Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 8
`
`
` Entered: December 22, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMRPOVED SEARCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, MIRIAM L. QUINN and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 8
`
`
` Entered: December 22, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMRPOVED SEARCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, MIRIAM L. QUINN and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Microsoft Corp. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 6,604,101 B1 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’101 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Improved Search LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review under
`35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted unless the information presented in the petition “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.”
`For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Petition.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The ’101 patent is asserted against Petitioner in Improved Search LLC
`v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 1-16-cv-00650 (D. Del.). Pet. 2. The
`’101 patent is also asserted against other parties in matters pending before
`the District of Delaware. Pet. 2; Paper 5, 2. In addition, the ’101 patent has
`been challenged previously by Google, Inc. in an inter partes review
`proceeding; however, the Board declined to institute review in that matter.
`Pet. 2; Paper 5, 2; Google Inc. v. Improved Search LLC, IPR2016-00797
`(PTAB Sept. 6, 2016) (Paper 9).
`Concurrent with this proceeding, Petitioner has filed a petition for
`inter partes review of related U.S. Patent No. 7,516,154 B1 (IPR2017-
`01613), which was also the subject of a covered business method review
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`(CBM2017-00038 (institution denied)) and various suits in the District of
`Delaware. Pet. 2; Paper 5, 2–3.
`
`B. The ’101 Patent
`The ’101 patent is titled “Method and System for Translingual
`Translation of Query and Search and Retrieval of Multilingual Information
`on a Computer Network.” Ex. 1001, [54]. The ’101 patent issued from U.S.
`Patent Application No. 09/606,655, filed on June 28, 2000. Id. [21], [22].
`The ’101 patent describes “a method and system for conducting a
`translingual search on the Internet and accessing multilingual web sites
`through dialectal standardization, pre-search translation and post-search
`translation.” Id. at 1:11–14. More specifically, the ’101 patent discloses a
`system and method “for dialectally standardizing a query input by the user in
`the source language and then translating the standardized keyword to the
`target language and searching and retrieving web documents in the target
`language as well as providing translations of said search results into the
`source language.” Id. at 3:40–45.
`In discussing the problem it aims to solve, the ’101 patent notes that
`“most of the search tools cater primarily to the needs of the English speaking
`Internet user,” and explains that “[t]his is a serious drawback, which has not
`been addressed by any of the existing search engines.” Id. at 2:14–24. The
`’101 patent likewise observes that “the non-English speaking Internet users
`also create web sites to store information in non-English languages. This
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`rich source of information is not available to query by English oriented
`search engines.” Id. at 2:25–28.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 9, 12, 22, and 23 are independent.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
`1.
`A method for performing a contextual search and
`retrieval of documents in a computer network, comprising:
`receiving through an input device, a query in a first
`language;
`processing said query to extract at least one content word
`from the query;
`performing dialectal standardization of the at least one
`content word extracted from the query;
`translating the at least one dialectally standardized content
`word into a second language through a translator;
`performing a contextual search in the second language
`based on the at least one translated content word, using a search
`engine in the second language; and
`obtaining the search results in the second language in the
`form of at least one of site names (URLs) and documents,
`satisfying a search criteria.
`Ex. 1001, 7:66–8:15.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`
`D. Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references (Pet. 12–19):
`Williamowski US 6,381,598 B1
`Apr. 30, 2002
`(Ex. 1008)
`Sullivan
`US 5,956,711
`Sept. 21, 1999
`(Ex. 1009)
`Poznanski
`US 6,360,196 B1
`Mar. 19, 2002
`(Ex. 1010)
`Redpath
`US 6,347,316 B1
`Feb. 12, 2002
`(Ex. 1011)
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of James Allan, Ph.D. (“Allan
`Declaration”) (Ex. 1005).
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Google asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 5–6):
`
`Claim(s)
`1–6, 12–17, 22, 27, 28
`1–7, 12–17, 22–28
`
`8–11, 18–21
`
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`§ 103(a) Williamowski and Sullivan
`§ 103(a) Williamowski, Sullivan, and
`Poznanski
`§ 103(a) Williamowski, Sullivan, Poznanski,
`and Redpath
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v.
`VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950
`F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`
`According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science
`or equivalent field and at least three to five years of experience designing
`information retrieval systems.” Pet. 8. Petitioner further contends that
`“[s]uch a person would therefore have a good working knowledge of various
`information retrieval systems processing techniques and would have been
`familiar with multilingual translation and query processing, including
`techniques such as keyword identification, standardization, stemming and
`the use of synonyms.” Id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 71). Patent Owner does
`not address Petitioner’s position on this matter and does not propose its own
`description for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention. See generally, Prelim. Resp.
`At this stage in the proceeding, we determine that Petitioner’s
`description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is comparable to the level
`of skill reflected in the asserted prior art. On this record, we find that the
`applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the
`claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001).
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claim terms in an
`unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light
`of the 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, 2142 (2016)
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`(affirming applicability of broadest reasonable construction standard to inter
`partes review proceedings). Under that standard, and absent any special
`definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for
`claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “[W]e need
`only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary
`to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for certain claim terms, which
`Patent Owner does not dispute. Pet. 9–12; see generally Prelim. Resp. In
`view of our analysis, we determine that construction of claim terms is not
`necessary for purpose of this Decision. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`C. Obviousness Grounds of Unpatentability Based on
`Williamowski and Sullivan
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–6, 12–17, 22, 27, and 28 are
`unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious, in view of the combination of
`Williamowski and Sullivan. Pet. 19–47. Petitioner relies upon the
`Declaration of James Allan, Ph.D. (Ex. 1005) to support its positions. Patent
`Owner disagrees that the proffered combination renders obvious the
`challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 19–43.
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`
`1. Overview of Williamowski
`Williamowski discloses “[a]n information retrieval system providing
`for cross-lingual information retrieval.” Ex. 1008, Abstract. Williamowski
`observes that the “amount of information available from electronic sources
`on the World Wide Web or other on-line information repositories is
`increasing exponentially.” Id. at 3:33–35. To facilitate access to such
`information, Williamowski teaches a method that “enables a user to generate
`a query using search terms and expressions in their native language and to
`specify that the search results may include documents in other languages.”
`Id. at 2:11–14.
`In particular, Williamowski discloses that a user generated
`“multiword search expression” is first split into “elementary words” and
`“stop words” (such as “and” or “the”). Ex. 1008, 6:7–10. Any stop words
`are subsequently suppressed from the query, while the elementary words are
`“translated and stemmed, resulting in a set of combinations of stemmed and
`translated elementary words.” Id. at 6:13–16. Searches are then “performed
`for documents containing at least one of the combinations of stemmed and
`translated elementary words. Preferably, concurrent searches are performed
`for each combination.” Id. at 6:44–47. Lastly, the results are verified in
`order to “establish that the search expressions of the returned documents
`have the same linguistic structure as the original search expression.” Id. at
`6:50–52. Figure 8 of Williamowski, reproduced below, illustrates this
`method.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Overview of Sullivan
`Sullivan describes “database query systems which reduce sensitivity
`to keyword selection by automatically translating keywords when data is
`inserted into the database and automatically translating keywords when a
`query is made to the database.” Ex. 1009, 1:9–13. Sullivan explains that the
`use of “bidirectional keyword substitution (i.e., using keyword substitution
`when necessary in the data input and data query phases of database use)
`makes the database independent of the keywords on both the input and query
`sides of the system.” Id. at 4:22–26. Sullivan further teaches that the
`disclosed system “uses selected keywords from the keyword list to ensure
`that in the process of accessing the database, database entries are not missed
`due to the use of dialectal or obscure keywords on either the data entry or the
`data query phases of database use.” Id. at 4:26–30.
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Sullivan, reproduced below, illustrates the disclosed
`“bi-directional keyword substitution system.” Id. at 4:34–35.
`
`
`
`With regard to Figure 1, Sullivan explains:
`A principal advantage of data base system 100 is the
`avoidance of errors due to poor keyword selection by a user (e.g.,
`a person buying or selling an object property such as a yacht, or
`a dealer working with a buyer or seller) in both the data input and
`data searching operations. Errors are avoided by converting,
`when appropriate, a keyword received from a user into a
`keyword which is a member of a limited set of keywords (i.e., a
`restricted keyword). During a database entry or update
`operation, a keyword entered by a user into the data input 104 is
`routed to a translator 102. Prior to entry of data into the database,
`the translator 102 compares the received user-entered keyword
`with restricted keywords in a restricted keyword list 106
`(hereinafter keyword list 106). If the entered keyword is in the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`
`keyword list 106, then it is entered into the database 114 via
`controller 112.
`Ex. 1009, 6:20–34.
`Sullivan states that “[a] principal advantage of the instant invention is
`that it ensures that the controller 112 uses the same keywords for both data
`entry and the data search operations.” Id. at 7:48–50. Such bi-directionality,
`Sullivan explains, ensures that “the errors and omissions which are caused
`by the use of obscure or mismatched keywords are substantially or
`completely eliminated.” Id. at 7:50–53.
`
`3. Reasonable Expectation of Success
`Petitioner contends that it “would have been obvious to include the
`dialectal standardization functionality of Sullivan in the contextual searching
`system of Williamowski such that the combined system would extract
`keywords, dialectically standardize and then translate them, and use the
`result to perform one or more searches of the World Wide Web.” Pet. 27
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 125). Of particular relevance to this decision, Petitioner
`asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`expectation of success in the proposed combination because “Williamowski
`already includes preprocessing of extracted keywords, and a restricted
`keyword list and related processing could have been readily added as simply
`one additional query preprocessing step in the methods of Williamowski
`prior to the translation.” Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 128; Ex. 1014, 76–
`77). In this regard, Petitioner reasons that “[t]he restricted keyword list and
`the synonyms of those keywords could have been created, for example, by
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`one or more experts in linguistics using statistical techniques, a process
`known in the prior art.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 128).
`Patent Owner responds, inter alia, that an ordinarily skilled artisan
`would not have had “a reasonable expectation of achieving the dialectal
`standardization, translation, and contextual search claimed by modifying
`Sullivan to create a ‘restricted keyword list’ of the World Wide Web.”
`Prelim. Resp., 28–29. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that “Sullivan’s
`‘restricted keyword list’ works because Sullivan teaches a bi-directional
`keyword substitution in which the same restricted keywords are used in both
`data entry and data search.” Id. at 29. Patent Owner contends that such a
`bi-directional approach would be impossible in the context of the Internet,
`and further, that the application of keyword substitution only to user queries,
`but not data entries, would destroy the intended function of Sullivan. Id. at
`30–32.
`On the record before us, and for purposes of this decision, we agree
`with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not met its burden to establish a
`reasonable likelihood of success that it would prevail in showing that an
`ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success
`in combining Williamowski and Sullivan to arrive at the claimed invention.
`Petitioner recognizes that the keyword “standardization technique”
`taught by Sullivan “is used for both data entry and search.” Pet. 25; see also
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 124. Indeed, Petitioner relies upon several portions of Sullivan
`that emphasize the importance of bi-directional keyword substitution to
`support its contention that Sullivan discloses “performing dialectal
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`standardization of [query keywords]” as required by the challenged claims.
`See Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1009, 4:22–31 (“[B]idirectional keyword substitution
`. . . makes the database independent of the keywords on both the input and
`query sides of the system. The invention uses selected keywords from the
`keyword list to ensure that in the process of accessing the database, database
`entries are not missed due to the use of dialectal or obscure keywords on
`either the data entry or the data query phases of database use.”)); Pet. 25
`(citing Ex. 1009, 9:13–18 (“[T]he system allows users on both sides of the
`system to have flexible use of synonyms for search terms and for
`descriptions during data entry while ensuring that the actual searching is
`done with keywords stored in the item code 206 that are standardized for
`each particular feature in an object 202.”)).
`Sullivan’s bi-directional keyword substitution––in which substitution
`is performed “both when inputting data records into the database, and when
`selecting keywords for searching the database” (Ex. 1009, 5:15–17
`(emphasis added))––is at odds with the web search functionality of
`Williamowski. Moreover, Petitioner does not address sufficiently how, in
`view of the fundamental differences between the operating environments of
`Sullivan and Williamowski, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a
`reasonable expectation of success in combining the bi-directional keyword
`substitution system of Sullivan with the web search functionality of
`Williamowski. See Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335
`(Fed. Cir. 2013) (“An invention is not obvious just ‘because all of the
`elements that comprise the invention were known in the art;’ rather a finding
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`of obviousness at the time of invention requires a ‘plausible rational [sic] as
`to why the prior art references would have worked together.’” (quoting
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`2010)).
`This oversight is critical, as the broad, potentially Internet-wide
`operating environment of Williamowski is distinct from the limited,
`database-level systems contemplated by Sullivan. For example, to the extent
`Petitioner proposes to incorporate Sullivan’s bi-directional keyword
`substitution functionality into Williamowski’s web search methodology,
`issues of scalability would arise regarding keyword substitution in new and
`existing Internet data entries, something that neither the Petition nor
`Petitioner’s expert addresses. Further, Petitioner does not address how an
`ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success
`in incorporating the bi-directional keyword substitution functionality useful
`in Sullivan’s database-level system into the web search methodology of
`Williamowski in view of the obvious issues presented by scaling Sullivan’s
`functionality to work in Williamowski’s method. Petitioner fails to address
`whether a skilled artisan would have modified a web server using Sullivan’s
`bi-directional system, let alone whether such an artisan would have had a
`good reason to modify a multitude of web search servers using Sullivan’s bi-
`directional system, and also fails to address how many such modified web
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`servers would be necessary to satisfy the claimed contextual search.1 See
`Prelim. Resp. 37–43.
`Likewise, to the extent Petitioner proposes to decouple the data entry
`keyword substitution and query keyword substitution functionality disclosed
`by Sullivan, such that only query keyword substitution is performed in the
`proposed combination, Petitioner has not adequately explained why an
`ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success
`in that modification. As discussed above, Sullivan emphasizes that
`bi-directional keyword substitution is a “principal advantage of the instant
`invention,” because using “the same keywords for both the data entry and
`the data search operations” ensures that “the errors and omissions which are
`caused by the use of obscure or mismatched keywords are substantially or
`completely eliminated.” Ex. 1009, 7:48–53. Absent standardization of the
`keywords in the data entries themselves, it is unclear both from the Petition
`and Sullivan itself that unilateral query keyword substitution would be
`useful in Williamowski’s web search methodology.
`Petitioner’s contention that “[t]he restricted keyword list and the
`synonyms of those keywords could have been created, for example, by one
`or more experts in linguistics using statistical techniques, a process known in
`
`
`1 Petitioner agrees with the Board’s prior construction of a “contextual
`search” as meaning the “identification of/identifying relevant documents
`from the domain-unlimited set of documents available on the World Wide
`Web, based on words contained in the documents.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1019,
`8).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`the prior art” (Pet. 28) does not cure the above-described deficiencies. Even
`assuming, arguendo, that techniques for creating such lists were known in
`the art, Petitioner has not explained adequately why an ordinarily skilled
`artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of incorporating either the
`bi-directional keyword substitution functionality or decoupled query
`keyword substitution feature of Sullivan into the web search methodology of
`Williamowski. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner contends that enough
`motivation exists such that one or more experts in linguistics “could” have
`created the restricted keyword lists, Petitioner’s contention is unsupported
`by any factual evidence and deserves little to no credit. Even assuming that
`such conclusory statement had merit, however, what a linguistic expert
`“could” have created is irrelevant to our inquiry of whether a person of
`ordinary skill in the art (not a linguistic expert) would have sought to apply
`the teachings of Sullivan, in light of the requirement that the restricted
`keyword list and synonyms are implemented bi-directionally, with the
`expectation that using Sullivan’s teachings would work. Personal Web
`Techs. v. Apple Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 991−93 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he Board
`had to find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to combine the prior art in the way claimed . . . and had a
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so,” but the reasoning presented
`says no more than once presented with the two references, a skilled artisan
`“would have understood that they could be combined”—“[a]nd that is not
`enough”). In short, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s proffered rationale
`is reasonable in light of the failure to show that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the
`teachings as proposed in the Petition.
`
`4. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–6, 12–17, 22, 27, and 28 of
`the ’101 patent as obvious in view of Williamowski and Sullivan.
`
`D. Obviousness Grounds of Unpatentability Based on
`Williamowski, Sullivan, and Poznanski
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–7, 12–17, and 22–28 are unpatentable
`under § 103(a) as obvious, in view of the combination of Williamowski,
`Sullivan, and Poznanski. Pet. 47–58. Petitioner relies upon the Declaration
`of James Allan, Ph.D. (Ex. 1005) to support its positions. Patent Owner
`disagrees that the proffered combination renders obvious the challenged
`claims. Prelim. Resp. 43–45.
`
`1. Overview of Poznanski
`Poznanski discloses a “method of retrieving information from a
`plurality of documents in a target language using a query in a source
`language.” Ex. 1010, Abstract.
`
`2. Reasonable Expectation of Success
`As discussed above, Petitioner has not met its burden to establish, for
`purposes of this decision, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a
`reasonable expectation of success in combining Williamowski and Sullivan
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention. Furthermore, because Petitioner does not
`rely on any disclosure by Poznanski to remedy the above-described
`deficiencies, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the cited combination
`renders obvious the challenged claims.
`
`3. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–7, 12–17, and 22–28 of the
`’101 patent as obvious in view of Williamowski, Sullivan, and Poznanski.
`
`E. Obviousness Grounds of Unpatentability Based on
`Williamowski, Sullivan, Poznanski, and Redpath
`Petitioner asserts that claims 8–11 and 21–21 are unpatentable under
`§ 103(a) as obvious in view of the combination of Williamowski, Sullivan,
`Poznanski, and Redpath. Pet. 58–70. Petitioner relies upon the Declaration
`of James Allan, Ph.D. (Ex. 1005) to support its positions. Patent Owner
`disagrees that the proffered combination renders obvious the challenged
`claims. Prelim. Resp. 45–47.
`
`1. Overview of Redpath
`Redpath discloses a “technique for combining machine translation
`with incrementally-enabled human translation.” Ex. 1011, 2:23–25.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`
`2. Reasonable Expectation of Success
`As discussed above, Petitioner has not met its burden to establish, for
`purposes of this decision, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a
`reasonable expectation of success in combining Williamowski, Sullivan, and
`Poznanski to arrive at the claimed invention. Furthermore, because
`Petitioner does not rely on any disclosure by Redpath to remedy the
`above-described deficiencies, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that
`the cited combination renders obvious the challenged claims.
`
`3. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 8–11 and 21–21 of the
`’101 patent as obvious in view of Williamowski, Sullivan, Poznanski, and
`Redpath.
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01614
`Patent 6,604,101 B1
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph Micallef
`Scott Border
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`sborder@sidley.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John Ferrell
`Wade C. Yamazaki
`CARR & FERRELL LLP
`jsferrell@carrferrell.com
`wyamazaki@carrferrell.com
`
`
`
`20
`
`
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
