UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ELASTIC N.V.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2021-00875
`
`Patent No. 7,231,379
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ELASTIC N.V.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2021-00875
`
`Patent No. 7,231,379
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3
`
`II. Ground 3: Fratkina explicitly teaches away from Claims 1, 2 and 7 ...................................... 4
`
`III. Ground 4: As Fratkina teaches away from Claims 1, 2, and 7, Fratkina in view of
`
`Rajaraman does not render Claims 3-6 obvious ............................................................................. 7
`
`IV. Grounds 1 and 2 have already been rejected by the Board and Petitioner advances the
`
`same argument ................................................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a), Guada Technologies LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”), hereby submits the following Response to the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,379 (“the ‘379 Patent”).
`
`The Petition proposes four grounds of unpatentability: (1) Wesemann renders
`
`claims 1, 2, and 7 obvious; (2) Wesemann in view of Rajaraman renders claims 3-6
`
`obvious; (3) Fratkina renders claim 1, 2, and 7 obvious; and (4) Fratkina in view of
`
`Rajaraman renders claims 3-6 obvious. Each of these grounds are flawed and in the
`
`case of Grounds 1 and 2, have already been rejected by the Board.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Fratkina renders claims 1, 2 and 7 obvious. This
`
`argument is, however, fatally flawed as Fratkina explicitly teaches away from the
`
`claims by requiring a confirmation step, as Fratkina notes autocontextualization can
`
`make mistakes and that it should not be assumed that the correct tags have been
`
`extracted from a query. This is in contrast to claims 1, 2 and 7, which teach making
`
`the jump to one node with just one entry of one word, with no intermediate
`
`verification step. Thus, not only are claims 1, 2, and 7 not anticipated by Fratkina,
`
`they are not rendered obvious in light of Fratkina either because it would not have
`
`been obvious to remove the verification step disclosed in Fratkina, as Fratkina
`
`explicitly teaches that mistakes happen and a verification step may be needed after
`
`input to correct such mistakes.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`As Fratkina does not render claim 1, 2, 7 obvious, Ground 4—which asserts
`
`that claims 3-6 are obvious in light of Fratkina in view of Rajaraman—is flawed
`
`because claims 3-6 depend on claim 1, and these dependent claims do not claim a
`
`confirmation or verification step. Thus, no combination of Fratkina with any
`
`reference can render claims 3-6 obvious since Fratkina teaches away from these
`
`claims.
`
`Ground 1 and 2 were previously rejected by the Board in the Bloomreach
`
`Institution Decision. Petitioner not only re-raises the same argument, but does so by
`
`literally copying the Bloomreach Petitioner’s argument word for word. Compare
`
`Bloomreach Petition, Case No. IPR2019-01304 (“Bloomreach Petition”), pages 16-
`
`54 to Petition pages 16-65. Having advanced no new argument, the Board should
`
`not alter its previous decision rejecting these grounds.
`
`As there is no basis on any of the grounds presented by Petitioner, the Board
`
`should respectfully enter a final decision on this inter partes review in favor of the
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`II. Ground 3: Fratkina explicitly teaches away from Claims 1, 2 and 7
`
`In the Bloomreach Institution Decision, the Board stated, “Fratkina discloses
`
`that dialog designers may use goal parameters to create a dialog that advances to an
`
`autocontextualized node even without confirmation.” Decision Granting Institution,
`
`Case No. IPR2019-01304 at 15 (citing Fratkina at 33:49-34:3) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`The Board’s assertion, and Petitioner’s argument in reliance thereof, is in
`
`direct contradiction to Fratkina itself. Fratkina states, “[h]owever sometimes other
`
`information can not be fully trusted. In particular, autocontextualization, being an
`
`automatic process, can make mistakes. Therefore it may not be safe to assume that
`
`correct concept tags have been extracted from the query. User preference
`
`information, though human-entered, may be outdated.” See id. at 33:52-57. Fratkina
`
`specifically
`
`requires
`
`confirmation, because—by
`
`its own
`
`admission—
`
`autocontextualization can make mistakes. Fratkina, thus, explicitly teaches a
`
`confirmation step to account for autocontextualization mistakes and outdated user
`
`preference information. The Board in Bloomreach assumed the goal parameters can
`
`be modified, but respectfully failed to take into account that autocontextualization is
`
`not to be trusted.
`
`As noted by the Board, “Fratkina teaches that input a user provides to the
`
`system is 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`after follow up. Id. at 26:8‒14; see also id. at 37:56‒57.” Decision Granting
`
`Institution, Case No. IPR2019-01304 at 15 (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, as noted by the Board, Fratkina teaches the user input step and a
`
`separate verification step. The claims of the ‘379 Patent, however, expressly do not
`
`require a verification step. Rather, they teach making the jump to one node with just
`
`one entry of one word, with no intermediate verification step. ‘379 Patent at 22:50-
`
`57.
`
`The claims of the ‘379 Patent, are, thus, not anticipated by Fratkina.
`
`Specifically, Fratkina does not anticipate or teach “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” of
`
`Claim 1, does not teach Claim 2 which depends on Claim 1 and does not teach
`
`“selecting a vertex in the graph structure that is not connected by an edge to the first
`
`vertex, based upon an association between the meaningful term and the at least one
`
`keyword and a correlation between the at least one keyword and the vertex; and
`
`jumping to the vertex” of Claim 7.
`
`Moreover, the claims are not rendered obvious in view of Fratkina either,
`
`because it would not have been obvious to remove the verification step disclosed in
`
`Fratkina, as Fratkina explicitly teaches that mistakes happen and a verification step
`
`may be needed after input to correct such mistakes.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`III. Ground 4: As Fratkina teaches away from Claims 1, 2, and 7, Fratkina
`in view of Rajaraman does not render Claims 3-6 obvious
`As discussed above, Fratkina teaches away from Claims 1, 2 and 7 by
`
`specifically teaching a verification step to account for autocontextualization
`
`mistakes. Claims 3-6 depend on claim 1, and do not claim a
`
`confirmation/verification step. Since Fratkina explicitly teaches away from claims
`
`1, 2, and 7, not only does Fratkina not anticipate or render obvious these claims, but
`
`Fratkina cannot be combined with any reference, including Rajaraman, to render
`
`dependent claims 3-6 obvious.
`
`IV. Grounds 1 and 2 have already been rejected by the Board and
`Petitioner advances the same argument
`In the Bloomreach Institution Decision, the Board noted that for both Grounds
`
`1 and 2, “Petition has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on [these
`
`grounds].” See Decision Granting Institution, Case No. IPR2019-01304 at 20.
`
`The arguments advanced by the Bloomreach Petitioner and Petitioner are the
`
`same. In fact, the arguments in the Bloomreach Petition are copied by Petitioner.
`
`Compare Bloomreach Petition, pages 16-54 to Petition pages 16-65. Having
`
`advanced no new argument—and in fact advancing the same exact failed argument
`
`down to the very letter—there is no reason for the Board to reconsider its previous
`
`ruling rejecting Grounds 1 and 2.
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`The Board has already rejected Grounds 1 and 2, and Petitioner offers no new
`
`argument concerning these grounds. As to Grounds 3 and 4, Fratkina explicitly
`
`teaches away from claims 1, 2, and 7 (and dependent claims 3-6) by teaching that a
`
`confirmation/verification step may be needed to correct mistakes. Accordingly, the
`
`Petition Prior Art does not describe all of the elements of the challenged claims.
`
`Thus, the Board should, respectfully, enter a final decision in favor of the Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 20, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Sanjay Pant/
`By: Sanjay Pant
` Reg. No. 64,865
`PRA Law
`2800 Bartons Bluff Lane #1902
`Austin, TX, 78746
`(214) 702-1150
`spant@pralawllc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITS
`
`This Patent Owner Response includes 1,226 words, as counted by Microsoft Word
`
`not counting certifications, and is therefore in compliance with the 14,000 work limit
`
`established by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(2). Accordingly, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`42.24(d), lead counsel for Patent Owner hereby certifies that this paper complies
`
`with the type-volume limits established for a patent owner response to a Petition for
`
`Inter Partes review.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 20, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Sanjay Pant/
`By: Sanjay Pant
` Reg. No. 64,865
`PRA Law
`2800 Bartons Bluff Lane #1902
`Austin, TX, 78746
`(214) 702-1150
`spant@pralawllc.com
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Response of Patent Owner Guada Technologies,
`
`LLC is being served on the Petitioner concurrently with the filing of this
`
`document via email to the following persons:
`
`Matthew Argenti
`Michael Rosato
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`margenti@wsgr.com
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`
`Dated: January 20, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`9
`
`
`
`/Sanjay Pant/
`By: Sanjay Pant
` Reg. No. 64,865
`PRA Law
`2800 Bartons Bluff Lane #1902
`Austin, TX, 78746
`(214) 702-1150
`spant@pralawllc.com
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
