GOOGLE LLC, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., AND LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`IPR2020-00846; Patent 7,076,431 B2
`IPR2020-00847; Patent 9,451,084 B2
`
`Paper 27 – Order Setting Oral Argument
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`1
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., AND LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`IPR2020-00846; Patent 7,076,431 B2
`IPR2020-00847; Patent 9,451,084 B2
`
`Paper 27 – Order Setting Oral Argument
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`1
`
`
`
`Overview of Issues
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Kovatch is not prior art – Parus’s research and development pre-dates Kovatch
`
`Kovatch fails to disclose each claim element of the Challenged Claims
`
`Written description sufficient – Kurganov-262 is not prior art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`2
`
`
`
`Grounds
`
`IPR2020-00846
`Ground Reference
`Kovatch, Neal
`I
`Kovatch, Neal, Chakrabarti
`II
`Kovatch, Neal, DeSimone
`III
`Kovatch, Neal, Chakrabarti, DeSimone
`IV
`Kurganov-262, Chakrabarti
`V
`Kurganov-262, Chakrabarti, DeSimone
`VI
`
`IPR2020-00847
`Ground Reference
`Kurganov-262, Chakrabarti
`I
`Kurganov-262, Chakrabarti
`II
`Kovatch, Chakrabarti, Neal
`III
`Kovatch, Chakrabarti, Neal, DeSimone
`IV
`
`Basis Challenged Claims
`§103
`1, 2, 4-7, 10, 13-14
`§103
`1, 2, 4-7, 9-10, 13-14
`§103
`14
`§103
`14
`§103
`9
`§103
`14
`
`Basis Challenged Claims
`§103 1-2, 4-7, 10, 14
`§103 14
`§103 1-2, 4-7, 10, 14
`§103 14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`3
`
`
`
`KovatchNot Prior Art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`4
`
`
`
`KovatchIs Not Prior Art
`
` All Grounds Fail Because Kovatch Is Not Prior Art
` Parus can swear behind Kovatch
` Parus was working on the Webley Assistant II starting in early 1999
` Parus reduced to practice in early January 2000
` Parus had multiple people working on the Webley Assistant II for months before
`the reduction to practice
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`5
`
`
`
`KovatchIs Not Prior Art
`
` Diligence is uncontested by Petitioners
` Kovatch’s priority date is January 4, 2000
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`6
`
`
`
`KovatchIs Not Prior Art
`
`ATI Technologies, IPR2015-00325
`
`In order to establish reduction to practice, the inventor
`must establish:
`
`(1) the inventor constructed an embodiment or
`performed a process that met all of the claim
`limitations; and
`
`(2) the invention would work for its intended purpose.
`
`(ATI Technologies, IPR2015-00325, Paper 62, 17 (citing to Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998))).
`
` Parus meets both prongs
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`7
`
`
`
`KovatchNot Prior Art – Parus Product Practices Claims
`
` The source code shows a working embodiment of the Webley Assistant II
` Petitioners do not contend that the underlying code does not work for its intended
`purpose
` Inventor’s declaration regarding the structure, function and operation of the source
`code is unrebutted and unchallenged
` Petitioners’ expert would not opine on whether the code would work or not
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`8
`
`
`
`KovatchNot Prior Art – Parus Product Practices All Claims
`
` Kovatch not prior art – Parus source code works for its intended purpose
` No evidence that the source code could not be compiled
` Petitioners point to the fact that the call to the getWeather() function
`was commented out as evidence that the Webley Assistant II was never
`compiled with the weather functionality
` Petitioners make no showing that the weather functionality did not work for its
`intended purpose
` Neither Petitioners, nor their expert, could find any fault with the underlying
`code
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`9
`
`
`
`KovatchNot Prior Art – Parus Product Practices All Claims
`
` Different sources corroborate the Webley Assistant II was reduced to
`practice
` Source code
` Emails between inventors
` Declarant’s testimony
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`10
`
`
`
`KovatchNot Prior Art – Parus Product Practices All Claims
`
` Work on product complete
`
`Ex. 2050 at page 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`11
`
`
`
`KovatchNot Prior Art – Parus Product Practices All Claims
`
` Work on product complete
`
`Ex. 2020 Kurganov
`
`Ex. 2020 Kurganov at pages 6-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`12
`
`
`
`KovatchDoes Not Practice All Elements
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`13
`
`
`
`Kovatchin view of Neal– Not All Elements Taught
`
` None of the cited references disclose claim limitation 1(J)
` In every Ground, the Petition relies on the combination of Kovatch and Neal
`to provide this limitation, which is exemplary in the ’431 and mapped by
`Petitioners as follows:
`
`Ex. 1001 (Kurganov)
`’431 Patent at 20:24-33
`Petition, 32-33, 75
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`14
`
`
`
`Kovatchin View of Neal– Not All Elements Taught
`
` Neal discloses a database search engine
`
` Neal does not disclose sequentially accessing pre-selected web sites; rather,
`the Neal disclosure relied on and identified by Petitioner discloses the
`accessing of internal database files from a database, not web sites
`
`Ex. 1007 (Neal)
`’534 Patent at 4:6-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`15
`
`
`
`Kovatchin View of Neal– Not All Elements Taught
`
` Neal discloses an
`algorithm that utilizes
`multiple
`search methodologies
`and multiple data sets
`
`Ex. 1007 (Neal)
`’534 Patent at Abstract
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`16
`
`
`
`Kovatchin View of Neal– Not All Elements Taught
`
` Petitioners rely on
`this very algorithm
`that uses a sequence
`of search strategies
`on subsets of the
`database
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Pet. at 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`17
`
`
`
`Kovatchin View of Neal– Not All Elements Taught
`
` Petitioners rely on a limited version of this algorithm that Neal teaches away
`from
`
`Ex. 1007 (Neal)
`’534 Patent at 6:59-65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`18
`
`
`
`NealHighlights the Problems With Keyword Exact String Matches In the Prior Art
`
` Neal highlights the problems with keyword exact string matches in the prior
`art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`19
`
`Ex. 1007 (Neal)
`’534 Patent at 2:16-36
`
`
`
`Kovatchin View of Neal– Not All Elements Taught
`
` To overcome these limitations Neal suggests using multiple search strategies
`on multiple data sets
`
`Ex. 1007 (Neal)
`’534 Patent at 3:25-35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`20
`
`
`
`Kovatchin View of Neal– Not All Elements Taught
`
` Sequential access of websites is very different
`than sequential access of a database
`
` A database is controlled by a system manager.
`The system manager can update the data in
`the database whenever they please
`
`Ex. 1007 (Neal)
`’534 Patent at 6:66-7:8
`
` In contrast, when one accesses a website one discovers information that is there at that moment
`
` Information on websites can be dynamic and change often, and is out of the control of the user
`
` Sequentially accessing websites where one cannot control the data that may be there at that moment is
`very different than accessing files in a database that are in a controlled environment under the control
`of the system administrator
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`21
`
`
`
`Kovatchin View of Neal– Not All Elements Taught
`
` Neal’s algorithm returns a plurality of results
`instead of the single result expected by
`Kovatch
` The only example disclosed in Neal returns 29
`Results
` Petitioners do not explain how Kovatch,
`which expects a single result,
`would deal with a plurality of results.
`
`Ex. 1007 (Neal)
`’534 Patent at 8:11-29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`22
`
`
`
`Written Description
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`23
`
`
`
`Written Description –Kurganov-262Is Not Prior Art
`
` Petitioner’s challenge is based on the idea that the following term is not described by the
`original specification:
`
` There is sufficient written description to support the requirements of claim 9 of the ’431
`Patent and claim 1 of the ’084 Patent
` One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “polling” allows a system to
`discover new websites
`
`Ex. 1001 (Kurganov)
`’431 Patent at claim 9, (21:4-7).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`24
`
`
`
`Written Description –Kurganov-262Is Not Prior Art
`
` The second embodiment’s polling of devices is not limited to known devices
`
` It expressly discloses adding new devices to the system; if it were restricted to known
`devices, new devices could never be added
`
`Ex. 1001 (Kurganov)
`’431 Patent at 3:58-67
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`25
`
`
`
`Written Description –Kurganov-262Is Not Prior Art
`
` The specification discloses that the system performs website polling.
`
`Ex. 1001 (Kurganov)
`’431 Patent at (3:58-61).
`
` The specification is not limited to changes in existing web pages that are listed in a database.
` Discloses polling web sites to adapt in real time
` Web sites can be added to the Internet, removed from the Internet, or changed.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`26
`
`
`
`Written Description –Kurganov-262Is Not Prior Art
`
` Petitioners appear to contend that there is sufficient disclosure for claim 14, so
`Parus provides no argument
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`27
`
`
`
`End
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Parus IPR-
`
`28
`
`
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
