Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 17
`Entered: August 22, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`ELASTIC N.V., OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, and
`PREGIS LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________________
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`___________________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Tuesday, July 26, 2022
`___________________________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 17
`Entered: August 22, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`ELASTIC N.V., OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, and
`PREGIS LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________________
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`___________________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Tuesday, July 26, 2022
`___________________________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`
` A
`
` P P E A R A N C E S
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`
`
`MATTHEW A. ARGENTI, ESQUIRE
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`(650) 354-4154
`-and-
`RYAN N. MILLER, ESQUIRE
`FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
`2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
`(215) 299-2901
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`GAUTHAM BODEPUDI, ESQUIRE
`IP EDGE
`5300 North Braeswood Boulevard, Suite 4
`Houston, Texas 77096
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`Rohan Kale
`Charles Slay, Coordinator
`James Favor, Technician
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, July 26,
`2022, commencing at 2:11 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE MCNEILL: All right. Welcome, everyone. I'm
`going to start this from the top. It looks like we have
`everybody online now.
` I'm Judge McNeill. Judges McGraw and Quinn are
`also participating in this hearing by video. This is an oral
`argument for IPR2021-00875. The challenged patent is Patent
`Number 7,231,379. Petitioners are Elastic N.V., Ohio Farmers
`Insurance Company, and Pregis LLC. Patent owner is Guada
`Technologies LLC.
` At this time, we'd like to ask counsel for each
`party to please introduce yourselves and all members of your
`team who are attending the hearing, starting with
`petitioners, please.
` MR. ARGENTI: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
` Matt Argenti on behalf of petitioners. Also
`attending today is Ryan Miller, counsel for joinder
`petitioners, and attending via the public link is Rohan Kale
`of Elastic, and there may be some additional representatives
`of the joinder petitioners as well. Thank you.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Thank you.
` Patent owners?
` MR. BODEPUDI: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
` My name is Gau Bodepudi, and I represent Guada
`Technologies. And I'm the only one attending on behalf of
`Guada.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Thank you.
` Thank you all for your flexibility in conducting
`this all-video hearing today. We know this is a departure
`from our typical practice, and given that, we want to start
`off by clarifying a few things for the video.
` First, our primary concern is your right to be
`heard. If at any time during the proceeding you encounter
`technical or other difficulties that you feel fundamentally
`undermines your ability to adequately represent your client,
`please let us know immediately. For example, you can contact
`the team members who provided you with the connection
`information.
` Second, when you're not speaking, please mute
`yourself. And third, please identify yourself each time you
`speak. This helps the court reporter prepare an accurate
`transcript.
` Fourth, we have the entire record, including the
`demonstratives. When referring to demonstratives, papers, or
`exhibits, please do so clearly and explicitly by slide or
`page number. Please also pause a few seconds after
`identifying it to provide us time to find it. This also
`helps prepare an accurate transcript of the hearing.
` Finally, please be aware that members of the public
`may be listening to this oral hearing.
` Now, as set forth in the hearing order, each party
`will have 30 minutes to present their argument. We'll start
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`with petitioner, then patent owner. Petitioner may reserve
`time for rebuttal, and patent owner may reserve time for a
`brief surrebuttal following that. It would be useful, if you
`know how much time you'd like to reserve, to let me know
`ahead of time so that I can track it accordingly. I'll give
`you a warning around five minutes before your time is up.
` Petitioner, we'll start with you. Is there a set
`amount of time you'd like to reserve for rebuttal?
` MR. ARGENTI: Yes, Your Honor. 10 minutes, please.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Okay. Petitioner, you can begin
`when ready.
` MR. ARGENTI: Thank you. And good afternoon again,
`Your Honors. My name is Matt Argenti, on behalf of
`petitioners. Today I'll be referring to the demonstrative
`exhibits that we've submitted as Paper 15 in this IPR.
` Turning to Slide 2 of those demonstratives, we see
`the instituted grounds. At institution, the board found all
`four grounds presented a reasonable likelihood of success.
` Now, I want to very briefly address the Rajaraman
`reference. We cited that reference for disclosing a
`thesaurus that correlates keywords and synonyms, along with
`related limitations in Dependent Claims 3 through 6.
` Petitioners -- sorry. Patent owner has not raised
`any arguments regarding that Rajaraman reference. They don't
`dispute the cited disclosure, nor do they dispute the
`petition's explanation of reasons to combine with the other
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`references.
` So turn to Slide 3 of the demonstratives. Here we
`see Representative Claim 1 of the '379 patent. We see that
`it claims a method of navigating through nodes in a
`hierarchical arrangement. One example discussed in the '379
`patent is an automated telephone response system where a user
`makes menu selections to navigate branching paths to a
`desired menu option.
` Now, the claim that we see here broadly recites
`receiving from a user at least one word that's identifiable
`with a keyword, identifying a node that's associated with
`that keyword, and jumping to that node. So what you're doing
`is you're jumping from one node to another node that isn't
`directly connected to the first node based on a keyword. And
`as we explained in the petition, that was nothing new.
` Now, turning to Slide 4. Before I get to the
`specific disputes in this case -- and there aren't many -- I
`want to point out that the issues here at this stage are the
`same as they were before institution, and so is the record,
`essentially. Patent owner's response merely restated their
`arguments from the preliminary response, which the board had
`already considered when deciding to institute. Patent owner
`submitted no evidence during the trial stage. In fact, they
`submitted no evidence whatsoever during the IPR. They did
`not submit an expert declaration, nor did they cross-examine
`our expert, Dr. Smith. They also elected not to file a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`surreply. So patent owner has submitted nothing new for the
`board to consider that wasn't already before Your Honors when
`deciding to grant institution, so there's no reason to find
`any of the grounds lacking at this stage.
` Now, turning to Slide 5, we see most of the claim
`constructions that we presented in the petition. We propose
`constructions for the terms node, vertex, keyword, and verbal
`description. Patent owner hasn't contested any of these
`constructions, so they're not in dispute.
` Turning to Slide 6, we see one more claim
`construction that was proposed in the petition for the term
`jumping. Now, there are two aspects to this construction.
`First, the claim term requires a direct traversal from one
`node or vertex to another node or vertex that is not directly
`connected to it. That comes straight from patent owner's
`statements during prosecution. And again, they don't dispute
`this construction.
` The second aspect of the construction is that
`jumping is not limited to system jumps, but instead also
`encompasses allowing the user to jump. We noted in our
`petition that in an earlier IPR filed by a different
`petitioner, Bloomreach, patent owner argued jumping should be
`construed as limited to the system jumping, but they have not
`argued that here. So that aspect of our construction is also
`not in dispute.
` Now, turning to Slide 7 and Grounds 1 and 2, which
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`both involve the Wesemann reference. As we explained in the
`petition, like the '379 patent, Wesemann discloses a way of
`navigating a telephone menu system that utilizes keywords,
`which Wesemann refers to as inputs, acceptable responses, and
`requests, and it uses them to navigate directly to a distant
`node of the system. As Wesemann says here in the abstract,
`the invention enabled the user to jump from one menu state to
`another menu state of the telephone service system without
`having to enter input for each menu state between the first
`and second menu states. That's just like the '379 patent.
` If we turn to the next slide, Slide 8, we can take
`a look at what patent owner argues regarding these Wesemann
`grounds. Their entire argument is that the board rejected
`these grounds in the Bloomreach IPR, and patent owner asserts
`that the grounds at issue in this IPR are word-for-word
`identical to that Bloomreach petition, so the board should
`reject here as well. But as the board noted in our
`institution decision, patent owner doesn't actually argue
`that Wesemann fails to disclose any particular claim
`limitation, only that the grounds should be rejected because
`the board previously made a preliminary institution finding
`of no reasonable likelihood of success for the Wesemann
`grounds in Bloomreach.
` Now, that's wrong for a number of reasons. First,
`when reaching a final written decision, the board isn't bound
`by an institution decision, even in the same IPR. We see
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`that from the Federal Circuit's Trivascular decision, cited
`here on this slide. Second, the board actually granted
`institution in the Bloomreach IPR, including the Wesemann
`grounds, and didn't reach a final decision on the merit
`because that IPR settled. There was nothing final or binding
`about the decision that patent owner relies on. Third,
`patent owner is wrong that the grounds here are identical to
`what was at issue in the Bloomreach IPR.
` If you turn to the next slide, Slide 9, we see that
`our petition includes additional explanation addressing that
`perceived deficiency identified in the Bloomreach IPR. We
`see that here in some of the excerpted text from page 17 of
`our petition. And the board in this IPR acknowledged that in
`the institution decision. Taking that additional analysis
`into account, the board found our Wesemann grounds do present
`a reasonable likelihood of success. Yet, in their trial
`stage response, patent owner again made the false claim that
`the petition here is identical to Bloomreach. It's not. And
`patent owner has raised no other dispute regarding Grounds 1
`or 2. The substance of these grounds remains unrebutted.
`The board should therefore find Claims 1, 2, and 7 obvious in
`view of Wesemann and Claims 3 through 6 obvious in view of
`Wesemann and Rajaraman.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Counselor, regarding this annotated
`Wesemann FIG. 6, which is shown on Demonstrative Slide 9 from
`pages 28 to 29 of the petition, it looks like there is an
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`annotation indicating that there's a jump from home computer
`sales 650. The accompanying description to the left
`describes a jump from home laptop sales 652. Is this
`intended to be describing the same embodiment, or are these
`two different examples out of Wesemann?
` MR. ARGENTI: I'm glad you pointed that out,
`Your Honor. I believe that's a typo in the annotated figure,
`and that the arrow was intended to be pointing from Box 652
`to Box 646.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Thank you. You can continue.
` JUDGE QUINN: Does that change materially alter
`your arguments, or do they apply equally?
` MR. ARGENTI: It does not materially alter our
`arguments. As you see in the text, we cited the
`corresponding portion of the text -- in fact, we quoted it in
`the petition -- that identifies the elements that Wesemann
`explicitly describes, the jumping from 652 to 646. So it
`doesn't change our argument or our ground.
` Now, unless there are any other questions about
`Grounds 1 or 2, I'll turn to Grounds 3 and 4, which cite the
`Fratkina reference.
` And I'm moving on to Slide 10. Fratkina discloses
`a system for navigating a hierarchical dialogue or menu.
`Again, like the '379 patent, Fratkina discloses that one
`example of implementation is an interactive telephone system.
`The user can use keywords or natural language queries that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`are converted by a dialog engine into tags that are processed
`using what Fratkina calls autocontextualization. And
`Fratkina explains that rather than processing through a
`series of connected nodes sequentially, using
`autocontextualization, the sytem may jump to a node or set of
`nodes more than one edge away from the previous focus. So
`Fratkina discloses using keywords to jump the nodes, just
`like the '379 patent.
` Turning to Slide 11. Patent owner attempts to
`distinguish Fratkina by arguing that it requires an
`intermediate verification step, rather than just jumping
`directly to the desired node after receiving the keyword from
`the user. That's what we see on this Slide 11. There are
`two problems with that argument, though, that the board has
`already acknowledged at institution. First, the claims don't
`exclude such a verification step. And second, even if the
`claims did exclude verification, patent owner is wrong that
`Fratkina requires it.
` Looking at that in a little more detail, turning to
`Slide 12 and the first of those problems, neither the claims
`nor the specification of the '379 patent exclude an
`intermediate verification step. Claim 1, for example,
`recites a method comprising certain steps. Nothing in the
`claim precludes additional steps as part of that method. And
`that's consistent with the specification, which also doesn't
`exclude intermediate confirmation steps. To the contrary, as
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`we see here on Slide 12, the specification broadly says that
`all manner of jumps are possible. And it also seems to
`contemplate asking for confirmation when it describes
`offering an initial meaning that the user can reject.
` In contrast, patent owner doesn't cite any portion
`of the '379 patent except for Claim 1 itself. They haven't
`pointed to anything in the specification supporting their
`position that the invention excludes verification. So the
`claims do not exclude verification.
` Now, turning to Slide 13, the second problem with
`patent owner's argument is that even if the claims did
`exclude an intermediate verification step, patent owner is
`wrong that Fratkina requires one. What we see is that
`Fratkina says intermediate verification is optional. For
`example, as the board noted in the institution decision, at
`Column 33, going onto the top of Column 34, the reference,
`Fratkina explains that its system includes a parameter
`allowing the designer to set whether or not the user is asked
`to verify the conclusions inferred by the
`autocontextualization system. So Fratkina doesn't require
`verification. In fact, it discloses setting the system up so
`it doesn't ask for verification.
` Patent owner's argument should be rejected for the
`reasons identified in the institution decision. Beyond that,
`they haven't identified any issues with Grounds 3 and 4. So
`Claims 1, 2, and 7 are obvious based on Fratkina, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`Claims 3 through 6 are obvious based on Fratkina and
`Rajaraman.
` Thank you. With that, I will reserve the remainder
`of my time, unless the panel has any questions.
` JUDGE QUINN: Just a quick question. So if we
`agree with you that in Fratkina, the user verification is
`optional, we do not need to reach the issue of whether the
`claim includes or excludes a further verification step in
`between the jumping steps?
` MR. ARGENTI: That's correct. Either one of the
`problems that I identified on its own is enough to reject
`patent owner's argument.
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Thank you, Counselor.
` Patent owner, you can respond now.
` MR. BODEPUDI: Okay. I'd like to reserve 20
`minutes.
` So what I'd like to do is just explain at a high
`level the teachings in the claims of the '379 patent. And
`what I'd like to do is refer to the specification -- the
`claim and the specification. And if it's okay with the
`board, I would like to share my screen, and I have a Google
`Patent link to it. I think it's a little bit easier for me
`to navigate. If that's okay, I'll do that. If not, I'll
`refer to the PDF. What I'd also like to do is then refer to
`a portion in the file history, in which I could also share my
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`screen. And the purpose of that is just to describe at a
`high level what the teachings of the '379 patent are.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: If you're referring to portions of
`the record, please use the paper number and exhibit number,
`and we can pull those up on our own, just so that we have a
`clear record that references everything that is within the
`administrative record.
` MR. BODEPUDI: Sure. Okay. So starting first with
`Exhibit 1. This is the '379 patent. And I'll focus my
`arguments on Claim 1. We believe the arguments with respect
`to Claim 1 are representative with respect to Claim 7 as
`well, the other independent claim.
` And bringing the board's attention to specifically
`Column 22, the first element, line 50. Claim 1 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.
` So referring back up to the abstract of Exhibit 1
`in the '379 patent. In the last sentence, the specification
`describes that the system has -- and I'm just going to read
`this, and I'll just try to explain it, my understanding, in
`plain English. The system has an inverted index correlating
`keywords with at least some nodes in the arrangement so that
`when the user provides an input or response to a verbal
`description and then responding with a meaningful word
`correlatable with a keyword, the system will identify at
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`least one node correlated to the meaningful word by the
`inverted index and jump to that node.
` So the meaning of that in -- again, in plain
`English, if you scroll down to -- this concept of this
`inverted index, if you scroll down to Column 4, line 66, and
`this will go on to Column 5, it describes an embodiment,
`really describing what this inverted index concept is. It
`says, thus, with respect to the pen application above, the
`keyword, point, might appear in nodes 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, and 15,
`and similarly, the keyword, erasable, might appear at nodes
`3, 4, 5, 6, and 22.
` And in lines 5 and 6, it just gives the -- it just
`clearly points out the keyword points and all the various
`nodes that point refers to as well as the word erasable and
`all the words point to.
` Now, why is this significant? Why is this
`relevant? So I'm just going to verbally describe an argument
`made in the file history. It's not an exhibit, but I'll just
`describe it verbally. This is specifically just for the
`board's reference, again, in the file history.
` JUDGE MCGRAW: I'm sorry. Has the file history
`been entered as an exhibit into the record?
` MR. BODEPUDI: Not the entirety of the file
`history, no.
` JUDGE MCGRAW: So are you attempting to cite to
`something that is not part of the record?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
` MR. BODEPUDI: It's -- correct. Not this portion
`of the file history. But I can verbally describe it.
` JUDGE QUINN: This is a problem. We do not
`consider evidence that is not part of the record. So is
`there any portion of this that is evidenced in the portions
`that we do have in the record? I think we have Exhibit 1002
`is the file history.
` MR. BODEPUDI: Yeah, there's a portion of the file
`history, but not this particular paragraph that I would like
`to refer to. And if the board doesn't want me to refer to
`it, then that's fine. But if it's okay, I can describe just
`in plain words what the argument was.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: If you have an argument to make
`without referencing an exhibit -- or evidence that is not
`part of the record, you can make your argument. But please
`don't refer to evidence that's not part of the record.
` JUDGE QUINN: I'll also question, did you make this
`argument in any brief that you filed?
` MR. BODEPUDI: No. It's not part of the record.
`I'm just describing the teachings of the '379 patent.
` JUDGE QUINN: Just generally? Okay.
` MR. BODEPUDI: So --
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Counselor, also, just to let you
`know -- you asked to reserve 20 minutes out of your 30
`minutes. You've gone through about half of your 10 minutes
`so far.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
` MR. BODEPUDI: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank
`you.
` So just high level, within the prosecution history,
`the patent owner made a distinction with respect to two
`references, Lin and Pooser, and it just describes a very
`simple example distinguishing it. And within the example, it
`gave -- it illustrated an example of if a person is in
`Chicago and the person inputs the word warm, the patent owner
`gave the example that the traveler may be transported to
`Miami, Atlanta, Phoenix, Boston, as examples, illustrating
`what this concept of -- what this jump concept is. And it's
`illustrating the point that it's the system making the jump
`and not the traveler. And the reason why I bring this up is
`because this concept of the inverted index, it illustrates or
`describes a system in which a keyword is associated with more
`than one node, as I referred to with the point and the
`erasable keywords associated in the specification describing
`multiple nodes, and then within that portion of the file
`history that I'm describing, the patent owner made the
`argument that where warm may be associated, as an example,
`with multiple cities, if the user enters the word warm, it's
`giving the example of being transported in the airplane --
`that the user could be transported to either Miami, Boston,
`Atlanta, for example, which would all -- similar to the word
`point, as point is associated with multiple nodes. It's like
`warm might be associated with multiple cities. It describes
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`how -- the distinction is that the system is actually
`choosing. Where there's a keyword and there are multiple
`nodes, it would be the system deciding where the user would
`jump to. So that's just a concept of -- it's just a
`conceptual concept of what the '379 patent teaches and what
`the claims recite within the '379 patent.
` Now, at a high level, what both the Fratkina
`reference and the Wesemann reference describe is something
`conceptually very different. Now, before we get into the
`auto -- focusing first on Fratkina. The Fratkina reference
`described that autocontextualization is one embodiment. But
`all of the embodiments, including the autocontextualization
`embodiment, describe generally a process of arriving to what
`the Fratkina reference describes as what's called a confirmed
`node. And referring to -- just describing how Fratkina
`refers to the confirmed node -- let me just pull that up. So
`this is in Exhibit 6. Just give me one moment to pull down a
`column and line number.
` Okay. Column 25, at line 37, I think, is the
`paragraph describing confirmed nodes. And the first two
`sentences read, from the point of view of dialog engine 232,
`a dialogue with the user involves the process of arriving at
`the set of nodes that best describes the user's information
`need. Confirmed nodes are those nodes whose relevance to the
`user's information need has been established.
` And there are many different embodiments that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`describe, within Fratkina, how to arrive to a confirmed node.
`One example is what Fratkina describes as a drill-down query,
`which is basically a question and answer -- a series of
`questions and answers between the system and the user to
`query what the user may want. The user may give a partial
`answer, and if they have follow-up, another follow-up answer,
`until the dialog engine comes to a confirmed node.
`Basically --
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Counselor, I'm sorry to interrupt
`you. I wanted to let you know you've used your 10 minutes.
`To the extent you want to continue, of course you may. If
`you wanted to reserve 20, you have approximately 20 left.
`But you can continue.
` MR. BODEPUDI: Okay, thank you. Thanks for letting
`me know.
` So the process of -- so the example of this
`drill-down query and the dialog engine that's described in
`Fratkina is basically a way for the dialog engine -- for the
`engine to learn, through a series of questions and answers,
`what is the need of the user. And after this back-and-forth
`of the dialogue between question and answer, the system will
`determine a confirmed node and then take the user to that
`node.
` Now, from the standpoint of the
`autocontextualization embodiment, the autocontextualization
`process describes the user entering natural language and the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`system creating tags, and then using those tags to associate
`those tags with a taxonomy. Now, this intermediate step is
`basically a verification to -- the system is basically trying
`to understand the user's query from plain natural language
`into tags. And before taking the user to a particular
`destination, there is a system of just confirming, basically,
`what the user wants. Now --
` JUDGE MCNEILL: In the autocontextualization
`example that you're giving, is that back and forth of
`confirmation required?
` MR. BODEPUDI: So it is described. So there is
`a -- let me -- okay, so there's a portion in the
`specification. Okay. Let me pull down the column and line
`number. One second. Just give me one moment. I just want
`to find the column number to refer you to.
` Yeah, I'm sorry. Let me just read to you that
`portion. I'm not finding the exact column and line number.
`So this is -- the paragraph begins with all sorts of
`information available to the system are used in the process
`of advancing a subgoal. Now, it's describing multiple
`mechanisms by which it can drill down to a confirmed node.
`It says, the advancing mechanism can make use of
`autocontextualization information -- so it's one embodiment,
`the autocontextualization embodiment -- user preferences,
`confirmed nodes, the nodes explicitly specified by the dialog
`designer, or any other information source available.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
` Now, further down below in that paragraph, it says,
`however, sometimes other information cannot be 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, hence the purpose of the verification step.
` Now, regardless of whether that verification step
`is there or not, whether a goal parameter is modified to
`remove the verification step or not, the end goal that
`Fratkina teaches is to come to a confirmed node. So the
`autocontextualization process, the end goal is still a
`confirmed node. Now --
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Counselor, you would agree, then,
`that there is an embodiment where autocontextualization can
`advance the dialogue to a node without a verification step?
` MR. BODEPUDI: So long as the end result is still a
`confirmed node. So it can, so long as the end result is
`confirmed, meaning it matches what the system determines to
`be the user's need.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: So if the system determines the
`user's need to be a node that it believes is confirmed, then
`it can advance with no verification step and jump directly to
`that node?
` MR. BODEPUDI: Correct.
` JUDGE MCNEILL: Thank you.
` MR. BODEPUDI: Now, this same concept of Fratkina
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`determining where the user -- what the need of the user is
`and which node in particular matches to that user -- that
`user need, that same concept is also there in Wesemann.
`Wesemann teaches, if you're in a -- basically, if you're an
`automated voice prompt, you can indicate an audible input
`and, based on the audible input, it can take you to another
`level in the menu. There's less detail in Wesemann, but the
`same concept in Fratkina and Wesemann are basically
`describing understanding the needs of the user, and then
`taking the user to where the system determines where that
`need is, associated with whatever the query or the input of
`the user.
` This is fundamentally different than the teachings
`of the '379 patent, as described by the inverted index where
`the words within the elements -- where the words -- where the
`input containing at least one word identifiable with at least
`one keyword from among multiple keywords, this concept of the
`user entering in the word warm, and then the system
`determining warm may be in Miami or may be in Boston or may
`be Atlanta. The difference is that it's -- the system is not
`determining what the need of the user is, but the system is
`determining where the user may end up base
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
