Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Date: October 28, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ELASTIC N.V.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 2, “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)
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Date: October 28, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ELASTIC N.V.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 2, “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)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`with its Petition. Guada Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 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.
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies Elastic N.V. as the real party-in-interest. Pet. 10.
`C. Related Matters
`Petitioner indicates that Patent Owner asserted the ’379 patent in the
`following matters:
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc., 1-20-cv-
`•
`01718 (D. Del.);
`Guada Technologies LLC v. GAF Materials LLC, 1-20-cv-
`•
`01719 (D. Del.);
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Flowserve US, Inc., 1-20-cv-01431
`•
`(D. Del.);
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Rolled Alloys, Inc., 1-20-cv-01432
`•
`(D. Del.);
`Guada Technologies LLC v.Milacron LLC, 1-20-cv-01143 (D.
`•
`Del.);
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Argos USA LLC, 1-20-cv-00993
`•
`(D. Del.);
`Guada Technologies LLC v. The Gillette Company LLC, 1-20-
`•
`cv-00999 (D. Del.);
`•
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Revlon Consumer Products
`Corporation, 1-20-cv-01000 (D. Del.);
`Guada Technologies LLC v. Dole Food Company, Inc., 1-20-
`•
`cv-00869 (D. Del.);
`Pet. 10. Petitioner indicates that the ’379 patent was the subject of a similar
`inter partes review petition in IPR2021-00771, which has since been
`terminated. Id.
`
`Petitioner also identifies the following inter partes review proceedings
`as challenging the ’379 patent: IPR2017-01039 (terminated); IPR2019-
`01304 (terminated); IPR2020-00598 (terminated). See Pet. 5–6.
`D. 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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`The ’379 patent teaches that in graph theory, a “path” leads from a
`first vertex to a second vertex, where the path consists of a sequence of
`“edges” that connect the vertices between the first vertex (the initial entry
`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 move from a first vertex to a second 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`to the keyword orange and would jump directly to node 206, bypassing the
`need to navigate through node 202, which is associated with the keyword
`“fruit.” Id. at 6:15‒21.
`E. Illustrative Claims
`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, 22:47–57.
`F. Evidence
`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”).
`G. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1‒7 would have been unpatentable on the
`following grounds:
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1, 2, 7
`3‒6
`1, 2, 7
`3‒6
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Wesemann
`Wesemann and Rajaraman
`Fratkina
`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 a “bachelor’s degree in computer science or
`electrical engineering and at least one year of work on information retrieval
`and database searching, or the equivalent experience and education” Pet. 9.
`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
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.200, the claims of the ’379 patent shall be
`construed in this proceeding “using the same claim construction standard
`that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action.” As such, the
`claims should be interpreted according to the principles outlined in Phillips
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`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. 13‒16. First,
`Petitioner proposes construing “node” to mean “a specific choice or option
`in a hierarchy.” Id. at 13. Second, Petitioner proposes construing “vertex” to
`mean “a specific choice or option in a hierarchy that can be represented in a
`graph.” Id. at 13‒14. Third, Petitioner proposes construing “keyword” to
`mean “one or more words or pieces of information, such as a specific data
`pattern, that is associated with at least one node or vertex.” Id. at 14‒15.
`Fourth, Petitioner proposes construing “jumping”1 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 15. Petitioner asserts
`that the Applicant defined “jumping” in this manner during prosecution of
`the ’379 patent. Id. at 15. Fifth, 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 15‒16. Patent Owner does not
`explicitly propose construing any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`
`1 Independent claim 1 recites “jumping to the at least one node” and
`independent claim 7 recites “jumping to the vertex.” Ex. 1001, 22:57, 24:11.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`Based on the current record and for the purposes of this Decision, we
`adopt Petitioner’s proposed 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).” As discussed below in
`Section II.C.2.c, at this stage of the proceeding, the record is insufficiently
`developed for the panel to provide a construction of the terms “jumping to
`the at least one node” recited in independent claim 1 and “jumping to the
`vertex” recited in independent claim 7.
`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 1: Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, and 7 over
`Wesemann
`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, 2, and 7 as obvious over Wesemann.
`1. Wesemann
`Wesemann is a United States patent directed to a voice-enabled user
`interface that allows a user to provide vocal input to access data from
`telephone systems that are only responsive to dual tone multi-frequency
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`(“DTMF”) signals. Ex. 1004, Abstract. Figure 6 of Wesemann is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`Figure 6 depicts a block diagram of a hierarchical menu structure of a
`telephone service system that can be navigated by a voice-enabled user
`interface. Id. at 4:25‒28. The block diagram illustrates the prompts provided
`to the user at each stage of the menu. Id. at 11:33‒37. For example, at main
`menu 610, the user is prompted to “press 1 followed by # for sale,” “press 2
`followed by # for computer support,” or “press 3 followed by # for a
`directory of personnel.” Id. at 11:34‒45. The user may respond vocally to
`these prompts, and the user’s response may represent an input that is valid
`from another state of the menu hierarchy instead of the present state of the
`menu hierarchy. Id. at 11:51‒55.
`For example, a user may jump from main menu 610 to a particular
`extension, such as “123.” Id. at 12:30‒32. In another example, a user may
`jump from home laptop sales 652 to home computer support 646 by saying
`“home computer support.” Id. at 12:32‒34. A user may also jump from main
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`menu 610 to refurbished laptop sales 672 by saying “refurbished laptop
`sales.” Id. at 11:65‒12:12. In each of these examples, it is not necessary for
`the user to return to main menu 610 and traverse each node of the menu to
`their goal. Id. at 12:34‒36.
`2. Independent Claim 1
`a) Preamble
`The preamble of claim 1 recites: “[a] method performed in a system
`having multiple navigable nodes interconnected in a hierarchical
`arrangement.” Ex. 1001, 22:47–49. Petitioner asserts that Wesemann teaches
`or suggests this feature. Pet. 19‒21. In particular, Petitioner asserts that
`Wesemann teaches “menu states” or “levels” interconnected in a hierarchical
`arrangement. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 5‒6, Abstract, 3:33‒46).
`Dr. Smyth’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 48‒
`56.
`
`Patent Owner does not argue that Wesemann fails to teach or suggest
`the preamble of claim 1. Based on the present record, we are sufficiently
`persuaded that Wesemann teaches or suggests 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.” Ex. 1001, 22:50–53.
`Petitioner asserts that Wesemann teaches or suggests this feature.
`Pet. 21‒26. In particular, Petitioner asserts that Wesemann teaches or
`suggests receiving spoken words from a user at a first level or menu state,
`
`2 At this stage of the proceeding, we need not decide whether the preamble is
`limiting because Petitioner sufficiently shows that Wesemann teaches or
`suggests the preamble.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`which Petitioner asserts corresponds to the claimed “first node” of the
`hierarchical arrangement of nodes. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstract, 3:28‒
`30, 4:51‒57, 6:56‒64, 11:47‒12:6). Petitioner asserts that the system may
`receive user input, such as “refurbished laptop sales,” at main menu state
`610. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 11:65‒12:6). Petitioner asserts that Wesemann
`teaches a template that maps “acceptable responses and inputs” (keywords)
`with each of the menu states (i.e., nodes) in the hierarchy. Id. at 22–23
`(citing Ex. 1004, 7:15‒17, 8:56‒63, 12:13‒16). Dr. Smyth’s testimony
`supports Petitioner’s assertions. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 48‒56.
`Patent Owner does not specifically argue that Wesemann fails to teach
`or suggest this limitation. Instead, Patent Owner generally argues that the
`arguments presented in the Petition are “word for word” identical to the
`arguments presented in the petition filed in IPR2019-01304, and the Board
`should reject Ground 1 for the same reasons that the Panel concluded the
`petition in IPR2019-01304 had failed to show a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on Ground 1. See Prelim. Resp. 7. However, the Panel in
`IPR2019-01304 did not address directly this limitation in concluding the
`Petition had failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground
`1. See Bloomreach, Inc. v. Gauda Techs. LLC, IPR2019-01304, Paper 11 at
`18‒20 (PTAB January 23, 2020).
`Based on the present record, we are sufficiently persuaded that
`Wesemann teaches or suggests this limitation.
`c) Identifying and Jumping Limitations
`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.”
`Ex. 1001, 22:54–56. As noted above, for the purposes of this Decision we
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`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 Wesemann teaches or suggests this feature.
`Pet. 26‒29. In particular, Petitioner asserts that Wesemann teaches that all
`menu states (“nodes”) in the hierarchy are mapped in template 232 to
`acceptable responses or inputs (“keywords”). Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1004,
`7:15‒17). Petitioner asserts that Wesemann teaches speech recognition
`software analyzes the user’s spoken input and compares the input to the
`stored acceptable responses and inputs to determine the node with the
`response most similar to the input. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:56‒64, 7:6‒
`14, 12:13‒21, 12:45‒52). Petitioner asserts that the system is capable of
`jumping both laterally and vertically to an identified node having a keyword
`matching the user’s input. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1004, 12:25‒42). Petitioner
`asserts that Wesemann’s examples of jumping from main menu 610 to
`extension “123” and jumping from home laptop sales 652 to home computer
`support 646 both involve jumping to an unconnected node, without traversal
`through any intervening nodes or to a node whose only least common
`ancestor is the root node. Id. at 28‒29. Petitioner annotates Figure 6 (id. at
`28) as shown below in support of these assertions:
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`
`
`
`Annotated Figure 6 depicts the block diagram illustrating the hierarchical
`menu of Wesemann’s telephone service system with red arrows representing
`the jumps from main menu 610 to extension “123” and from home computer
`sales 650 to home computer support 646, respectively. Petitioner asserts that
`Wesemann’s jumps occur automatically without requiring the user to select
`different menu items or navigate through the hierarchical menu. Pet. 27‒29
`(citing Ex. 1004, 8:1‒5, 11:65‒12:6, 12:30‒32, 12:43‒46, 12:65‒13:2).
`Patent Owner does not specifically argue that Wesemann fails to teach
`or suggest this limitation. Instead, Patent Owner generally argues that the
`arguments presented in the Petition are “word for word” identical to the
`arguments presented in the Petition for IPR2019-01304, and the Board
`should reject Ground 1 for the same reasons that the Board concluded the
`Petition in IPR2019-01304 had failed to show a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on Ground 1. See Prelim. Resp. 4, 7.
`In the Decision on Institution in IPR2019-01304, the Panel noted the
`apparent claim construction dispute regarding the scope of “jumping to the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`at least one node” and “jumping to the vertex” claim phrases, despite the
`parties’ agreed-upon construction of the “jumping” limitation. Bloomreach,
`Inc. v. Gauda Techs. LLC, IPR2019-01304, Paper 11 at 19 (PTAB January
`23, 2020). In particular, the dispute centered on whether the phrase is
`satisfied merely because the user interface, as opposed to the underlying
`system, shows a jump over some part of the menu. Id. In the Decision on
`Institution, the Panel did not make a preliminary determination regarding the
`claim construction of the construed phrase. Id. We again determine that the
`record is insufficiently developed on this issue for us to make a preliminary
`determination regarding claim construction of these phrases.
`We also note that in IPR2019-01304, the panel determined that the
`petition had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing
`obviousness of claim 1 over Wesemann because Wesemann’s “jump” may
`refer to a transition across multiple connected nodes. Id. Petitioner addresses
`this issue in this Petition, noting that Wesemann’s examples of jumping,
`such as jumping from main menu 610 to extension “123” and jumping from
`home laptop sales 652 to home computer support 646, both involve jumping
`to a node that is not directly connected to the first node, without traversal
`through any intervening nodes or to a node whose only least common
`ancestor is the root node. Pet. 28‒29. Patent Owner does not directly respond
`to these assertions.
`Based on the present record, we are sufficiently persuaded that
`Wesemann teaches or suggests these limitations. In particular, the examples
`identified in the Petition involve navigating from a first node, such as main
`menu 610, to a node that is not directly connected to the first node, such as
`extension “123.” See Ex. 1004, 8:1‒5, 11:51‒55, 12:25‒32. In another
`identified example, Wessemann jumps from home laptop sales 652 to home
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`computer support 646. See Id. at 12:32‒36. These nodes do not share a
`common ancestor other than the root node. Thus, Wessemann traverses from
`a first node (home laptop sales 652) “to a node or vertex whose only least
`common ancestor with that node or vertex is the root node or vertex” (home
`computer support 646). See Pet. 26.
`On this record, we are satisfied at this stage of the proceeding that
`Wesemann teaches or suggests 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
`Wesemann.
`3. Independent Claim 7
`Independent claim 7 recites “[a] method performed in connection with
`an arrangement of nodes representable as a hierarchical graph containing
`vertices and edges connecting at least two of the vertices, the method
`comprising.” Ex. 1001, 23:11–24:2. Claim 7 recites similar limitations to
`claim 1 and Petitioner’s analysis is similar. See Pet. 32‒38. Patent Owner
`does not provide separate argument for claim 7. See Prelim. Resp. 7. On this
`record, we are satisfied at this stage that Wesemann teaches or suggests
`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 Wesemann.
`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.” Ex. 1001, 22:58–60. Petitioner asserts Wesemann teaches this
`limitation by teaching menu prompts corresponding to each of the menu
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`states, where these menu prompts are verbally presented to the user over a
`telephone device when a user is at a particular menu state. Pet. 30‒31 (citing
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 6, 3:28‒30, 5:55‒60, 5:62‒67, 7:15‒17, 8:56‒59, 11:33‒38,
`11:65‒12:6, 15:39‒47, 15:52‒56, 17:14‒36, 17:66‒18:4, 18:19‒29:27);
`Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 57, 63).
`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 Wesemann.
`D. Ground 2: Alleged Obviousness of Claims 3‒6 over Wesemann 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 Wesemann and Rajaraman. See Pet. 38‒50.
`Patent Owner does not argue any of these dependent claims separately on
`the current record. See Prelim. Resp. 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
`unpatentability of each of claims 3‒6 as obvious over the combined
`teachings of Wesemann and Rajaraman.
`E. Ground 3: Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, and 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, 2, and 7 as obvious over Fratkina.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`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.
`
`
`Figure 11 depicts an example dialog created by dialog engine 232. Id. at
`26:46‒50. In this example, the dialog begins at the “[b]reakfast” node in
`iteration N, where the user is prompted with the question “[w]hich of the
`following would you like to get?” Id. at 26:50‒54. The user responds “eggs,”
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`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 “[h]ow would you like
`your eggs prepared?” Id. at 26:54–56. 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 represent
`a “confirmed” node because relevance to the user’s request has been
`established. Id. at 26:54‒60.
`Fratkina teaches several variations to this example, including a
`process termed “autocontextualization.” See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 29:1‒14.
`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) Preamble
`The preamble of claim 1 recites: “[a] method performed in a system
`having multiple navigable nodes interconnected in a hierarchical
`arrangement.” Ex. 1001, 22:47–49. Petitioner asserts that Fratkina teaches or
`suggests this feature. Pet. 51‒53. In particular, Petitioner asserts Fratkina
`teaches 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.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`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 1.3
`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.” Ex. 1001, 22:50–53.
`Petitioner asserts that Fratkina teaches or suggests this feature.
`Pet. 53‒57. In particular, Petitioner asserts Fratkina teaches a system that
`receives input from a user at a first node. Id. at 53 (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 53‒54 (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 54 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 14:27‒31, 26:46‒27:27). 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 and Jumping Limitations
`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.”
`
`3 At this stage of the proceeding, we need not decide whether the preamble is
`limiting because Petitioner sufficiently shows that Fratkina teaches or
`suggests the preamble.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`Ex. 1001, 22:54–56. 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 II.B.
`Petitioner asserts that Fratkina teaches or suggests this feature.
`Pet. 57‒59. In particular, Petitioner asserts that Fratkina teaches 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 57‒58 (citing Ex. 1006, 27:25‒43, 34:32‒53, 37:54‒63).
`Petitioner explains autocontextualization by way of example, asserting that
`Fratkina teaches an embodiment wherein a user may navigate a hierarchical
`menu that includes options “breakfast,” “eggs,” and “scrambled.” Id. at 58.
`Petitioner asserts that if a user at the “breakfast” node desires “scrambled
`eggs,” the user may simply say “scrambled eggs” in response to a question
`about what the user wants for breakfast. Id. 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 intervening “eggs”
`node. Id. (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. 5‒6. In particular, Patent Owner
`argues that Fratkina teaches “autocontextualization, being an automatic
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00875
`Patent 7,231,379
`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.” Id. at 5 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 33:52‒57). Patent Owner argues that Fratkina specifically requires
`confirmation because autocontextualization can make mistakes. Id.
`According to Patent Owner, autocontextualization results in “topic spotter
`nodes” that are not automatically accepted as true and must be verified. Id.
`Patent Owner argues that this results in a user input step and a separate
`verification step, but the ’379 patent expressly does not require a verification
`step. Id. at 5‒6.
`Fratkina teaches autocontextualizing user input against the
`taxonomies in a knowledge map. Ex. 1006, 29:5‒6. The resulting “topic
`spotter nodes” represent the system’s understanding of user input. Id. at
`29:6‒8. These nodes may not be automatically accepted as true (unlike
`confirmed nodes), but 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.
`Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive at this stage of the
`proceeding based on the present record for two reasons. First, claim 1 recites
`“[a] method performed in a system having multiple navigable nodes
`interconnected in a hierarchical arrangement comprising . . . identifying at
`least one node . . . that is not directly connected to the first node . . . and
`jumping to the at least one node.” Ex. 1001, 22:47–57. Thus, claim 1 recites
`identifyin
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
