IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________________
`
`OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY and PREGIS LLC,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________________
`Case No. IPR2022-00217
`Patent No. 7,231,379
`______________________________
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,231,379
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`A.
`The ’379 Patent ..................................................................................... 2
`B.
`The Prosecution History ........................................................................ 4
`C.
`The Prior Reviews of the ’379 patent ................................................... 5
`D.
`The Relevant Field and Art ................................................................... 7
`1. Wesemann ................................................................................... 8
`2.
`Fratkina ....................................................................................... 8
`3.
`Rajaraman ................................................................................... 9
`The Level of Skill in the Art ................................................................. 9
`E.
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ....................10
`II.
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(A)(1) .......................10
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (§42.8(b)(1)): ...................................................10
`B.
`Related Matters (§42.8(b)(2)) .............................................................10
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (§42.8(b)(3)) ..........................................10
`D.
`Service Information (§42.8(b)(4)): ......................................................11
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................11
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3) ...................12
`A.
`“node” ..................................................................................................12
`B.
`“vertex”................................................................................................12
`C.
`“keyword” ...........................................................................................13
`D.
`“jumping” ............................................................................................14
`
`i
`
`

`

`B.
`
`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`“verbal description” .............................................................................14
`E.
`VI. THERE
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE
`’379 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................15
`A. Ground 1: Wesemann renders claims 1, 2, and 7 obvious ..................15
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................18
`2.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................29
`3.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................31
`Ground 2: Wesemann in view of Rajaraman renders Claims 3-6
`obvious ................................................................................................37
`1.
`Claims 3-4 .................................................................................39
`2.
`Claims 5-6 .................................................................................44
`Ground 3: Fratkina renders claims 1, 2, and 7 obvious ......................49
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................50
`2.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................57
`3.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................58
`D. Ground 4: Fratkina in view of Rajaraman renders Claims 3-6
`obvious ................................................................................................63
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT DENY INSTITUTION UNDER ITS
`SECTION 314(a) DISCRETION ..................................................................65
`A.
`Factors 1 & 2: Petitioners are unrelated to prior petitioners ...............67
`B.
`Factors 3-5: This petition poses no unfairness to Patent Owner .........68
`C.
`Factors 6 & 7: This petition increases the efficiency of the Board
` .............................................................................................................69
`D. Additional Factors: Discretionary denial would be unfair to
`Petitioners ............................................................................................69
`
`C.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................70
`IX. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................71
`X.
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§42.15(A) AND 42.103...........72
`XI. APPENDIX – LIST OF EXHIBITS ..............................................................73
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ex Parte Brent Bursey,
`Appeal 2014003565, 2016 WL 4579139 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2016)................ 47, 48
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, (Sept. 6, 2017) ......................................................... 66
`Bloomreach, Inc. v. Guada Technologies LLC,
`Case No. IPR2019-01304 (Jan. 23, 2020) ...................................................passim
`Microsoft Corp. v Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01252, Paper. 7 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) .............................................. 67
`In Re Venner,
`262 F.2d 91 (CCPA 1958) .................................................................................. 46
`Western Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc.,
`626 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 47
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §102 ....................................................................................... 15, 23, 37, 49
`35 U.S.C. §103 ......................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. §311 ......................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. §316 ......................................................................................................... 66
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §42.6 ........................................................................................................ 75
`37 C.F.R. §42.8 .................................................................................................. 10, 11
`37 C.F.R. §42.10 ...................................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. §42.15 ...................................................................................................... 72
`37 C.F.R. §42.24 ...................................................................................................... 71
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`Paper2
`37 C.F.R. §42.100 .................................................................................................... 12
`37 C.F.R. §42.100 ooo eee eeceseecsseceeseessseceseeceseeecsseessseecessecseeeessseeesseesssesessaeeesnees 12
`37 C.F.R. §42.103 .................................................................................................... 72
`37 C.F.R. §42.103 oe ceecesscecssecesseeceseeeeseceseeecsseeesseeesssecseeeecssesesseesseeessaeeeseees 72
`37 C.F.R. §42.104 .............................................................................................. 10, 12
`37 CFR. 842.104 eee ecesecesccessseceseeecsseeesseeessseeesseessseeeesseeseeeessseeeseeeseees 10, 12
`37 C.F.R. §42.105 .................................................................................................... 75
`37 C.F.R. §42.105 oe eeeceeseecsseceeseeesseceeseeecesceesseessseeesssecsseeesssesesseesseeessaeeeseees 75
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners Ohio Farmers Insurance Company d/b/a Westfield (“Westfield”)
`
`and Pregis LLC (“Pregis”) (collectively “Petitioners”) respectfully request inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent 7,231,379 (“the ’379 patent”).
`
`The ’379 patent is directed to keywords for searching a hierarchical network.
`
`The keywords correspond to points on that network, called “nodes” or “vertices.”
`
`The claims involve two obvious concepts.
`
`First, when a user inputs a keyword, the system “jumps” the user to the node
`
`or vertex for that keyword, without requiring the user to traverse intervening
`
`points. The ’379 patent was allowed largely on this “jumping.” However, as
`
`shown in the prior art references Wesemann and Fratkina, “jumping” was well-
`
`known by 2002. See EX1004 Abstract; EX1007 ¶¶36-40, 49, 55-56, 84. Neither
`
`reference was cited during prosecution.
`
`Second, the ’379 patent includes four claims related to using and updating a
`
`thesaurus for synonyms to user inputs. However, these thesaurus steps had already
`
`been developed by the 1990s. EX1007 ¶¶41-45, 69-76.
`
`“Jumping” was not novel, and the ’379 patent did not improve on “jumping”
`
`in a non-obvious way. EX1007 ¶¶31-93. Accordingly, Petitioners respectfully
`
`request that the Board institute inter partes review and cancel the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`
`The ’379 Patent
`A.
`The ’379 patent relates to searching a hierarchical “menu tree” of nodes or
`
`vertices. EX1001, 2:22-30, 3:5-28. Its purported novelty is “jumping” between
`
`those nodes without traversing intervening nodes. EX1002, 47 (“Appellant’s
`
`claimed invention solves the inadequacies of prior art systems, by allowing the
`
`system to cause the user to ‘jump’ from one node in the hierarchy to another node
`
`that is not directly connected to that node, without having to traverse through every
`
`intervening node in the path ….”). In prosecution and litigation, Patent Owner
`
`(“PO”) construed “jumping,” used in both independent claims 1 and 7, 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).”1, 2 EX1003, 18; EX1002, 89. The ’379 patent
`
`asserts that jumping may occur across network branches or along a branch.
`
`EX1001, 12:49-56, 14:54-63. Jumping is illustrated:
`
`[W]hen a response to a verbal description is provided by a user,
`possible keywords are identified in the response and used to search
`the index and identify any node to which the response may be
`directed, irrespective of the hierarchy. Thus, a user response of “an
`
`
`1 For this petition, Petitioners accept this construction of “jumping.”
`2 Emphasis added throughout unless noted.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`
`orange” to a verbal description located above the “fruit” node 202 in
`the hierarchy, for example, “What would you like to buy today?”
`would cause the system to identify “orange” as a key word from the
`response, search the index, and directly identify node [](206) as the
`node whose verbal description should be presented next, thereby
`avoiding the need to traverse intervening nodes, for example, through
`the “fruit” node (202)[.]
`
`
`Id., 6:7-21, Fig.2.
`
`
`
`The ’379 patent does not require the system to jump, contrary to what PO
`
`argued during a prior IPR involving the ’379 patent. E.g., IPR2019-01304, Paper
`
`6, 2 n.1. A system is merely the context of Claim 1; claim 7 does not mention “a
`
`system.” Instead, the invention is about allowing a user to jump between non-
`
`adjacent vertices. EX1001, 3:29-34 (“In overview, in accordance with the
`
`teachings of our invention, the user can navigate the graph or tree in a way that
`
`allows them [the users] to skip from one vertex to another vertex[] where the
`
`vertices may not be connected together by an edge.”). PO argued that the user’s
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`
`“jumping” made the claims patentable. EX1002, 90 (“Appellant’s claimed
`
`invention solves the inadequacies of the prior art systems, by allowing the user to
`
`‘jump’ from one node in the hierarchy to another node that is not directly
`
`connected to that node”). PO stressed that the system causes the “user to ‘jump.’”
`
`Id., 58 (the alleged invention “solves these inadequacies of the prior art systems,
`
`by allowing the system to cause the user to ‘jump’ from one node in the hierarchy
`
`to another node”).
`
`Claims 3-6 of the ’379 patent further recite using a thesaurus to identify user
`
`words as synonymous with network keywords. Synonyms may be added to the
`
`thesaurus and associated with nodes as users input new words. Id., 9:65-10:2,
`
`10:41-43.
`
`The Prosecution History
`B.
`The application that resulted in the ’379 patent was filed on November 19,
`
`2002. See EX1001. Petitioners assume that November 19, 2002 is the priority
`
`date for the challenged claims. PO has never challenged this priority date in any of
`
`the prior proceedings.
`
`During prosecution, the Applicants traversed rejections by stressing the
`
`“jumping” of claims 1 and 7, from one node to a second, non-adjacent node based
`
`on an input from a user, insisting that the user was jumped over intervening nodes
`
`in the network path. EX1002, 62-64, 89-90, 127-30, 133, 156. For example, PO
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`distinguished U.S. Patent No. 5,812,134 because, in that patent, the user had to
`
`select a node from the graphically displayed hierarchy “instead of the system
`
`selecting the ‘jumped’ to node.” Id., 63 (emphasis in original); see also id., 65
`
`(“The system jumps the user to another node which is not directly connected to the
`
`first node because[ ] of the association.”) (emphasis in original), 95-99. The
`
`Applicants made only conclusory remarks for claims 3-6. Id., 135, 160.
`
`“Jumping” thus led to the allowance of claims 1 and 7.
`
`But, as discussed below, “jumping” was known. For instance, Wesemann—
`
`not cited during prosecution—emphasizes that users can skip “in-between” menu
`
`states. Fratkina and Rajaraman were likewise not cited during prosecution. Unlike
`
`the Examiner’s references, this Petition’s prior art uses interactive voice response
`
`systems (like those disclosed in the ’379 patent) so that the user does not and does
`
`not need to select a node from a graphical display—the user is automatically
`
`“jumped” to the appropriate node. E.g., EX1004, 3:50-56.
`
`The Prior Reviews of the ’379 patent
`C.
`Four inter partes reviews have been sought against the ’379 patent. In each
`
`proceeding, a substantially identical petition was filed, each supported by a
`
`substantially identical declaration by Professor Padhraic Smyth. Two reviews
`
`terminated before institution; one, shortly after. The fourth is pending.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`First, on March 21, 2017, IPR2017-01039 was sought by Unified Patents
`
`Inc. Three months later, the parties moved to terminate, and, a month after that,
`
`the Board terminated.
`
`Second, on July 11, 2019, IPR2019-01304 was sought by BloomReach, Inc.
`
`Six months later, the Board instituted inter partes review, finding that “Petitioner
`
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its challenge to at
`
`least one claim of the ’379 patent.” EX1027, at 20. This petition adopts the
`
`grounds from the BloomReach petition on which the Board instituted review. Two
`
`months after the BloomReach institution, the parties moved to terminate the
`
`review, as the Board granted a month later.
`
`Third, on February 19, 2020, IPR2020-00598 was sought by Oracle Corp.
`
`Five months later, the parties moved to terminate. The Board terminated shortly
`
`thereafter.
`
`Fourth, on April 7, 2021, IPR2021-00771 was sought by Argos USA LLC
`
`and several other entities. Before the Board could decide whether to institute this
`
`review, the parties settled their disputes both before the Board and district courts.
`
`Fifth, on May 3, 2021, IPR2021-00875 was sought by Elastic N.V. (the
`
`“Elastic Petition”), an entity that had not been sued by Patent Owner. The Board
`
`instituted review on the Elastic Petition on October 28, 2021. The present petition
`
`fully adopts the positions and grounds of the Elastic Petition which itself adopted
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`the same of the Argos petition. Petitioners file a motion for joinder to the Elastic
`
`Petition herewith.
`
`The Relevant Field and Art
`D.
`As explained in the Declaration of Professor Padhraic Smyth (EX1007) and
`
`addressed in further detail below (Section VI), the claims would have been obvious
`
`to a skilled artisan back in 2002.
`
`Before 2002, skilled artisans knew how to use keywords to navigate nodes
`
`or vertices arranged in hierarchical or branching structures. EX1007 ¶32. The
`
`’379 patent recognized automated telephone voice response as a “familiar”
`
`application. EX1001, 1:40-45. The ’379 patent acknowledges that “travers[ing]
`
`the network in the most efficient manner possible” is desirable. Id., 1:23-26; see
`
`id., 2:9-18.
`
`Furthermore, as Professor Smyth describes, before November 19, 2002,
`
`introductory computer science courses covered the representation of
`
`interconnected nodes in a hierarchical network as described in the ’379 patent.
`
`EX1007 ¶33. In such representations, a root node connects to children’s nodes,
`
`and so on. EX1007 ¶34. Contrary to the ’379 patent’s assertions, menu navigation
`
`search systems were known that, upon receiving certain input from a user, would
`
`generate a suggested node to which users could choose to jump. EX1007 ¶39.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`Professor Smyth also describes thesaurus use in information retrieval in the
`
`1960s. EX1007 ¶41. By 2002, thesauruses had been advantageously integrated
`
`into automated analysis of text. EX1007 ¶42. For example, logs of past user
`
`searches in the system had been compiled into programmatically implemented
`
`thesauruses. EX1007 ¶43. Thesauruses had been applied to multiple users to learn
`
`more synonyms and to avoid returning no results to users inputting a previously
`
`unused term. EX1007 ¶44.
`
`1. Wesemann
`Wesemann teaches a voice-enabled user interface for navigating a hierarchy
`
`of menu states. EX1004 Abstract, 2:45-65, 3:50-55, Fig.6. The hierarchy of
`
`“levels” or “menu states” are mapped in a network. EX1004, 8:35-39. A user may
`
`navigate a network of a telephone service system by speaking into a telephone.
`
`EX1004, 3:28-29, 4:58-60, 6:56-58. Speech recognition software interprets the
`
`user’s input, and that input is compared against template user inputs. Id., 6:56-64,
`
`8:37-63. The system then determines what menu state the user likely desires and
`
`directly “jumps” the user to that menu state without traversing “in-between” nodes.
`
`See, e.g., id., 10:13-18, 11:47-56, 11:65-12:12, 12:25-42.
`
`Fratkina
`2.
`Fratkina discloses a system for an automated, multi-step dialogue with users.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`EX1007 ¶77. Fratkina discloses taxonomies of parent, child, and sibling
`
`nodes through which a user may navigate with the assistance of a dialogue engine.
`
`EX1006, 4:42-5:19, 6:65-7:5, 14:42-67; 22:19-29, 26:26-27:27, Figs.4-5,
`
`10-12.
`
`Rajaraman
`3.
`Rajaraman teaches a “general purpose search” (GPS) that generates results
`
`for nodes that, as in the ’379 patent, are hierarchical. EX1005 Abstract, 1:5-7,
`
`1:66-67, 2:9-22, 2:57-3:7, Figs.4, 13. Rajaraman also teaches a “special terms file”
`
`that “lists various words (i.e., ‘Good Terms’) that are synonymous with
`
`classification names.” EX1005, 7:22-26, Fig.7. Rajaraman’s “index builder”
`
`accesses the special terms file (thesaurus) during a search, and then it assigns
`
`synonymous terms, which it calls “Good Terms,” to expand search results. Id.,
`
`8:26-30, Fig.9; see id., 9:7-45, Fig.11.
`
`The Level of Skill in the Art
`E.
`According to Professor Padhraic Smyth, a Professor of Computer Science at
`
`University of California, Irvine, a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“PHOSITA”) in 2002 would have had 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. EX1007 ¶¶28-30.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104(A)
`Petitioners certify that the ’379 patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims
`
`of the ’379 patent.
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(A)(1)
`Real Party-In-Interest (§42.8(b)(1)):
`A.
`Petitioners certify that Ohio Farmers Insurance Company d/b/a Westfield,
`
`Westfield Insurance Company, Westfield National Insurance Company, and Pregis
`
`LLC are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters (§42.8(b)(2))
`B.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2), Petitioners state that, to the best of
`
`Petitioners’ knowledge, the ’379 patent is presently the subject of Elastic N.V. v.
`
`Guada Technologies LLC, IPR2021-00875 (PTAB). Petitioners are presently
`
`moving to join this proceeding
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (§42.8(b)(3))
`LEAD COUNSEL
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Jeff E. Schwartz, Reg. No. 39,019
`Ryan N. Miller, Reg. No. 68,262
`2020 K Street N.W., Suite 500
`2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
`Washington, DC 20006
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`
`Service Information (§42.8(b)(4)):
`D.
`Postal mailings and hand-deliveries for lead and back-up counsel should be
`
`addressed to: Fox Rothschild LLP, 2020 K Street N.W., Suite 500, Washington,
`
`DC 20006 (Telephone: 202-461-3100; Fax: 202-461-3102).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4), Petitioners consent to e-mail service at:
`
`jeschwartz@foxrothschild; rmiller@foxrothschild.com;
`
`IPDocket@foxrothschild.com.
`
`For compliance with 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b), Powers of Attorney are also filed
`
`concurrently herewith.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioners request review of claims 1-7 of the ’379 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§311 and AIA §6 under these grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Description
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`3-6
`
`1-2 and 7 Obvious under §103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 6,731,724
`to Wesemann et al. (“Wesemann”)
`Obvious under §103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 6,731,724
`to Wesemann et al. (“Wesemann”) in view of U.S. Pat.
`No. 6,366,910 to Rajaraman et al. (“Rajaraman”)
`1-2 and 7 Obvious under §103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 7,539,656
`to Fratkina et al. (“Fratkina”)
`Obvious under §103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 7,539,656
`to Fratkina et al. (“Fratkina”) in view of U.S. Pat. No.
`6,366,910 to Rajaraman et al. (“Rajaraman”)
`
`3-6
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`Section VI identifies where each element of the challenged claims is found
`
`in the prior art and the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised. 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4)-(5).
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104(B)(3)
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b), 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.”
`
`“node”
`A.
`All seven claims use the term “node.” Referring to Figure 1, the ’379 patent
`
`states, “[t]he individual boxes 102-120 are referred to as ‘nodes’ and each
`
`represents a specific choice or option in the hierarchy.” EX1001, 4:22-26. Thus, a
`
`“node” is “a specific choice or option in a hierarchy.”
`
`“vertex”
`B.
`Claim 7 uses the term “vertex” or “vertices.” “Node” and “vertex” are used
`
`interchangeably throughout the specification and prosecution history. E.g.,
`
`EX1001, 2:5-9 (“In general, there will also be a combination of vertices or nodes
`
`in the graph that best represent or are closest to the goal the user is trying to
`
`accomplish.”); EX1002, 47-48 (describing jumping as direct traversal “from one
`
`node or vertex to another node or vertex”). The only apparent distinction in the
`
`patent between a “node” and a “vertex” is that a “vertex” is a node in a hierarchy
`
`that can be represented as a graph: “A graph structure is a collection of points,
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`called ‘vertices,’ and a collection of lines, called ‘edges.’” EX1001, 1:27-35.
`
`Therefore, a “vertex” is “a specific choice or option in a hierarchy that can be
`
`represented in a graph.”
`
`“keyword”
`C.
`The ’379 patent teaches that each node in the hierarchy is associated with a
`
`verbal description and that “[e]ach such description contains ‘key’ words that are
`
`deemed to be of importance and other words that can be disregarded.” Id., 4:32-41,
`
`1:49-52 (audible or written). The patent teaches:
`
`“For example, one node may have the associated verbal description
`‘Would you like to make a reservation?’ In this description, there is
`only one ‘key’ word — ‘reservation’ deemed important, so all of the
`other words in the description can be ignored.”
`
`Id., 4:37-41.
`The ’379 patent describes an index that associates keywords with nodes. Id.,
`
`4:62-5:7. This index allows the nodes to be searched by keyword and the user to
`
`jump to a node by matching the keyword. Id., 5:7-12. The ’379 patent allows for a
`
`“keyword” that is more than a single word or even is a “data pattern”:
`
`Note, there is no requirement for a [] ‘keyword’ to be a single word, in
`some implementations, keywords could be single words, phrases of
`two or more words, or even some other form of information like a
`specific data pattern.
`
`Id., 7:5-9.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`Accordingly, a “keyword” is “one or more words or pieces of information,
`
`such as a specific data pattern, that is associated with at least one node or vertex.”
`
`“jumping”
`D.
`During prosecution, PO construed “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).” EX1002, 89; see EX1002, 47 (“Appellant’s claimed invention …
`
`allow[s] the system to cause the user to ‘jump’ from one node in the hierarchy to
`
`another node that is not directly connected to that node, without having to traverse
`
`through every intervening node in the path….”).
`
`Consistent with the prosecution history, “jumping” does not require that the
`
`system jump between nodes. EX1002, 90 (“Applicant’s claimed invention ...
`
`allow[s] the user to ‘jump.’”). Deviating from the prosecution history, PO
`
`asserted, during the BloomReach IPR, that “jumping” should be construed as “the
`
`system jumping.” IPR2019-01304 Paper 6, 2 n.1.
`
`“verbal description”
`E.
`The ’379 patent teaches that each node has a verbal description for the
`
`node’s associated subject matter. Id., 3:37-43, 4:32-41. Petitioners adopt the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`patent’s express definition of “verbal description” as “a set of words relating to the
`
`subject matter whether presented audibly or in written form.” Id., 1:50-52.
`
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’379 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Wesemann renders claims 1, 2, and 7 obvious
`U.S. Patent No. 6,731,724 to Wesemann et al. (“Wesemann”) was filed on
`
`June 22, 2001 and is prior art to the ’379 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) (pre-
`
`AIA). EX1004. Wesemann was not cited during prosecution. See EX1002.
`
`Wesemann is in the same field as, and is pertinent to the problem solved by,
`
`the ’379 patent. The ’379 patent relates to navigating a hierarchical network of
`
`nodes, like a “menu-type automated telephone voice response system.” EX1001,
`
`3:49-58, see id., 3:5-14. The ’379 patent purports to solve inefficiencies in
`
`navigating a hierarchical network by allowing users to “jump” to a node without
`
`traversing intervening nodes. Id., Abstract, 2:22-30. Wesemann also relates
`
`increases the efficiency of menu-type hierarchy systems. EX1004, 2:45-65
`
`(identifying the problem of “expend[ing ] time ... to move systematically through
`
`a hierarchy of levels or menu states ... even when a user already knows what the
`
`final menu state will be”). Wesemann enables users 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 the second menus states.” EX1004
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`
`Abstract; see id., 3:54-56 (“[T]he invention enables a user to jump over ‘in
`
`between’ menu states, from a first menu state to a second menu state with only a
`
`single user input.”). Therefore, Wesemann is analogous prior art.
`
`As Wesemann describes, a jump need not be between connected nodes, even
`
`if, as the prior institution decision notes, “Wesemann’s ‘jump’ may refer to a
`
`transition across multiple connected nodes.” EX1027, 19. Wesemann describes
`
`two examples:
`
`• “For example, from main menu 610 a user can state ‘123’ and the
`
`user will automatically be transferred to extension 123.” EX1004,
`
`12:30-32 (emphasis added).
`
`• “Alternatively, a user can jump from home laptop sales 652 to
`
`home computer support 646 by speaking ‘home computer
`
`support.’” Id., 12:32-34 (emphasis added).
`
`As such, Wesemann allows “a user to jump to any level or state in a menu
`
`hierarchy.” Id., 3:10-14.
`
`Wesemann’s jumping is the jumping claimed in the ’379 patent. EX1007
`
`¶51. In the ’379 patent, jumping is accomplished by using an index to match
`
`keywords (that the user speaks) with their associated nodes. Id. “An index, as
`
`described more fully below, associating these keywords with the nodes containing
`
`them is then created….” EX1001, 5:2-7. Wesemann does what the ’379 patent
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`does, but instead of having merely an index, it also retains the menu hierarchy as a
`
`“template.” EX1007 ¶51. Wesemann “includ[es] all menu prompts associated
`
`with menu states of the menu hierarchy.” EX1004, 12:25-30. That association,
`
`between menu prompts and menu states, is Wesemann’s index, as the skilled
`
`artisan would recognize. EX1007 ¶51. Wesemann then “enables a user to jump
`
`from one menu state to another menu state without having to enter input for every
`
`‘in between’ menu state.” Id. Just like the ’379 patent, Wesemann matches the
`
`users’ spoken keywords with the menu prompt of the appropriate menu state.
`
`EX1007 ¶51. So, although Wesemann can involve a transition across multiple
`
`connected nodes, it additionally describes a jump directly from one node to
`
`another. EX1007 ¶51.
`
`Moreover, as Professor Smyth declares, the PHOSITA would have found
`
`Wesemann’s “template,” which maps acceptable responses to each of Wesemann’s
`
`menu states (otherwise known as nodes), to be like the ’379 patent’s “index,”
`
`which maps keywords to the nodes of the ’379 patent. EX1007 ¶51; EX1001, 5:2-
`
`4 (“An index . . . associating these keywords with the nodes containing them is
`
`then created.”), 6:7-11 (“[W]hen a response to a verbal description is provided by a
`
`user, possible keywords are identified in the response and used to search the index
`
`and identify any node to which the response may be directed ... .”). Further, a
`
`PHOSITA would have found equivalence between (a) how Wesemann compares
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00217
`Paper 2
`the user’s spoken words to the “acceptable inputs and requests” stored in the
`
`template for an interactive voice response telephone system and (b) how the ’379
`
`patent compares a user’s spoken words to keywords stored in an index for the ’379
`
`patent’s interactive voice response telephone system. EX1007 ¶51.
`
`Claim 1
`1.
`A method performed in a system having multiple navigable nodes
`1.
`interconnected in a hierarchical arrangement comprising:
`Wesemann teaches navigation of a hierarchical network of nodes, referred to
`
`as “menu states” or “levels”:
`
`The voice-enabled user interface maps the hierarchy of menu states
`and correspondin