowledge bases. Pet. 11, citing Ex. 1002
`¶ 19.
`
`In the context of the ’717 patent and prior art, we agree with Petitioner
`that the above skill level appears appropriate at this stage. Patent Owner has
`not set forth an opposing viewpoint.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in inter
`partes reviews). Under that standard, we presume that a claim term carries
`its “ordinary and customary meaning,” which “is the meaning the term
`would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of
`the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`Petitioner asserts that several claim terms require construction. Pet.
`12–17. At this time no additional claim terms require express construction
`for purposes of this Decision beyond that which specifically occurs infra.
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999).
`
`C. Ground I: Obviousness of Claims 1–4, 6, 9–13, 15–19, 23–26, 28, and
`30 Over Lindh and Crow
`Overview of Lindh
`1.
`Lindh relates to a search system that allows a user to enter search
`terms where results are presented for further interaction. Ex. 1003, 15:21–
`22, 5:28–33, 29:21–30, 6:8–10. The Lindh structure allows information
`retrieval operations to be performed, such as finding related terms,
`identifying subject matter common to certain terms, and visualizing term
`relationships. Id. at 11:13–16.
`
`Among other functionalities, Lindh assigns weights to search terms,
`and a document-concept matrix describes how documents relate to concepts.
`A term-document matrix describes how terms occur in documents. A term-
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`concept matrix engine receives these matrices and generates a matrix of
`vectors that contain weight values between terms and concepts. Id. at 20.
`
`In the course of performing a search using the system of Lindh, a user
`is presented with related terms, related documents, and a graphical
`representation of concepts. Id. at 30. In selecting a concept, a user is guided
`to a biased document set related by conceptual distribution. Id. Documents
`retrieved are ranked in descending order. Id. at 31. The textual information
`is then processed into a graphical format. Id. at 33.
`
`Overview of Crow
`2.
`Crow describes a method to search for job candidates. Ex. 1004,
`Abstract. A job search is conceptualized into an ontology and matched to
`conceptualized candidate resume data. Id. ¶¶ 50–58, Fig. 4. The candidate
`matches are scored according to their similarity to the search, and the closest
`matches are returned in ranked order. Id. ¶¶ 56, 85, and 87. Candidate
`resumes and job queries are represented in the process as vectors in n-
`dimensional space. Id. ¶¶ 61–62, 77.
`
`Figure 14 provides a diagrammatic view of the ontology of the
`conceptualizing process, which extracts concepts from documents and fits
`them into an ontology, or terms and concept mapping. Id. ¶¶ 32, 126–128.
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 14 is a diagrammatic representation of a taxonomy of job roles
`for use in an ontology.
`
`
`
`Analysis of Ground I
`3.
`Patent Owner appears to challenge the Petition via a general
`observation about the quality of the argument concerning obviousness
`presented in the Petition raised in Patent Owner’s brief. Prelim. Resp. 10–
`12. We review the Petition for its arguments and evidence presented, with
`this in mind.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`A computer implemented method of displaying search results, the
`computer comprising at least one processor for executing computer
`readable instructions stored in a memory, the method comprising:
`receiving at the computer a search query containing at least one of
`search term to conduct a search of a plurality of computer readable
`documents;
`obtaining search results comprising a first document and second
`document based on the at least one search term of the search query;
`
`Petitioner points us to various locations within the Lindh reference
`(Ex. 1003) wherein these claim elements are said to be described. Pet. 24–
`28, citing Ex. 1003 and the testimony of Dr. Carbonell. The Lindh reference
`is characterized by Petitioner as the “principal” reference. Id. at 23.
`Patent Owner challenges whether the search query results in Lindh
`provide documents to a user. Prelim. Resp. 24. Patent Owner argues that
`the search query does not result in documents, but in the user being provided
`with a concept distribution. More specifically – “Petitioner does not
`establish that those terms are also part of a query from which documents are
`obtained, as claimed. Petitioner never explains how the terms that are used
`to find common concepts are also used to obtain documents, which is
`required by the claims.” Id.
`We observe that Petitioner has pointed to Lindh (Ex. 1003), 30:8–10
`as stating that Lindh provides related documents, terms, and concepts. Pet.
`27. We observe that the cited paragraph of Lindh recites a “user who selects
`the term ‘Madeleine Albright’ would initially be presented with related
`terms, related documents, and say, a piechart including the concepts
`‘Politics’, ‘Balcan War’ and ‘America.’” Ex. 1003, 30:8–10.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`Consequently, at this time, Patent Owner’s argument appears to be
`unsupported by the evidence presently of record.
`We therefore find ourselves in agreement with the Petitioner’s
`argument that Lindh describes these first steps, which appear at this time to
`be a generic set of search steps conducted on a computer.
`
`determining at least one concept related to the search query by
`matching the at least one search term to the at least one concept in a
`concept knowledge base;
`
`Petitioner asserts that Lindh teaches determining a concept related to
`the search query. Specifically, Petitioner argues that Lindh presents a
`concept distribution relating to the search query to the user along with the
`results. Pet. 28–29, citing Ex. 1003, 29:16-25. More specifically, concepts
`are said to be determined from search query terms by a joint concept engine
`that matches concepts and terms using a term-concept matrix of calculated
`vectors maintained in a database, which Petitioner equates to the knowledge
`base. Ex. 1003, 29:8–11; Pet. 29.
`The record at this stage of the proceeding supports Petitioner’s
`position that Lindh describes this element.
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`evaluating the similarity between the first and second
`documents and the at least one concept by determining an accordance
`value indicating a similarity between the first and second documents
`and the at least one concept by:
`determining a first accordance value6 by evaluating the
`similarity between the first returned document and the at least one
`concept; and
`determining a second accordance value by evaluating the
`similarity between the second returned document and the at least one
`concept; and
`
`Petitioner asserts that Lindh teaches evaluating similarities between
`documents and the at least one concept by determining a relationship value
`“rcc,” which it equates to the claimed accordance value, for each document.
`This assertion finds support principally in the analysis provided by Dr.
`Carbonell. Ex. 1002 ¶ 82.
`Dr. Carbonell testifies that Lindh teaches evaluating similarities
`between documents and the at least one concept by determining a
`relationship value rcc (i.e., the claimed accordance value) for each document
`(including the claimed first and second documents). He testifies that the
`relationship value rcc (Ci, BCD) describes how each document Di is related to
`a concept. Id.
`Turning to Lindh directly, we have taken an image of the text and
`observe that it discloses the following:
`
`
`6 The ’717 patent indicates that an accordance value is a measure of the
`similarity between the returned document and the concept. Ex. 1001, 11:58–
`59.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The text and equation above describe a relationship value rcc
`for a document and a concept
`
`
`Ex. 1003, 30–31.
`
`
`Lindh therefore appears to support Dr. Carbonell’s testimony that the
`relationship value is equivalent to the claimed accordance value.
`Patent Owner, on the other hand, asserts that Petitioner has failed to
`show the step of evaluating. Prelim. Resp. 28–33. The crux of the argument
`appears to be that Petitioner must show that Lindh discloses evaluating the
`similarity between documents 1045 and concept distribution 1025 in Figure
`10 of Lindh. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner turns to a separate
`embodiment of Lindh shown in Figure 11 and asserts that the relationship
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`value is only discussed there, which does not establish the relationship
`between the documents and the concept. Id. at 30–31.
`Patent Owner also faults Petitioner for failing to explain why or how
`“the pertinent aspects of the embodiment of Figure 10 (which Lindh
`indicates describes ‘the operation of the exploring module,’ Ex. 1003 at
`29:1-2) would be combined with the separate embodiment of Figure 11
`(which Lindh indicates describes ‘a method for finding biased information,’
`Ex, 1003 at 30:16-17). (See Pet. at 31-34).” Prelim. Resp. 31.
`We think Patent Owner too finely dissects the Lindh reference. The
`description, when viewed as a cohesive whole, describes the generation of
`the relational database, or document-concept matrix, into which queries will
`be entered. Ex. 1003, 3–4. Term-to-concept vectors are generated, then
`term-to-term vectors, for the enablement of better searches. Id. After the
`database is constructed (and is periodically updated), searches are performed
`in the database. Id.
`The database is then used to search, and then to display processed
`textual information in a graphical format. Id. at 6. In preferred
`embodiments, a joint concept engine gives new vectors for a user to
`consider. Id. at 29. When the user follows a vector, a concept bias engine
`retrieves relevant documents and returns them based upon proximity to
`distribution. Id. at 29–30. The relationship value “rcc” appears on the
`present record to describe a similarity between a document and a concept, in
`other words to correlate directly to the claimed accordance value. Id. at 30,
`line 25.
`Thus, we find on the record before us at this stage that, when Lindh is
`viewed as a whole description, Lindh teaches this element.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`
`
`displaying the first returned document and second returned document
`sorted in an order based on the first accordance value and the second
`accordance value.
`
`Petitioner asserts that when a search is based upon the “selected
`biasing concept distribution BCD, the results are ‘ranked in descending order
`by the value [calculated by] the rcc-function’ which describes the
`relationship value (the claimed accordance value).” Pet. 37, citing Ex. 1003,
`31:1–3. Petitioner further contends that this ranking “provides search results
`that are ‘re-arranged . . . based on the documents’ proximity to the’ selected
`concepts.” Id., citing Ex. 1003, 30:1–2, 29:33–34.
`On the present record, we find that the re-arranging and ranking
`equates to displaying the documents sorted as claimed. We therefore
`conclude that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence establish a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating the unpatentability
`of claim 1 over the combination of Lindh and Crow.7
`Claims 2–4, 6, 9–13, 15–19, 23–26, 28, and 30
`We have carefully considered the Petition and Preliminary Response
`as to these claims, and elect to proceed on all claims in this ground. System
`claims 16–30 and method claims 1–15 contain essentially the same subject
`matter, and the Petition points to sufficient evidence for dependent claims 2–
`4, 6, 9–13, and 15. Pet. 39–63. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (a).
`
`
`7 We observe that Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to provide
`motivation to combine Lindh and Crow. Prelim. Resp. 12–22. However,
`Petitioner urges that one of ordinary skill in the art would use a known
`ontology to improve conceptualization. Pet. 30. Accordingly, at this stage,
`we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
` D. Ground II: Obviousness of Claims 5, 20, and 27 Over Lindh, Crow, and
` Mohan.
`
`Overview of Mohan
`1.
`Mohan relates to concept-based searching of unstructured objects and
`tracking trends and exceptions. Ex. 1006, Abstract. An analysis and
`categorization engine scans available unstructured objects. The engine
`generates data in the form of relational database tables, which tables then
`can be searched and the unstructured objects accessed. Id., 3:10-31. Mohan
`provides different scores for different selected concepts in a graphical user
`interface. Id., Figure 14.
`
`Analysis of Ground II
`2.
`Claim 5
`Claim 5 depends indirectly from claim 1 through claims 2 and 3.
`Claims 2, 3, and 5 are reproduced below for ease of reference:
`2. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the at least one concept
`related to the search query comprises:
`accessing a concept knowledge base having a plurality of concept data
`objects and a plurality of term data objects associated with at least one of the
`plurality of concept data objects;
`matching at least one of the at least one search term with at least one
`of the plurality of term data objects to generate a first term set containing
`term data objects from the concept knowledge base that match the at least
`one search term; and
`generating a concept set containing at least one concept data object
`associated with one or more of the term data objects in the first term set.
`
`3. The method of claim 2 further comprising:
`generating a concept vector for each concept data object in the
`concept set, the concept vector comprising a dimension for each term data
`object associated with the concept data object, a magnitude of the dimension
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`based on a weight of the association of the term data object with the concept
`data object; and
`generating a document vector for the at least one returned document,
`the document vector comprising a dimension for each of a plurality of terms
`in the document, a magnitude of the dimension based on a frequency of
`occurrence of each of the plurality of terms;
`wherein evaluating the similarity between the at least one returned
`document and the at least one concept is based on a fuzzy membership score
`determined by comparing the concept vector to the document vector.
`
`5. The method of claim 3 further comprising displaying at least two
`accordance values with the at least one returned document, each of the at
`least two accordance indicators corresponding to different concepts in the
`concept set.
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 5, 20, and 27 would have been obvious
`because:
`Mohan discloses graphically illustrating a strength of concept
`score (red, Fig. 14 of Ex.1006 below; see also Ex.1006 at 22:31)
`for each selected concept (green, below; id. at 22:26-28) for
`documents (blue, below). Id. at 21:33-39. A POSITA would have
`been motivated, and would have combined Mohan’s teachings of
`providing a GUI that allows scores for selected concepts to be
`presented with respect to documents to improve upon the
`teachings of Lindh and Crow. Ex.1002 at ¶158.
`
`Pet. 65.
`We observe that Mohan states that extracted concepts from the objects
`are available to view through a dynamic viewer, which a user can adjust by
`order of preference. Concepts can be displayed in alphabetical order,
`number of hits, or strength of concepts. Ex. 1006, 22:25–31. Patent Owner
`has not directed substantive argument separately to this ground.
`Accordingly, on the present record, we find that Petitioner’s
`arguments and evidence establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`would prevail in demonstrating the unpatentability of claim 5 in view of
`Lindh, Crow, and Mohan.
`We have carefully considered the Petition and Preliminary Response
`as to claims 20 and 27, and elect to proceed on all claims in these asserted
`grounds, as these claims are similar to claim 5, and the Petition points to
`sufficient evidence. Pet. 64–67. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`E. Ground III: Obviousness of Claims 7, 8, 14, 21, 22, and 29 Over
`Lindh, Crow, and Melman
`Overview of Melman
`1.
`Melman relates to a system for support and management of document
`searching. Ex. 1005, Abstract. Software tracks a user’s search activity and
`stores it in the database. The data is compared to other user’s searches.
`Data is accumulated from many users over time to assist an organization in
`conducting subject matter searches. Id. ¶¶ 10–13. Results can be displayed
`in multi-window format. Id., Fig. 2.
`
`Analysis of Ground III
`2.
`Claim 7
`Claim 7 depends from claim 1 indirectly through claim 6, and both
`claim 6 and claim 7 are reproduced below for ease of reference.
`
`
`6. The method of claim 1 wherein the accordance values
`are displayed as a color shade.
`
`7. The method of claim 6 wherein the returned
`documents of the search results are ordered in a list and
`wherein the at least one returned document is displayed in a
`first portion of the list of returned documents and
`simultaneously displayed in a second portion of the list of
`returned documents on a display screen, and wherein the
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`number of returned documents displayed in the second portion
`is greater than the number of returned documents displayed in
`the first portion.
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that Melman provides GUI elements that provide
`additional information, including a title display and a summary display. Pet.
`68, citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 2. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the extra GUI
`teachings of Melman to improve upon the teachings of Lindh and Crow to
`display, in part, titles and summaries of returned documents. Id. This
`argument rests heavily upon the testimony of Dr. Carbonell. Ex. 1002,
`¶ 163. We find this testimony to be reasonable and credible based upon the
`present record.
`Petitioner urges that Melman illustrates two lists responsive to a
`query. Pet. 68–69, citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 136–142, 143–148. We observe that
`Melman describes a title window view for the query results and a summary
`window view for the matching documents. Ex. 1005, Fig. 2.
`Patent Owner has not directed substantive argument separately to this
`ground.
`On the present record, we find that Petitioner’s arguments and
`evidence establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`demonstrating the unpatentability of claim 7 as unpatentable over Lindh,
`Crow, and Melman.
`We have carefully considered the Petition and Preliminary Response
`as to claims 8, 14, 21, 22, and 29, and elect to proceed on all claims in these
`asserted grounds, as the Petition points to sufficient evidence. Pet. 68–71;
`see 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`III.
`For the foregoing reasons, we find that the information presented in
`the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail
`in showing that at least one of claims 1–30 of the ’717 Patent are
`unpatentable as obvious in view of (1) Lindh and Crow, (2) Lindh, Crow,
`and Mohan, and (3) Lindh, Crow, and Melman.
`
`ORDER
`
`IV.
`For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted with regard to the following
`asserted grounds:
`
`Claims 1–4, 6, 9–13, 15–19, 23–26, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`as unpatentable over the combination of Lindh and Crow; and
`
`Claims 5, 20, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
`combination of Lindh, Crow, and Mohan; and
`
`Claims 7, 8, 14, 21, 22, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
`over the combination of Lindh, Crow, and Melman; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes
`review of the ʼ717 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the entry date
`of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4,
`notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00899
`Patent US 7,809,717 B1
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Bing Ai
`Miguel Bombach
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`mbombach@perkinscoie.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Walter Davis
`Wayne Helge
`Aldo Noto
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
`wdavis@davidsonberquist.com
`whelge@dbjg.com
`anoto@davidsonberquist.com
`
`22
`
`
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
