throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: January 23, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BLOOMREACH, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Bloomreach, Inc., filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1‒7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,379
`
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’379 patent”). Petitioner filed a Declaration of
`
`Dr. Padhraic Smyth (Ex. 1007) with its Petition. Guada Technologies LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information
`
`in the petition and any preliminary 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.” For the reasons that follow,
`
`we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1‒7 of the ’379 patent on all
`
`grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner indicates that Patent Owner asserted the ’379 patent in the
`
`following related matters:
`
`
`
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Pier 1 Imports (US), Inc., 1-19-cv-
`
`01016 (D. Del.);
`
`
`
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC, 1-19-cv-
`
`01017 (D. Del.);
`
`
`
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Staples, Inc., 1-19-cv-01018
`
`(D. Del.);
`
`
`
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Big 5 Corp., 1-19-cv-00755
`
`(D. Del.);
`
`
`
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Floor and Decor Outlets of
`
`America, Inc., 1-19-cv-00756 (D. Del.);
`
`
`
`Guada Technologies LLC v. HSN, Inc., 1-19-cv-00757
`
`(D. Del.);
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`
`
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc., 1-
`
`19-cv-00185 (D. Del.);
`
`
`
`Guada Technologies LLC v. BSN SPORTS, LLC, 1-19-cv-
`
`00186 (D. Del.);
`
`
`
`Guada Technologies LLC v. UncommonGoods, LLC, 1-19-cv-
`
`00187 (D. Del.);
`
`
`
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 1-19-cv-
`
`00188 (D. Del.);
`
`
`
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Teespring, Inc., 1-18-cv-01867
`
`(D. Del.).
`
`Pet. 2‒3.
`
`B.
`
`The ’379 Patent
`
`The ’379 patent relates to a method for searching a hierarchical menu
`
`tree of nodes or vertices. Ex. 1001, Abstract. One common example of a
`
`hierarchical menu tree of nodes or vertices is an “automated telephone voice
`
`response system.” Id. at 1:40‒41. Users of the system typically have some
`
`goal they seek to accomplish within the system, such as a transaction or
`
`piece of information they wish to access. Id. at 1:66‒2:3. The user’s goal is
`
`represented by one or more “nodes” or “vertices” within the menu tree. Id. at
`
`2:5‒8. The user’s intent in navigating the menu tree is to get from the first,
`
`initial entry point in the menu to the goal vertices. Id. at 2:9‒18. The ’379
`
`patent teaches a system that purportedly allows users to navigate a menu tree
`
`more efficiently. Id. at 2:22‒31.
`
`The ’379 patent teaches that in graph theory, a “path” leads from one
`
`vertex in a graph to another, where the path consists of a sequence of
`
`“edges” that connect the vertices between the first vertex (the initial entry
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`point into the graph) and the goal vertex. Ex. 1001, 2:64‒67. The ’379 patent
`
`teaches a system that allows a user to navigate a graph or menu tree in a way
`
`that allows the user to skip from one vertex to another vertex where these
`
`vertices are not directly connected, eliminating the necessity for making
`
`choices to navigate the tree to the goal. Id. at 3:29‒34.
`
`The ’379 patent teaches prompting users for keywords that can be
`
`used to identify the user’s goal. Id. at 4:22‒41. Keywords are assigned to
`
`each node in the menu tree, allowing a user to “jump” to another place in the
`
`tree by providing a keyword associated with the unconnected node. Id. at
`
`4:42‒5:12.
`
`To illustrate these concepts, the ’379 patent teaches an example
`
`associated with Figure 2, shown below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a simplified graph 200 representing a portion of a
`
`more complex tree involving possible decisions relating to fruit. Ex. 1001,
`
`5:43‒48. In this example, a user that is prompted at a node above the fruit
`
`node with the query “What would you like to buy today?” may respond
`
`“orange.” Id. at 6:7‒15. The system would respond by identifying node 206
`
`as relating to the keyword orange and would jump directly to node 206,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`bypassing the need to navigate through node 202, which is associated with
`
`the keyword “fruit.” Id. at 6:15‒21.
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 7 are independent. Claims 2‒6
`
`depend from claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged claims and
`
`recites:
`
`A method performed in a system having multiple
`1.
`navigable nodes interconnected in a hierarchical arrangement
`comprising:
`
`at a first node, receiving an input from a user of the system,
`the input containing at least one word identifiable with at least
`one keyword from among multiple keywords,
`
`identifying at least one node, other than the first node, that
`is not directly connected to the first node but is associated with
`the at least one keyword, and
`
`jumping to the at least one node.
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:47‒24:11.
`
`C.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,731,724, issued May 4, 2004, filed June
`22, 2001 (Ex. 1004, “Wesemann”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. No. 6,366,910, issued April 2, 2002
`(Ex. 1005, “Rajaraman”); and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,539,656, issued May 26, 2009, filed
`March 6, 2001 (Ex. 1006, “Fratkina”).
`
`
`
`D.
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`Basis
`
`1, 2, 7
`
`3‒6
`
`1, 2, 7
`
`3‒6
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Wesemann
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Wesemann and Rajaraman
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Fratkina
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Fratkina and Rajaraman
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner states a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention would have “the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and at least
`
`one year of experience working with technology related to information
`
`retrieval and database searching, or an equivalent amount of similar work
`
`experience or education.” Pet. 10. Petitioner further states that “additional
`
`education substitut[es] for experience and vice versa.” Id. Dr. Smyth’s
`
`testimony supports Petitioner’s position. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 28‒30. Patent
`
`Owner does not explicitly refute these assertions. See generally Prelim.
`
`Resp. At this stage of the proceeding, we are satisfied that Petitioner’s
`
`proposed definition comports with the qualifications a person would need to
`
`understand and implement the teachings of the ’379 patent and the prior art
`
`of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Because this inter partes review is based on a petition filed after
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`November 13, 2018,1 we construe each claim “in accordance with the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, our claim construction standard is the
`
`same as that applied by a district court in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 282(b). See id. Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire
`
`patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule:
`
`1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or
`
`2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the
`
`specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am.
`
`LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Petitioner proposes construing five claim terms. Pet. 10‒15. First,
`
`Petitioner proposes construing “node” to mean “a specific choice or option
`
`in a hierarchy.” Id. at 11. Second, Petitioner proposes construing “vertex” to
`
`mean “a specific choice or option in a hierarchy that can be represented in a
`
`graph.” Id. at 11‒12. Third, Petitioner proposes construing “keyword” to
`
`mean “one or more words or pieces of information, such as a specific data
`
`
`1 On October 11, 2018, the USPTO revised its rules to harmonize the
`Board’s claim construction standard with that used in civil actions under
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) in federal district courts. Changes to the Claim
`Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018)
`(now codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42 (2019)). This rule change applies to
`petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`pattern, that is associated with at least one node or vertex.” Id. at 13‒14.
`
`Fourth, Petitioner proposes construing “jumping” to mean “a direct traversal
`
`from one node or vertex to another node or vertex that is not directly
`
`connected to it (i.e., without traversal through any intervening nodes or
`
`vertices or to a node or vertex whose only least common ancestor with that
`
`node or vertex is the root node or vertex).” Id. at 14‒15. Finally, Petitioner
`
`proposes construing “verbal description” to mean “a set of words relating to
`
`the subject matter whether presented audibly or in written form.” Id. at 15.
`
`Patent Owner proposes construing two claim terms. Prelim. Resp.
`
`2 n.1. First, Patent Owner notes that Petitioner has adopted Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction of “jumping” from the related district court litigation.
`
`Id. Second, Patent Owner proposes construing the terms “jumping to the [at
`
`least one node/vertex]” to mean “the system jumping to the [at least one
`
`node/vertex].” Id. Patent Owner states that because Petitioner adopts its
`
`construction of “jumping,” “[p]resumably, [Petitioner] thereby also adopts
`
`the construction of ‘[j]umping to the [a]t [l]east [o]ne node’ and ‘[j]umping
`
`to the [v]ertex,’ which makes clear that the subject doing the jumping is the
`
`‘system.’” Id.
`
`Based on the current record and for the purposes of this Decision, we
`
`adopt the parties’ agreed-upon construction of the term “jumping”: “a direct
`
`traversal from one node or vertex to another node or vertex that is not
`
`directly connected to it (i.e., without traversal through any intervening nodes
`
`or vertices or to a node or vertex whose only least common ancestor with
`
`that node or vertex is the root node or vertex).”
`
`Patent Owner proposes a construction of the larger claim phrase
`
`“jumping to the at least one node” (claim 1) and “jumping to the vertex”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`(claim 7), inserting “the system” into the phrase. See Prelim. Resp. 2 n. 1.
`
`Based on the current record and for the purposes of this Decision, we
`
`determine that “jumping to the [at least one node/vertex]” needs no further
`
`construction beyond the construction of the term “jumping.”
`
`We determine that no other terms require explicit construction. See,
`
`e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in
`
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”
`
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`C. Ground 3: Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1‒7 over Fratkina
`
`We have reviewed the Petition and Preliminary Response and
`
`determine that, on the present record, Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of each of
`
`claims 1‒7 as obvious over Fratkina.
`
`1.
`
`Fratkina
`
`Fratkina is a United States patent directed to the use of multi-stage
`
`interaction with a client to identify particular knowledge associated with a
`
`content map. Ex. 1006, Abstract. Figure 11 of Fratkina is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 11 depicts an example dialog created by dialog engine 232. Id. at
`
`27:46‒50. In this example, the dialog begins at the “breakfast” node in
`
`iteration N, where the user is prompted with the question “which of the
`
`following would you like to get?” Id. at 27:50‒54. The user responds “eggs,”
`
`and the dialog engine proceeds to iteration N+1 with the dialog at the “eggs”
`
`node. Id. The user is next prompted with the question “how would you like
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`your eggs prepared?” Id. The user responds “scrambled,” which moves the
`
`dialog to the “scrambled” node in iteration N+2. Id. In this example, the user
`
`is choosing multiple choice answers, which each represents a “confirmed”
`
`node because relevance to the user’s request has been established. Id. at
`
`27:54‒60.
`
`Fratkina teaches several variations to this example, including a
`
`process termed “autocontextualization.” See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 29:1‒15.
`
`Fratkina teaches that autocontextualization is a process by which
`
`information is derived from user input and compared to taxonomies in the
`
`knowledge map to identify relevant nodes. Id. Fratkina teaches that
`
`autocontextualization may be used to “jump” to a specific place in the
`
`taxonomy. Id. at 34:40‒42.
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter 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 said subject matter
`
`pertains.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`
`determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`
`of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
`
`considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`We analyze Petitioner’s obviousness grounds with the principles identified
`
`above in mind.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`a. Preamble
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites: “[a] method performed in a system
`
`having multiple navigable nodes interconnected in a hierarchical
`
`arrangement.” Petitioner asserts that Fratkina discloses or suggests this
`
`feature. Pet. 56‒58. In particular, Petitioner asserts Fratkina discloses the use
`
`of hierarchical taxonomies containing interconnected nodes that may be
`
`navigated by a user. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, Figs. 4‒5, 4:42‒5:19, 14:47‒59).
`
`Dr. Smyth’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 80.
`
`Patent Owner does not argue that Fratkina fails to teach the preamble
`
`of claim 1. Based on the present record, we are sufficiently persuaded that
`
`Fratkina teaches the preamble of claim 1.2
`
`b. Receiving Limitation
`
`Claim 1 further recites “at a first node, receiving an input from a user
`
`of the system, the input containing at least one word identifiable with at least
`
`one keyword from among multiple keywords.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that Fratkina discloses or suggests this feature.
`
`Pet. 58‒62. In particular, Petitioner asserts Fratkina discloses a system that
`
`receives input from a user at a first node. Id. at 58 (citing Ex. 1006,
`
`Figs. 10‒12, 13:15‒39, 22:19-29, 26:36‒57, 34:9‒53). Petitioner asserts the
`
`input may be “keyword or natural language” queries that a dialog engine
`
`converts into tags to be processed by the system using autocontextualization.
`
`Id. at 58‒59 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:13‒28, 5:58‒8:10, 14:27‒31). Petitioner
`
`asserts the system uses the inputs to traverse the taxonomy. Id. at 59‒60
`
`
`2 At this stage of the proceeding, we need not decide whether the preamble is
`limiting because Petitioner sufficiently shows that Fratkina discloses the
`preamble.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`(citing Ex. 1006, 14:27‒31, 26:26‒47:27). Dr. Smyth’s testimony supports
`
`Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 80‒83.
`
`Patent Owner does not argue that Fratkina fails to teach this
`
`limitation. Based on the present record, we are sufficiently persuaded that
`
`Fratkina teaches this limitation.
`
`c. Identifying Limitation
`
`Claim 1 further recites “identifying at least one node, other than the
`
`first node, that is not directly connected to the first node but is associated
`
`with the at least one keyword, and jumping to the at least one node.” As
`
`noted above, for the purposes of this Decision we construe “jumping” to
`
`mean “a direct traversal from one node or vertex to another node or vertex
`
`that is not directly connected to it (i.e., without traversal through any
`
`intervening nodes or vertices or to a node or vertex whose only least
`
`common ancestor with that node or vertex is the root node or vertex).” See
`
`supra, Section B.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Fratkina discloses or suggests this feature.
`
`Pet. 62‒64. In particular, Petitioner asserts Fratkina discloses that
`
`autocontextualization allows users to navigate directly to nodes that are not
`
`directly connected to a first node without traversing through intervening
`
`nodes. Id. at 62‒63 (citing Ex. 1006, 27:25‒43, 34:32‒53, 37:54‒63).
`
`Petitioner explains autocontextualization by way of example, asserting
`
`that Fratkina discloses an embodiment wherein a user may navigate a
`
`hierarchical menu that includes options “breakfast,” “eggs,” and
`
`“scrambled.” Id. at 63. Petitioner asserts that if a user is at the “breakfast”
`
`node and desires “scrambled eggs,” the user may simply say “scrambled
`
`eggs” in response to a question about what the user wants for breakfast. Id.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`at 63. Petitioner asserts that in this example, Fratkina’s autocontextualization
`
`allows the dialog to identify “scrambled” as the goal node and the system
`
`will jump directly to that node, without requiring the user to first traverse
`
`through the “eggs” node. Id. at 63 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 12, 27:25‒43, 34:9‒
`
`53, 37:54‒63; Ex. 1007 ¶ 84). Dr. Smyth’s testimony supports Petitioner’s
`
`assertions, explaining that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand
`
`autocontextualization to allow this type of jumping. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 80‒84.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Fratkina fails to teach “jumping to the at
`
`least one node,” as claimed. Prelim. Resp. 8‒17. In particular, Patent Owner
`
`argues Fratkina’s menu embodiment illustrated by Figures 10‒12 discloses
`
`that “dialogs always lead to node-to-node traversal” with the only exception
`
`being autocontextualization. Id. at 8‒11. Patent Owner argues that Fratkina’s
`
`node-to-node traversal always leads to directly-connected children nodes. Id.
`
`at 11.
`
`Patent Owner argues that autocontextualization cannot be used with
`
`Fratkina’s menu embodiment. Prelim. Resp. 11‒14. In particular, Patent
`
`Owner argues that in Fratkina’s menu embodiment, a user’s response to a
`
`dialog prompt returns a confirmed node selection. Id. at 11‒12 (citing
`
`Ex. 1006, 26:54‒60). Patent Owner argues that autocontextualization never
`
`returns confirmed nodes, rendering it unusable in a system where confirmed
`
`nodes with associated keywords are traversed. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1006,
`
`29:5‒11, 33:49‒56).
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that autocontextualization never returns
`
`confirmed nodes and, therefore, cannot be used with the menu embodiment,
`
`is unpersuasive at this stage of the proceeding based on the present record.
`
`Fratkina teaches that input a user provides to the system is
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`autocontextualized against the taxonomies in the knowledge map. Ex. 1006,
`
`29:5‒6. This results in “topic spotter nodes” that represent the system’s
`
`understanding of the user’s input. Id. at 29:6‒8. These nodes are not
`
`automatically accepted as true (unlike confirmed nodes), but these nodes
`
`may be verified by asking follow-up questions to confirm the dialog
`
`engine’s understanding of the user’s input. Id. at 26:8‒14. Thus,
`
`autocontextualized topic spotter nodes may become confirmed after follow
`
`up. Id. at 26:8‒14; see also id. at 37:56‒57. Thus, based on the present
`
`record, Patent Owner’s argument that autocontextualization cannot return
`
`“confirmed” nodes is unsupported by the teachings of Fratkina. Further,
`
`Fratkina discloses that dialog designers may use goal parameters to create a
`
`dialog that advances to an autocontextualized node even without
`
`confirmation. See id. at 33:49‒34:3.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that even if autocontextualization were
`
`combinable with the menu embodiment, autocontextualization is used to
`
`generate topic spotter nodes, not nodes that would allow the alleged
`
`“jumping” relied upon by Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 13‒14. According to
`
`Patent Owner, autocontextualization never deals with user-provided
`
`keywords associated with non-adjacent nodes because it creates nodes based
`
`on user input rather than jumping to nodes that it confirms. Id. at 15‒17
`
`(citing Ex. 1006, 33:49‒56, 34:32‒42).
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that autocontextualization is never used to
`
`jump to non-adjacent nodes is unpersuasive at this stage of the proceeding
`
`based on the present record. As noted by Petitioner, Fratkina teaches that
`
`users may advance to goals and subgoals within a knowledge map by path
`
`traversal (i.e., traversing from parent to child nodes directly). Pet. 62‒63
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`(citing Ex. 1006, 34:32‒53). As asserted by Petitioner, Fratkina also teaches
`
`that “[a]utocontextualization can be used to jump to a specific place in the
`
`taxonomy and the dialog designer can explicitly specify a place to jump to.”
`
`Ex. 1006, 34:40‒42. Fratkina provides other examples of using
`
`autocontextualization to navigate to nodes within a taxonomy. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1006, Fig. 15, 37:31‒63 (explaining that by using a test question, a user is
`
`prompted to type in a desired menu selection, and the autocontextualized
`
`response advances the dialog to a particular subgoal). Dr. Smyth also
`
`testifies autocontextualization may be used to jump to non-adjacent nodes,
`
`rendering obvious the “jumping” limitations of claim 1. Ex. 1007 ¶ 84
`
`(citing Ex. 1006, 27:25‒43, 34:32‒53, 37:54‒63).
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions regarding
`
`“jumping” and Dr. Smyth’s testimony are unsupported and conclusory.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 14. On the current record, we disagree because Petitioner and
`
`Dr. Smyth reasonably support their assertions by citing to teachings of
`
`Fratkina. See Pet. 62‒63 (citing Ex. 1006, 34:32‒53); Ex. 1007 ¶ 84 (citing
`
`Ex. 1006, 27:25‒43, 34:32‒53, 37:54‒63).
`
`For these reasons and based on the present record, we are sufficiently
`
`persuaded that Fratkina teaches this limitation.
`
`On this record, we are satisfied at this stage of the proceeding that
`
`Fratkina discloses every limitation of claim 1. Thus, for the foregoing
`
`reasons, Petitioner has shown, on the present record, a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would establish unpatentability of claim 1 as obvious over Fratkina.
`
`3.
`
`Independent claim 7
`
`Independent claim 7 recites “[a] method performed in a system having
`
`multiple navigable nodes interconnected in a hierarchical arrangement.”
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`Claim 7 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and Petitioner’s analysis is
`
`similar. See Pet. 65‒70. Patent Owner does not provide separate argument
`
`for claim 7. See Prelim. Resp. 8‒17. On this record, we are satisfied at this
`
`stage that Fratkina discloses every limitation of claim 7 for substantially the
`
`same reasons as claim 1. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has
`
`shown, on this record, a reasonable likelihood that it would establish
`
`unpatentability of claim 7 as obvious over Fratkina.
`
`4.
`
`Dependent claim 2
`
`Claim 2 recites “[t]he method of claim 1 further comprising:
`
`providing a verbal description associated with the at least one node to the
`
`user.” Petitioner asserts Fratkina teaches this limitation by teaching a text-to-
`
`speech system that outputs a vocal response to the user. Pet. 64‒65 (citing
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 11, Fig. 21, 13:15‒24, 26:34‒60, 37:12‒30); Ex. 1007 ¶ 85).
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions. We have
`
`reviewed the Petition and Preliminary Response and determine, on the
`
`present record, that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claim 2 as
`
`obvious over Fratkina.
`
`D. Ground 4: Alleged Obviousness of Claims 3‒6 over Fratkina and
`Rajaraman
`
`Claims 3‒6 depend from Claim 1. Petitioner relies on Rajaraman as
`
`disclosing the further recited limitations in these dependent claims and has
`
`articulated a reasonable rationale why a person skilled in the art would have
`
`combined the teachings of Fratkina and Rajaraman. See Pet. 40‒53, 70‒71.
`
`Patent Owner does not argue any of these dependent claims separately on
`
`the current record. See Prelim. Resp. We have reviewed the Petition and
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`Preliminary Response and determine that, on the present record, Petitioner
`
`has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing
`
`unpatentability of each of claims 3‒6 as obvious over the combined
`
`teachings of Fratkina and Rajaraman.
`
`E. Grounds 1 and 2: Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1‒7 over
`Wesemann [Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, and 7] and Wesemann and
`Rajaraman [Ground 2: Claims 3‒6]
`
`Petitioner asserts Wesemann discloses all of the limitations of claims
`
`1, 2, and 7, and that Wesemann in combination with Rajaraman renders
`
`obvious all of the limitations of claims 3‒6. Pet. 16‒30. Patent Owner
`
`focuses its arguments on the limitations “jumping to the at least one node,”
`
`as recited in claim, 1 and “jumping to the vertex,” as recited in claim 7. See
`
`Prelim. Resp. 1‒8. As stated above with respect to claim construction of
`
`these terms, Patent Owner argues that these terms should be construed to
`
`mean “the system jumping to the [at least one node/vertex].” Id. at 2 n.1.
`
`Also, Patent Owner asserts that it presumes Petitioner agrees with this
`
`construction, but provides no other argument supporting its proposed
`
`construction. Id.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Wesemann does not teach “jumping to the
`
`[at least one node/vertex]” under its proposed construction because
`
`Wesemann teaches the system navigating through intermediate, connected
`
`nodes to “jump” to the indirectly connected node. Id. at 2‒5; Ex. 1004,
`
`3:5056). According to Patent Owner, Wesemann’s “jump” merely spares
`
`the user from entering input while the user interface transitions between the
`
`intermediate nodes but does not allow the system to transition between non-
`
`connected nodes. Prelim. Resp. 6.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that Wesemann discloses “jumping to the at least
`
`one node” and “jumping to the vertex” by disclosing lateral and vertical
`
`jumping within the menu tree. See Pet. 26‒28, 39‒40. Petitioner asserts the
`
`lateral and vertical “jumping action is done automatically upon receiving the
`
`appropriate voice commands, or keywords, without requiring the user to
`
`select different menu items from a display or navigate through the
`
`hierarchical menu.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1004, 11:65‒12:6, 12:12‒36, 12:65‒
`
`13:2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 47, 55‒56). Thus, Petitioner’s assertions focus on whether
`
`the user is required to navigate through the intermediate nodes.
`
`Although we have construed the term “jumping” alone, there appears
`
`to be a dispute as to the scope of the phrases “jumping to the at least one
`
`node” and “jumping to the vertex.” In particular, the dispute seems to be
`
`centered on whether the claim language is satisfied merely because the user
`
`interface, as opposed to the underlying system, evidences a jump over some
`
`part of the menu. At this stage of the proceeding the record is insufficiently
`
`developed on this issue for us to make a preliminary determination regarding
`
`claim construction of these phrases.
`
`Nevertheless, the issue raised by Patent Owner may be decided at
`
`institution without claim construction on this issue at this juncture. In
`
`particular, we note that, according to Patent Owner, Wesemann’s “jump”
`
`may refer to a transition across multiple connected nodes. Prelim. Resp. 56
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, 12:5365). Such a characterization of Wesemann’s use of
`
`the word “jump” is inconsistent with the construction of the term that we
`
`have adopted for purposes of this Decision. Under that construction, the
`
`“jump” must be between nodes not directly connected. We will make a final
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`determination upon review of further briefing and evidence by the parties
`
`regarding this issue.
`
`At this time and on this record, we do not construe further the terms
`
`“jumping to the at least one node” and “jumping to the vertex.” For purposes
`
`of this Decision, and subject to further evidence and argument by the parties,
`
`we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on this ground.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the arguments in the Petition and the evidence of record, we
`
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`will prevail on its challenge to at least one claim of the ’379 patent.
`
`Although we exercise our discretion and institute review, we remind
`
`the parties that we have not yet made a final determination as to the
`
`patentability of any of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 1‒7 of the ’379 patent with respect to
`
`the grounds set forth in the Petition; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial
`
`commencing on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Dion Bregman
`Michael Lyons
`Ahren Hsu-Hoffman
`MORGAN LEWIS
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`michael.lyons@morganlewis.com
`ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Isaac Rabicoff
`RABICOFF LAW
`isaac@rabilaw.com
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket