PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW et seq.

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

_______________

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner

v.

VEVEO, INC. Patent Owner

Patent No. 7,895,218 Filing Date: May 24, 2005

Issue Date: February 22, 2011 Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PERFORMING SEARCHES FOR

TELEVISION CONTENT USING REDUCED TEXT INPUT ________________

Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned

________________

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.

Petition 2 of 2

i

Table of Contents

I. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ............ 1

37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)&(2): Real Parties in Interest & Related Matters ................................................................................................... 1

37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)&(4): Lead & Back-Up Counsel, Service Information ............................................................................................ 3

II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ...................................................................... 4

Payment of Fees Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................. 4

Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................... 4

III. OVERVIEW OF VENKATARAMAN .......................................................... 4

Brief Description of the Alleged Invention ........................................... 4

Prosecution History ............................................................................... 7

Priority Date .......................................................................................... 9

IV. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) AND STATEMENT OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED ............ 11

Claims for Which Review is Requested and Grounds on Which the Challenge Is Based ........................................................................ 11

How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed and Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................................... 12

How the Claims Are to Be Construed ...................................... 12

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................. 17

How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable Under the Statutory Grounds Identified ............................................................... 17

Evidence Supporting Petitioner’s Challenge ...................................... 17

V. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 18

VI. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART ......................................... 19

U.S. Publication 2005/0256846 (Zigmond) ........................................ 19

U.S. Patent 6,772,150 (Whitman) ....................................................... 23

U.S. Publication 2004/0133564 (Gross) ............................................. 25

U.S. Publication 2003/0093794 (Thomas) .......................................... 26

ii

U.S. Patent 6,026,398 (Brown) ........................................................... 26

VII. MOTIVATION TO COMBINE .................................................................... 27

Motivation to Combine Zigmond and Whitman ................................. 27

Motivation to Combine Other References .......................................... 28

VIII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 29

IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ................................... 30

GROUND 1: Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 17-19, 21-25, 27-32, 35, and 36 Are Obvious Over Zigmond in View of Whitman ........................ 30

Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 31

Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 53

Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 55

Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 56

Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 60

Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 62

Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 63

Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 64

Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................. 66

Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 68

Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 69

Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................. 70

Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................. 71

Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 73

Independent Claim 19 ............................................................... 73

Dependent Claims 21-25, 27-29, 31, 32, 35, and 36 ................ 75

Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................. 75

GROUND 2: Claims 2 and 20 Are Obvious Over Zigmond in View of Whitman and Further in View of Gross ................................ 76

Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 76

Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................. 79

iii

GROUND 3: Claims 8 and 26 Are Obvious Over Zigmond in View of Whitman and Further in View of Thomas ............................ 79

Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 79

Dependent Claim 26 ................................................................. 81

GROUND 4: Claims 15, 16, 33, and 34 Are Obvious Over Zigmond in View of Whitman and Further in View of Brown .......... 81

Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 82

Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 83

Dependent Claims 33 and 34 .................................................... 84

X. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 84

iv

EXHIBITS

Exhibit-1101: U.S. Patent No. 7,895,218 (“Venkataraman”) Exhibit-1102: Portions of File Wrapper for U.S. Patent Application Number

11/136,261 (paginations added for convenience) Exhibit-1103: U.S. Publication No. 2005/0256846 (“Zigmond”) Exhibit-1104: U.S. Patent No. 6,772,150 (“Whitman”) Exhibit-1105: U.S. Publication No. 2004/0133564 (“Gross”) Exhibit-1106: U.S. Publication No. 2003/0093794 (“Thomas”) Exhibit-1107: U.S. Patent No. 6,026,398 (“Brown”) Exhibit-1108: Declaration of Edward Fox, Ph.D. Exhibit-1109: Originally filed application for U.S. Patent Application No.

60/626,274, filed on November 9, 2004 (“274 Provisional”) Exhibit-1110: Baeza-Yates et al., Modern Information Retrieval, (ACM Press

Books, New York, 1999) (ISBN 0-201-39829-X)

1

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Petitioner”) petitions for inter

partes review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. of claims

1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 7,895,218 (“Venkataraman”), attached as Exhibit-1101.

I. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)

37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)&(2): Real Parties in Interest & Related Matters

The real parties-in-interest are (i) Comcast Corporation, (ii) Comcast

Business Communications, LLC, (iii) Comcast Cable Communications

Management, LLC, (iv) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, (v) Comcast

Financial Agency Corporation, (vi) Comcast Holdings Corporation, (vii) Comcast

of Houston, LLC, (viii) Comcast Shared Services, LLC, and (ix) Comcast STB

Software I, LLC. These entities are referenced below as “Comcast entities __,”

where “__” is one or more of (i) through (ix). No unnamed entity is funding,

controlling, or directing this Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.

7,895,218, or otherwise has an opportunity to control or direct this Petition or

Petitioner’s participation in any resulting IPR.

Venkataraman was asserted against Comcast entities (i) - (iv) and (vi) -

(viii), and other defendants, in Rovi Guides, Inc., et al. v. Comcast Corporation, et

al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:16-cv-00321

(“EDTX litigation”). The earliest date of service on the Comcast entities named in

2

the EDTX litigation was April 4, 2016. The EDTX litigation was transferred to the

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:16-cv-

09278, which is pending.

Venkataraman is at issue in Comcast Corporation, et al. v. Rovi

Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,

Case No. 1:16-cv-03852 (“SDNY litigation”). The SDNY litigation was brought

by Comcast entities (i) - (iv) and (vi) - (ix). The SDNY litigation does not

challenge the validity of a claim of Venkataraman.

Venkataraman was asserted in Veveo, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation, et al.,

U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, Case No. 1:13-cv-11885, which case is now

closed (“DMA litigation”). The DMA litigation named Comcast entities (i), (iii),

and (iv). None of Comcast entities (i) - (ix) or any privy of any of Comcast entities

(i) - (ix) was ever served with a complaint in the DMA litigation.

Venkataraman is the subject of another request for inter partes review under

35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. filed by Petitioner on the

same day herewith.

According to the Office’s records from the PAIR system, Venkataraman

claims priority based on application nos. 60/664,879 (expired) and 60/626,274

(expired). According to the PAIR system, application nos. PCT/US05/40424

3

(published), 13/006,846 (U.S. Patent 9,135,337) and 14/833,710 (pending) claim

priority to the application that became Venkataraman.

37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)&(4): Lead & Back-Up Counsel, Service Information

Petitioner designates counsel listed below and consents to electronic service.

A power of attorney for counsel is being filed herewith.

Lead Counsel Frederic M. Meeker (Reg. No. 35,282) [email protected] Back-Up Counsel Bradley C. Wright (Reg. No. 38,061) [email protected] Banner and Witcoff, LTD 1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 824-3000 Fax: (202) 824-3001

Additional Back-Up Counsel John M. Fleming (Reg. No. 56,536) [email protected] Timothy M. Meece (Reg. No. 38,553) [email protected] R. Gregory Israelsen (Reg. No. 72,805) [email protected] Shambhavi Patel (Reg. No. 73,478) [email protected] Scott Kelly (Reg. No. 65,121) [email protected]

Banner and Witcoff, LTD 1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 824-3000 Fax: (202) 824-3001

Please address all correspondence to counsel at the addresses shown above.

Petitioner further consents to electronic service by email at the following address:

[email protected].

4

II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

Payment of Fees Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103

The undersigned authorizes the charge of any required fees to Deposit

Account No. 19-0733.

Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)

Petitioner certifies that Venkataraman is available for inter partes review

and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review

challenging claims 1-36 on the grounds identified in this Petition.

III. OVERVIEW OF VENKATARAMAN

Brief Description of the Alleged Invention

Venkataraman relates to “identifying a television content item desired by a

television viewer from a set of television content items.” (Exhibit-1101, Abstract).

Venkataraman provides that “[e]ach of the television content items has one or

more associated descriptors,” and that a viewer enters text to identify a desired

television content item. (Id., 2:46-50). The “search entry is a prefix substring of

one or more words relating to the desired television content item.” (Id., 2:51-52).

The method and system dynamically identify “one or more television content items

from the set of television content items having one or more descriptors matching

the search entry as the television viewer enters each character of the search entry.”

5

(Id., 2:51-55). The method and system then transmit the search results of the one

or more television content items of the identified group to be displayed on a device

operated by the television viewer. (Id., 2:57-59).

Venkataraman acknowledges that “progress has been made recently for PCs

with full QWERTY keyboards to reduce the amount of text input needed to arrive

at a desired result,” but that “the search input process is still grossly deficient and

cumbersome when it comes to searching for desired information or content on a

large ten-foot interface television environment or a hand-held device.” (Id., 1:35-

41).

Venkataraman shows an example in FIG. 8A, reproduced below, illustrating

an exemplary search device according to the invention. (Id., 8:21-23).

6

Venkataraman explains that “[a]s a user types in ‘JE SE’ at 802, the results

window content 804 is dynamically culled to show the results.” (Id., 8:34-36). In

this example, “JE” is a first descriptor prefix for a term “JERRY” and “SE” is a

second descriptor prefix for a term “SEINFELD.” Both the first (“JE”) and second

(“SE”) descriptor prefixes relate to terms (“JERRY” and “SEINFELD”) that are

associated with the actor/comedian Jerry Seinfeld, the selectable television content

7

item. When a user desires to find television content items associated with Jerry

Seinfeld, the user can incrementally enter two descriptor prefixes that are less than

the whole word of the term they are a prefix to, and can arrive at search results that

identify desired television content items. (Exhibit-1101, 8:34-45; see also Exhibit-

1108, ¶¶66-67). This version corresponds to the independent claims of

Venkataraman.

Prosecution History

The application that issued as Venkataraman was filed on May 24, 2005.

(Exhibit-1102, p. 1).1 A first Office action rejected all the claims under 35 U.S.C.

§ 102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Publication 2004/0194141 (Sanders). (Id., p. 5).

The applicant filed a response that amended the claims and argued that the prior art

“requires that the search string be transformed into one or more queries, which are

then submitted to a search engine,” while the claimed “method directly matches the

prefix input entered by the user to a subset of content items.” (Id., p. 19).

A final Office action rejected all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over

Sanders and U.S. Publication 2004/0128686 (Boyer). (Id., p. 24). The applicant

1 The claims are not entitled to the November 9, 2004, priority date. (Exhibit-

1108, ¶¶41-43; Exhibit-1109).

8

filed a response and Request for Continued Examination including amending the

claims and arguing that the independent claim “perform[ed] the television content

item selection and presentation based on a string of prefixes that is formed from

input received from a user wherein the second descriptor prefix is received without

completion of the first word entered by the user for identifying the desired

television content items.” (Id., pp. 39-40).

A non-final Office action rejected all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as

anticipated by U.S. Publication 2003/0014753 (Beach) or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as

being obvious over Beach in view of Sanders. (Id., pp. 45-51). The applicant filed

a response arguing that Beach “requires the use of whole words in the index files”

and that “the claimed method does not compare the user’s input against an index of

complete words.” (Id., pp. 63-64).

A second final Office action maintained the rejection of all claims. (Id., pp.

68-73). An interview was conducted, after which the applicant filed a response

and another Request for Continued Examination arguing that the applied prior art

would not operate for two prefixes of two different words. “While this type-ahead

capability will find matching results when provided with only a first descriptor

prefix, applicants submit the appending of a second descriptor prefix, which

9

represents a new word, will cause the system to view the first prefix as a completed

word.” (Id., p. 88).

Following this response, the examiner allowed the application, indicating

that the prior art of record failed to disclose/teach the independent claim steps of

“subsequent to ranking and associating,” “selecting and presenting,” and

“subsequent to receiving the first descriptor prefix . . .” (Id., p. 93).

Priority Date

The earliest priority date on the face of Venkataraman is November 9, 2004,

the application date of U.S. Patent Application No. 60/626,274 (“the ’274

Provisional”), but a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged

invention (“POSA”) would have understood that Venkataraman is not entitled to

that filing date. (Exhibit-1108, ¶41). The ’274 Provisional discloses a real-time

program search method based upon user-entered characters. (Exhibit-1109, pp. 5-

6). The ’274 Provisional fails, however, to disclose or enable a program search

method with text entry based upon limited prefix substring combinations (i.e., “a

string of prefixes including the first descriptor prefix and the second descriptor

prefix”). (Exhibit-1108, ¶41).

Furthermore, Venkataraman argued during prosecution that the claims

“perform the television content item selection and presentation based on a string of

10

prefixes that is formed from input received from a user wherein the second

descriptor prefix is received without completion of the first word entered by the

user for identifying the desired television content items.” (Exhibit-1102, pp. 39-

40). A POSA would have understood that this limitation is not disclosed in the

’274 Provisional. (Exhibit-1108, ¶42).

The ’274 Provisional did not provide any implementation details, did not

provide a complete written description of all claimed limitations (e.g., “a string of

prefixes including the first descriptor prefix and the second descriptor prefix”) set

forth in the later-filed application for Venkataraman, and did not provide an

enabling disclosure that would allow a POSA to practice the alleged inventions in

those later claims. (Exhibit-1108, ¶43). The brief discussion found in the ’274

Provisional fails to disclose to a POSA how to make and use the full scope of the

later-allowed claims without undue experimentation. (Id.).

Therefore, Venkataraman is only entitled to the March 24, 2005, filing date

of the later-filed provisional.

11

IV. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND STATEMENT OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED

Claims for Which Review is Requested and Grounds on Which the Challenge Is Based

References Basis Claims Challenged

Zigmond, Whitman § 103(a) Ground 1: 1, 3-7, 9-14, 17-19, 21-25, 27-32, 35, 36

Zigmond, Whitman, Gross § 103(a) Ground 2: 2, 20

Zigmond, Whitman, Thomas § 103(a) Ground 3: 8, 26

Zigmond, Whitman, Brown § 103(a) Ground 4: 15, 16, 33, 34

The grounds in this Petition are not redundant because grounds 1-4

respectively address different claims.

This Petition is also not redundant to another inter partes review petition

filed by the Petitioner on the same day herewith. The grounds in this Petition rely

on different references with different features. Zigmond discloses incrementally

searching television content items based on descriptive-term prefixes, but may not

explicitly disclose ranking and multi-term search queries. U.S. Publication No.

2004/0133564 (Gross), cited as a primary reference in the other inter partes review

petition, discloses searching for content items by mapping indexed prefixes to

subsets of ranked content items, but may not explicitly disclose television content

12

items. U.S. Patent No. 8,051,450 (Robarts), also cited as a primary reference in the

other inter partes review petition, discloses searching television content items by

pre-mapping television content items to descriptive whole words for incremental

text input, but may not explicitly disclose pre-mapping prefixes.

How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed and Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

How the Claims Are to Be Construed

An unexpired claim subject to inter partes review “shall be given its

broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which

it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The Board should construe the following

terms consistent with this standard. Any other claim term not specifically

discussed should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

i. “television content item”

The broadest reasonable construction of this phrase in light of the

specification is an identifiable audiovisual data object, or an identifiable data

object about an audiovisual data object. Venkataraman states, “television content

items can include a wide variety of video/audio content including, but not limited

to, television programs, movies, music videos, video-on-demand, or any other

identifiable content that can be selected by a television viewer.” (Exhibit-1101,

3:46-50; Exhibit-1108, ¶49).

13

ii. “the first and second prefixes are in an ordered format/unordered

format”

The broadest reasonable construction of the phrase “the first and second

prefixes are in an ordered format/unordered format” in light of the specification is

that the sequencing of the prefixes must be/need not be maintained between the

search query and the search results. For example, when in an ordered format, only

content items including first and second words that correspond to the first and

second prefixes, the first and second words in the same order as the first and

second prefixes, are included in the search results. When in an unordered format,

content items that include first and second words that correspond to the first and

second prefixes, the first and second words in any order, are included in the search

results. (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶50-52).

Venkataraman’s background section states:

a search method or system able to perform . . . the following would be

desirable . . . Allows users to enter words in the namespace in any

order. For example, a person lookup search such as “John Doe”

should be possible either as “John Doe or Doe John.” In this example,

“John” and “Doe” is a two-word instance of a name from an

unordered namespace.

(Exhibit-1101, 2:8-23).

14

Venkataraman shows example queries of “an ordered name” and “an

unordered name” in FIG. 3 below.

iii. “word separator”

The broadest reasonable construction of this phrase is a character that

separates words (e.g., a space or other non-alphanumeric character between two

words).

Venkataraman explains, “[w]hen [a] user inputs a character of a prefix string

at 701, the system examines if it is a word separator at 702.” (Exhibit-1101, 7:66-

8:1, FIG. 7). Annotated FIG. 8A (below) illustrates two words separated by a

blank space (i.e., a “word separator”). (Exhibit-1108, ¶53).

15

iv. “stop words”

The broadest reasonable construction of this phrase is natural language

words (e.g., “a,” “an,” “the”). Search engines are commonly programmed to

ignore stop words when indexing entries for searching and when retrieving entries

as the result of a search query.

16

Venkataraman’s annotated FIG. 5 (below) shows a step of cleanup search

space (stop word handling). Venkataraman explains, “[t]he second step is the

cleanup of the entity space at 502a. The cleanup phase involves finding the

locations of stop words such as ‘a’, ‘an’, ‘the’.” (Exhibit-1101, 6:23-25, FIG. 5;

Exhibit-1108, ¶¶54-55).

17

v. “phonetically equivalent words”

The broadest reasonable construction of this phrase is words expressed as

representations of speech sounds that are correlated to specific words. For

example, “Geoff” phonetically equals “Jeff.” (Exhibit-1101, 6:25-29, FIG. 5;

Exhibit-1108, ¶56).

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

The alleged invention relates to the field of search-query processing.

(Exhibit-1101, 1:19-25; Exhibit-1108, ¶46). A POSA would have had at least a

bachelor’s degree in computer science and at least two years of experience in the

field of search-query processing, designing, constructing, and/or testing systems

that utilize data and/or information search techniques. (Exhibit-1108, ¶46).

How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable Under the Statutory Grounds Identified

A detailed explanation of how claims 1-36 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.

§ 103 appears below.

Evidence Supporting Petitioner’s Challenge

The evidence supporting the Petitioner’s challenge is identified in the list of

exhibits above, including the Declaration of Edward Fox, Ph.D. (Exhibit-1108).

Dr. Fox has considerable experience in search-query systems. (Id., ¶¶5-29).

His declaration provides factual evidence of the level of skill in the art, the status

18

of references as prior art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the technical

background of Venkataraman, besides explaining why the claimed invention

would have been obvious to a POSA.

V. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Venkataraman purportedly covers the basic idea of incremental searching of

television content items where results are established for any combination prefixes

before the user enters any search strings. Because strings of one or more descriptor

prefix strings (less than whole words) are associated with groups of television

content items before user entry, as text is entered, potentially desired groups of

television content items are provided to the user based on the association. It would

have been obvious to a POSA to combine the references to arrive at the claims.

The combination discussed below in section IX(A) demonstrates the

obviousness of the majority of claims. Additional combinations are provided for

some dependent claims.

19

VI. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART

Although a related application to Gross is cited on Venkataraman, none of

the other references herein are, and none of the arguments herein were presented to

or considered by the PTO. In addition, the state of the prior art to a POSA showed

that several techniques were known in the art as of November 9, 2004, covering

the aspects of information retrieval, including indexing of desired items, and prefix

searching. (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶57-65).

U.S. Publication 2005/0256846 (Zigmond)

Zigmond (Exhibit-1103) is a published U.S. application filed May 12, 2004

and published November 17, 2005.2 Zigmond is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)

(pre-AIA).

Zigmond discloses an incremental client-server data search based on user

search inputs. (Exhibit-1103, Abstract, [0027]). Zigmond uses an index structure

that stores program titles of television programs in different subsets, which

Zigmond calls “bins.” (Id., [0042], [0043]). A program title is included in a subset

(i.e., bin) when a word, or a prefix of a word, in the program title corresponds to a

2 As discussed above in Section III(C), Venkataraman is not entitled to the earliest

priority date listed on the face of the patent (Nov. 9, 2004).

20

character string assigned to that subset. (Id., [0046], [0048]). Titles including a

word beginning with “A” are included in an “A” bin, titles including a word

beginning with “B” are included in a “B” bin, titles including a word beginning

with “TA” are included a “TA” bin, and so on. (Id., [0042], [0044], [0048], FIGS.

2, 3). An example index including multiple segments, each of which is linked to a

different bin (“subset of content items”), is shown in FIG. 3 of Zigmond,

reproduced below:

21

(Exhibit-1103, FIG. 3).

22

The lists of titles in a particular bin are accessed for display on a screen of a

client device in response to a user entering a search query that includes the

character-string prefix associated with that bin. (Id., [0065], [0066]). If a user

enters a “T,” program titles from the “T” bin of the first index (shown in FIG. 2 of

Zigmond) are displayed to the user. (Id., [0065]). This is shown in FIG. 4 of

Zigmond:


23

If the user then enters an “E,” program titles from the “TE” bin (shown in

FIG. 3 above) of the second index are displayed to the user. (Id., [0047]).

U.S. Patent 6,772,150 (Whitman)

Whitman (Exhibit-1104) is a U.S. patent that was filed on March 22, 2000,

and issued on August 3, 2004. Whitman is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-

AIA). Whitman discloses a search refinement system and method for generating

related search phrases (i.e., content items) using a history of search queries

submitted to a search engine by a community of users. (Exhibit-1104, 3:39-42).

In Whitman, a user submits a search query from a search page. (Id., FIG. 2,

6:25-63). After the search is performed by the query server, a query result page is

returned to the user. (Id., 6:57-63, 7:65-8:2).

The query result page includes a listing of the query result items and one or

more related search phrases. (Id., FIG. 8, 14:13-27). The one or more related

search phrases to be displayed on the query result page are determined using a

search phrase table. (Id., 12:27-50). The search phrase table is generated and

cached prior to receiving the search query. (Id., 6:29-35, 12:66-13:10). The search

phrase table is illustrated in FIG. 1, shown in part and annotated below:

24


Each entry within the search phrase table has two components: a key term

(“descriptive term”) and a related search phrase list comprising one or more related

search phrases (“content items”) for that key term. (Exhibit-1104, 4:65-5:2, FIG.

1). Key terms are terms that may appear in a search query and the related search

phrase lists are a list of the most highly ranked or scored search phrases that

contain the corresponding key term. (Exhibit-1104, 5:2-4 and 5:7-10).

25

U.S. Publication 2004/0133564 (Gross)

Gross (Exhibit-1105) is a U.S. application published July 8, 2004, and filed

September 3, 2003. Gross is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA) as of its

filing date.

Gross discloses an incremental search technique whereby words, and

prefixes of words, are pre-indexed for association with content items before a user

enters a query. (Exhibit-1105, [0038], [0040], [0051], [0063]). For example, in

response to a first search string and a second search string entered into a same first

search field, the system incrementally filters search results to locate content items

that have at least a first word that begins with the first string and a second word

that begins with the second string. (Id., Abstract, [0010]). Gross further discloses

that the indexes for prefixes can include indexes for multiword prefix indexing and

searching. (Id., [0150]). The user can enter multiple separate search words or

strings and each one will optionally be treated as a prefix. (Id., [0150]).

26

U.S. Publication 2003/0093794 (Thomas)

Thomas (Exhibit-1106) is a U.S. application published May 15, 2003.

Thomas is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).

Thomas is directed to a computer system that analyzes content from various

sources, including television, to identify programs of interest to a user based on a

user profile. (Exhibit-1106, Abstract). The computer system monitors all TV news

programs and breaks down each TV news program into individual stories.

(Exhibit-1106, [0033]). For each story, the computer system can produce metadata

that includes, in part, a description of the event in the story and the location of the

event in the story. (Id., [0034], [0036], [0038]). A client system then ranks the

stories based in part on the location of the event in the story. (Id., [0043]). After a

user request, the stories are presented to the user based on the ranking. (Id.).

U.S. Patent 6,026,398 (Brown)

Brown (Exhibit-1107) is a U.S. patent that issued February 15, 2000, making

it prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).

Brown provides a database data processing system and method including

enhanced database indexing and searching techniques. Brown discloses an index

system for a dataset where words and alternative spellings, misspellings, and

phonetically similar words are maintained. (Exhibit-1107, Abstract, 3:27-65).

27

VII. MOTIVATION TO COMBINE

Motivation to Combine Zigmond and Whitman

The rationales of KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007),

support combining Zigmond and Whitman. A POSA would have been capable of

applying the known methods of enhancement taught by Whitman to the system of

Zigmond, and the results would have been predictable to a POSA. (See KSR, 550

at 417; see also Exhibit-1108, ¶¶97-99). Specifically, Zigmond discloses a known

method for providing subsets of television content items in response to search

queries comprising a prefix. To the extent that Zigmond may not explicitly

disclose processing search queries comprising multi-word prefixes (see claim

element 1[h] below), Whitman discloses providing subsets of content items in

response to a search query comprising multiple prefixes. To improve the accuracy

and user experience of the system, a POSA would have modified Zigmond’s

system, which allows a user to enter a word prefix as a search query, to process

Whitman’s multi-prefix search queries. (Exhibit-1108, ¶98). A POSA would have

understood the program titles of the television programs in Zigmond to include

multiple words. By performing a search based on multiple prefixes, the resulting

system would enhance the user experience by searching on multiple prefixes to

28

produce search results that better reflect the content item that the user is searching

for. (Id., ¶98).

A reason to combine prior art references may be found when a POSA is

“capable of combining the prior art references.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co.

Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In

Zigmond, in response to a search query comprising a prefix, content items from a

bin assigned to that prefix are retrieved for display to a user. Whitman discloses

determining a set of content items separately for each term (i.e., the claimed

“prefix”) in the search query, and finding the intersection of the separate sets of

content items to generate a final set of content items. A POSA would have known

to apply this process to Zigmond’s system by retrieving a separate set of content

items from the various bins assigned to the prefixes in the search query and to find

the intersection of the separate sets of content items to generate the final set of

content items. (Exhibit-1108, ¶99).

Motivation to Combine Other References

A POSA would have found it obvious to combine features of Gross with

other references. (Exhibit-1108, ¶153; Exhibit-1110, pp. pp. 120-124, 212-217,

462). A POSA would have found it obvious to combine features of Thomas with

other references. (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶156, 157). A POSA would have found it

29

obvious to combine features of Brown with other references. (Exhibit-1108,

¶¶160, 164; Exhibit-1110, pp. 126, 169-170, 236-240, 462, 466). A POSA would

have found it obvious to combine features in these references with Whitman and

Zigmond because they are simply combinations of known elements to yield

predictable results (e.g., faster searches and more accurate search results, leading to

improved user experience), to solve the alleged problem of Venkataraman.

(Exhibit-1108, ¶153, 156-157, 160, 164; Exhibit-1110, pp. 183, 230-231, 250-

254).

VIII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE

A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood

that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged

in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). This Petition meets this threshold.

The grounds discussed below and in the Declaration of Dr. Edward A. Fox

(Exhibit-1108) demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatentable for

obviousness. Each ground is discussed below, and relies on the teachings of the

references cited above as would have been understood by a POSA. Each ground

describes the scope and content of the prior art, considers the differences between

the claimed invention and the prior art, and resolves the level of ordinary skill in

the art. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966).

30

Considering the knowledge, experience, and creativity of a POSA, such a person

would have found the challenged claims to be “a predictable use of prior art

elements according to their established functions,” and therefore obvious in view

of this prior art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY

GROUND 1: Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 17-19, 21-25, 27-32, 35, and 36 Are Obvious Over Zigmond in View of Whitman

The grounds discussed below and in the Declaration of Dr. Fox (Exhibit-

1108) demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatentable for obviousness.

Grounds 1-4 rely on the teachings of Zigmond in view of Whitman, as would have

been understood by a POSA at the time of the alleged invention. Zigmond teaches

the claimed features, but to the extent that the claimed “first descriptor prefix of a

word entered by the user for incrementally identifying at least one desired

television content item” and “second descriptor prefix of a word entered by the

user for incrementally identifying the at least one desired television content item”

require different words, and to the extent that Zigmond may not explicitly disclose

this, Whitman would have rendered this obvious.

31

Independent Claim 1

1[a]. “A method of incrementally identifying and selecting a television content item to be presented from a relatively large set of selectable television content items, the television content items being associated with descriptive terms that characterize the selectable television content items, the method comprising: . . .”

Zigmond recognizes that due to the number of channel options available to

users of modern television systems, there exists a need for a search feature that

allows a user to search for a television program title. (Exhibit-1103, [0002],

[0003]). Zigmond discloses a program database that stores television programs,

which correspond to the claimed “television content items.” (Exhibit-1103, [0030];

Exhibit-1108, ¶79). Zigmond further discloses a program titles data structure of

program titles (“descriptive terms”) for the television programs stored in the

program database, and a program titles index that is an index to the words and

characters of the program titles data structure. (Exhibit-1103, [0030], [0055],

[0056]; Exhibit-1108, ¶79). The program titles index is searched using a search-

as-the-user-types (“incrementally”) mechanism. (Exhibit-1103, [0055]-[0057]).

The search results are presented on a display screen of a client device. (Exhibit-

1103, [0027]).

32

1[b]. “using an ordering criteria to rank and associate subsets of television content items with corresponding strings of one or more descriptor prefix strings,”

Zigmond’s programs title index comprises multiple indexes, each of which

includes multiple bins. (Exhibit-1103, [0042], [0056]). The bins are divided into

segments and each segment stores a program title and “a universal resource

identifier (URI) of the associated titled program.” (Exhibit-1103, [0044]; Exhibit-

1108, ¶80). A POSA would have recognized that the television programs

associated with each of the program titles (and identified by the URIs) are the

claimed “television content items.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶81). A POSA would have

further recognized that the bins (which, as noted above, store television program

titles and corresponding URIs) in Zigmond are the claimed “subsets of television

content items.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶81).

Each bin in Zigmond is associated with a different character string, and a

program title of a television program (and the URI of the television program) is

included in a bin if a word (or a prefix of a word) in the program title (“descriptive

term”) corresponds to the character string assigned to that bin. (Exhibit-1103,

[0018], [0019], [0048], FIG. 2; Exhibit-1108, ¶81). For example, titles including a

word beginning with “C” are stored in a “C” bin, titles including a word beginning

with “TE” are stored in a “TE” bin, and so on. (Exhibit-1103, [0044], [0048]).

33

Therefore, a POSA would have recognized that the different character strings

assigned to each bin are the claimed “one or more descriptor prefix strings.”

(Exhibit-1108, ¶81).

Annotated FIGS. 2 and 3 of Zigmond (shown below) illustrate indexes that

are both stored in the programs title index. (Exhibit-1103, [0056]).

34

Exhibit-1103, FIG. 23

3 To avoid redundancy, annotations are provided only for two of the four bins.

35


4 To avoid redundancy, annotations are provided only for two of the four bins.

36

The bins only include a fraction of all possible titles for the corresponding

character strings. (Exhibit-1103, [0043]). The number of program titles that may

be displayed on the requesting client device (“n”) determines the size of each bin.

(Exhibit-1103, [0061]). Therefore, in the index in FIG. 2 of Zigmond, “at least the

first ‘n’ titles for each character of the 26 characters are present in each bin.”

(Exhibit-1103, [0043]). In addition, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the segments of

each index (and corresponding bins, i.e., “subsets of content items”) are

alphabetically ordered (“ordering criteria”) within the index. A POSA would have

understood this to disclose “using an ordering criteria to rank . . . subsets of

television content items . . .” (Exhibit-1108, ¶82).

To any extent that Zigmond may not explicitly disclose “using an ordering

criteria to rank . . . subsets of [] content items . . .” this is disclosed in Whitman.

(Exhibit-1108, ¶83). Whitman discloses a search phrase table (element 137) that is

illustrated in FIG. 1, shown in part and annotated below:

37

Each entry within the search phrase table has two components: a key term

(element 140) and a related search phrase list (element 142) for that key term.

(Exhibit-1104, 4:65-5:2, FIG. 1). Key terms (the claimed “descriptor prefix

strings”) are terms that may appear in a search query and the related search phrase

lists (the claimed “subsets of content items”) are a list of the scored related search

phrases (the claimed “content items”) that contain the corresponding key term.

(Exhibit-1104, 5:2-4 and 5:7-10; Exhibit-1108, ¶83). In one example, the score

38

(“ordering criteria”) assigned to each related search phrase is based, in part, on the

number of times the respective search phrase was submitted over a selected period

of time. (Exhibit-1104, 5:20-24). The related search phrase lists are ranked by

their corresponding scores (shown as element 146 in FIG. 1). (Exhibit-1104, 7:63-

65; Exhibit-1108, ¶¶84, 85). A POSA would have recognized this to show the

claimed “using an ordering criteria to rank . . . subsets of [] content items . . .”

(Exhibit-1108, ¶¶84, 85).

As explained in Section VII(A), to improve search accuracy and enhance

user experience, it would have been obvious to modify Zigmond’s single-prefix

search query system to process Whitman’s multi-prefix search queries (see claim

element 1[h] below). (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶86, 97-99). A POSA would have been

motivated to further modify Zigmond’s system to use Whitman’s ordering criteria

to rank the subsets of content items. (Exhibit-1108, ¶86). Both Zigmond and

Whitman disclose improved searching techniques to identify desired content more

quickly. (Exhibit-1108, ¶86). Modifying Zigmond to rank the content items by

score, as disclosed by Whitman, would result in improved user experience because

the output would comprise content items that are more likely of interest to a user.

(Exhibit-1104, 3:39-57; Exhibit-1108, ¶86).

39

1[c]. “each descriptor prefix string being a variable length string containing a subset of the characters of the descriptive terms that characterize the selectable television content items, wherein each descriptor prefix string contains less than all characters of the descriptive terms;”

As discussed above referring to 1[b], each bin (“subset of content items”) in

Zigmond is associated with a different character string (“descriptor prefix string”).

(Exhibit-1103, FIGS. 2 and 3; Exhibit-1108, ¶87). A program title (“descriptive

terms”) of a television program (“television content item”) that has a word

beginning with the particular character string assigned to a particular bin is

included in that bin. (Exhibit-1103, [0018], [0019], [0044], [0048]; Exhibit-1108,

¶87). A POSA would have recognized this as “each descriptor prefix string . . .

containing a subset of the characters of the descriptive terms that characterize the

selectable television content items, wherein each descriptor prefix string contains

less than all characters of the descriptive terms.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶87).

Zigmond discloses that the prefixes assigned to the bins may include various

numbers of characters. (Exhibit-1103, [0039], [0040]). A POSA would have

recognized that the prefixes in FIG. 2 of Zigmond, each with one character, and the

prefixes in FIG. 3 of Zigmond, each with two characters, show “each descriptor

40

prefix string being a variable length string.” (Exhibit-1103, FIGS. 2 and 3;

Exhibit-1108, ¶88).

1[d]. “subsequent to ranking and associating the television content items with strings of one or more descriptor prefix strings, receiving incremental text input entered by a user,”

In Zigmond, once a user initiates a search function at a client device, the

index (including the bins) shown in FIG. 2 is retrieved from the program titles

index. (Exhibit-1103, [0017], [0042], [0053], [0056], [0061]; Exhibit-1108, ¶89).

A user subsequently may input an initial character (“incremental text input”) on a

keyboard or remote, and the initial character is received by the client device.

(Exhibit-1103, [0018], [0025], [0065], [0077]; Exhibit-1108, ¶89). The retrieval of

the index and bins in FIG. 2, prior to receiving the initial character input from the

user, corresponds to the claimed “subsequent to ranking and associating the

television content items with strings of one or more descriptor prefix strings,

receiving incremental text input entered by a user.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶89).

41

1[e]. “the incremental text input including a first descriptor prefix of a word entered by the user for incrementally identifying at least one desired television content item of the relatively large set of television content items, wherein the first descriptor prefix contains less than all characters of the word the user is using to incrementally identify the at least one desired television content item;”

Zigmond discloses a search-as-the-user-types mechanism that allows a user

to search for any word in the program titles of television programs by entering one

or more characters as search terms. (Exhibit-1103, [0027], [0044], [0081];

Exhibit-1108, ¶90). The initial input by the user is a first character (“a first

descriptor prefix”) of a word in the program title that the user is searching for.

(Exhibit-1103, [0017], [0035], [0081]; Exhibit-1108, ¶90). For example, a user of

the Zigmond system could enter, as the first character of the search term, “T”

(“THE WALKING DEAD”), “W” (“THE WALKING DEAD”) or “D” (“THE

WALKING DEAD”) to search for the program title “THE WALKING DEAD.”

(Exhibit-1108, ¶90). A POSA would have understood that entry of a first character

(for example, “W”) contains less than all of the characters of the word

(“WALKING”) the user is using to incrementally identify the television program

“THE WALKING DEAD.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶90).

42

1[f]. “selecting and presenting on a display device the subset of television content items that is associated with the first descriptor prefix string;”

In Zigmond, “[w]hen a user inputs an initial character, the portion of the

initial sparse subset corresponding to the initial character is presented on the

display screen by the client device . . .” (Exhibit-1103, [0018]). For example,

when a user inputs the character “C” (“the first descriptor prefix string”) as the first

letter of a search, program titles from the “C” bin (“the subset of television content

items that is associated with the first descriptor prefix string”) shown in FIG. 2 of

Zigmond are presented on a display screen of the client device. (Exhibit-1103,

[0044]; Exhibit-1108, ¶91). FIG. 2 of Zigmond is shown annotated below:

43


In another example, when a user enters the character “T” as the first letter of

a search, program titles from the “T” bin (i.e., program titles with a word

44

beginning with “TA,” “TB,” “TC,” and so on) are presented at a search results

field on a display screen. (Exhibit-1103, [0044]; Exhibit-1108, ¶92). The

presentation of the program titles from the “T” bin is illustrated in FIG. 4 of

Zigmond, shown in-part and annotated below (Exhibit-1108, ¶92).


45

1[g]. “subsequent to receiving the first descriptor prefix, receiving subsequent incremental text input entered by the user,”

Responsive to a first input (“incremental text input”) comprising a first

character (“first descriptor prefix”) entered by the user, the Zigmond system

presents program titles from the bin assigned to the prefix corresponding to the

first character. (Exhibit-1103, FIG. 4; Exhibit-1108, ¶93). The Zigmond system

then receives a second input (“subsequent incremental text input”) from the user.

(Exhibit-1103, [0019], [0048], [0068], [0080]; Exhibit-1108, ¶93).

[1]h. “the subsequent incremental text input including a second descriptor prefix of a word entered by the user for incrementally identifying the at least one desired television content item and forming a string of prefixes including the first descriptor prefix and the second descriptor prefix in the order received, wherein the second descriptor prefix contains less than all characters of the word the user is using to incrementally identify the at least one desired television content item; and”

The second input (“subsequent incremental text input”) from the user

comprises a second character (“second descriptor prefix”). (Exhibit-1103, [0019],

[0048], [0068], [0080]; Exhibit-1108, ¶94). The user’s second input is a second

character of the word in the program title of a television program being searched.

(Exhibit-1103, [0018], [0068]; Exhibit-1108, ¶94). Zigmond discloses “when a

46

user inputs the character ‘E’ as the second letter of a search following the inputting

of the character ‘T’, the ‘n’ titles from the ‘TE’ bin . . . are presented on display

screen . . .” (Exhibit-1103, [0048]). Therefore, the first user input (comprising the

first character “T”) followed by the second user input (comprising the second

character “E”) forms the string “TE.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶95).

Continuing with the example discussed above referring to 1[e] (i.e., the user

enters “W” as the first character to search for “THE WALKING DEAD”), a POSA

would have understood a later user entry of the character “A” (“second descriptor

prefix”) to contain less than all of the characters of the word (“WALKING”) the

user is using to incrementally identify the television content item having the

program title “THE WALKING DEAD.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶95).

Should the recited “the subsequent incremental text input including a second

descriptor prefix of a word entered by the user” be interpreted to represent a new

(second) word5, Zigmond may not explicitly disclose this feature. However, it is

disclosed in Whitman.

5 As discussed above in Section III(B), the applicant stated, during prosecution of

the application that issued as Venkataraman, “[w]hile this type-ahead capability

will find matching results when provided with only a first descriptor prefix,

47

Whitman discloses a search refinement system and method for generating

related search phrases (“content items”) using a history of search queries submitted

to a search engine by a community of users. (Exhibit-1104, 3:39-42; Exhibit-1108,

¶96). In one example, a user may search for a book from a database by entering

the exact title of a book, one or more words in the title of a book, or the prefixes of

one or more words in the title of the book. (Exhibit-1104, FIG. 2; Exhibit-1108,

¶96). This can be seen in FIG. 2 of Whitman, shown annotated and in part below:


Whitman discloses several examples of search queries that may be entered

by a user, such as “walking the dog,” and “Mark Twain.” (Exhibit-1104, 9:26-37,

10:45-47). As evidenced by FIG. 2, the user may enter words from the title of the

applicants submit the appending of a second descriptor prefix, which represents a

new word, will cause the system to view the first prefix as a completed word.”

48

book or prefixes of the words. (Exhibit-1104, FIG. 2). Therefore, a POSA would

have understood that to search for the book “Walking the Dog,” the user may enter

the prefixes of different words, such as “wa” (“first descriptor prefix”) and “do”

(“second descriptor prefix”). (Exhibit-1108, ¶96). Whitman further discloses

using the search phrase table to select related search phrases (“content items”) to

be suggested to the user based on the multi-term search query. (Exhibit-1104,

12:67-13:25; Exhibit-1108, ¶96).


user experience, a POSA would have modified the single-prefix search query

system disclosed in Zigmond to process multi-prefix search queries (i.e., including

the “second descriptor prefix”) disclosed in Whitman. (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶97-99).

1[i]. “selecting and presenting on the display device the subset of television content items that is associated with the string of prefixes received.”

Zigmond discloses that when “user input of a second character after the first

‘T’ character is detected by search input obtainer 406, search results cacher 404

and search results presenter 408 can cause presentation of titles for the identified

two-character combination at search results field 128.” (Exhibit-1103, [0068]). If

the user inputs an initial character of “T” and then inputs a second character of

“E,” program titles from the “TE” bin (shown in FIG. 3) are output to the user.

49

(Exhibit-1103, [0048]; Exhibit-1108, ¶100). FIG. 3 of Zigmond is shown

annotated below:


Should the recited “string of prefixes” be interpreted to include a second

descriptor prefix of a new (second) word, Zigmond may not explicitly disclose

50

“selecting and presenting on the display device the subset of [] content items that is

associated with the string of prefixes received.” However, this is disclosed in

Whitman. (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶101-104)

When a user in Whitman submits a search query, the system identifies, via a

search phrase selection process shown in FIG. 7 (reproduced below), one or more

related search phrases (“content items”) to display to the user. (Exhibit-1104,

7:35-44).

51


The search query entered by the user may include multiple prefixes.

(Exhibit-1104, FIG. 2; Exhibit-1108, ¶102). For example, the user in Whitman

could enter a string of prefixes, such as “rou gui,” to search for the book “Rough

52

Guide to London.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶102). Steps 710-740 of FIG. 7 are performed

for each prefix in the submitted search query. (Exhibit-1104, 12:47-56, 12:66-

13:4; Exhibit-1108, ¶103). Therefore, at step 710, the system selects the first

prefix of the submitted search query (here, “rou”) for processing. (Exhibit-1104,

FIG. 7; Exhibit-1108, ¶103). At step 720, the first prefix of the submitted search

query is located in the search phrase table. (Exhibit-1104, 12:66-13:4; Exhibit-

1108, ¶103). At step 730, the related search phrase list (“subsets of content items”)

linked to the prefix identified in step 710 is retrieved from the search phrase table.

(Exhibit-1104, 12:66-13:4; Exhibit-1108, ¶103). Steps 710-740 are repeated for

the remaining prefixes in the submitted search query (here, “gui”). (Exhibit-1104,

12:66-13:4; Exhibit-1108, ¶103). The selection process combines the related

search phrase lists (“subsets of content items”) retrieved for the prefixes, and the

top-scoring related search phrases (“content items”) in the combined list are

displayed to the user. (Exhibit-1104, 13:26-35, 13:36-42; Exhibit-1108, ¶104).


user experience, a POSA would have modified the single-prefix search query

system disclosed in Zigmond to process multi-prefix search queries, as disclosed

by Whitman. (Exhibit-1108, ¶105).

53

Dependent Claim 3

3. “The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second prefixes are in an unordered format.”

To the extent that Zigmond may not explicitly disclose “wherein the first

and second prefixes are in an unordered format,” this is disclosed in Whitman.

A user of the Whitman system may search a database for a book by entering

the prefixes of one or more words in the title of the book. (Exhibit-1108, ¶106).

This can be seen in an excerpt of FIG. 2, shown annotated below:


To search for the book “Rough Guide to London,” the user may enter the

prefixes of one or more words of the title, for example, “rou” and “gui”. (Exhibit-

1104, 11:9-14, FIG. 2; Exhibit-1108, ¶107). A POSA would have understood that

in response to this query, Whitman’s selection process would identify “rou” and

“gui” as key terms, for which a set of related search phrases would be identified.

(Exhibit-1104, 12:66-13:42, FIG. 7; Exhibit-1108, ¶107). Whitman states, “[i]n

54

one embodiment, the selection process 139 filters out search phrases that are

different only because of word order.” (Exhibit-1104, 13:28-30). In Whitman, the

sequencing of the words is not necessarily maintained between the search query

and the search results, which a POSA would have understood to show “wherein the

first and second prefixes are in an unordered format.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶107).

A POSA would have been motivated to modify Zigmond’s system to allow

for Whitman’s entry of multiple prefixes in an unordered format. (Exhibit-1108,

¶108; compare Exhibit-1110, pp. 43, 48-50, 121-124, 228-229, 231-232, FIG.

8.15). Both Zigmond and Whitman disclose improved searching techniques to

identify desired content more quickly. (Exhibit-1108, ¶108). Modifying the

Zigmond system to not only allow for entry of multiple prefixes, but to allow for

entry in an unordered format as well, as taught by Whitman, would permit a user to

enter any prefixes of any words in the title of the content item in any order, thus

enhancing the user experience of the system and making it easier for users to

perform searches. (Exhibit-1108, ¶108; Exhibit-1110, pp. 43, 48-50, 121-124,

228-229, 231-232). This a straightforward combination of prior art elements

according to known methods to yield predictable results. (Exhibit-1108, ¶108;

Exhibit-1110, pp. 43, 48-50, 121-124, 228-229, 231-232).

55

Dependent Claim 4

4. “The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second prefixes are separated by a word separator.”

To the extent that Zigmond may not explicitly disclose “wherein the first

and second prefixes are separated by a word separator,” this is disclosed in

Whitman.

Whitman discloses several examples of multi-term search queries that may

be entered by a user, such as “walking the dog,” and “Mark Twain.” (Exhibit-

1104, 9:26-37, 10:45-47). As evidenced by FIG. 2, the user may enter words or

prefixes of the words from the title of the book. (Exhibit-1104, FIG. 2). Therefore,

a POSA would have known to search for the book “Walking the Dog,” by the user

entering a search query comprising the prefixes of words, such as a first prefix

(“Wa”) and a second prefix (“Do”) with a word separator between the prefixes.

(Exhibit-1108, ¶109).

A POSA would have been motivated to modify Zigmond’s system to allow

for Whitman’s entry of multiple prefixes separated by a word separator. (Exhibit-

1108, ¶110; Exhibit-1110, pp. 22, 30, 34-36, 43, 47-50). Both Zigmond and

Whitman disclose improved searching techniques to identify desired content more

quickly. (Exhibit-1108, ¶110). By modifying Zigmond to not only allow for entry

of multiple prefixes, but to also allow for entry of a word separator, as taught by

56

Whitman, the system would utilize the word separators to quickly and efficiently

identify each prefix entered by the user for processing. (Exhibit-1108, ¶110). As

explained in Section VII(A), processing multiple terms/prefixes would improve the

accuracy and user experience of the system and is a straightforward combination of

prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.

(Exhibit-1108, ¶¶97-99; Exhibit-1110, pp. 22, 30, 34-36, 43, 47-50).

Dependent Claim 5

5. “The method of claim 1, wherein the selected and presented subset of television content item [sic] comprises two or more television content items, and wherein the selected and presented subset of television content items are ordered for presentation in accordance with a given relevance function.”

In Zigmond, “[w]hen a user inputs an initial character, the portion of the

initial sparse subset corresponding to the initial character is presented on the

display screen by the client device . . .” (Exhibit-1103, [0018]). For example,

when a user enters the character “T” as the first letter of a search, program titles

from the “T” bin (i.e., program titles with a word beginning with “TA,” “TB,”

“TC,” and so on) are presented at a search results field on a display screen.

(Exhibit-1103, [0044]). The presentation of the program titles from the “T” bin is

illustrated in FIG. 4 of Zigmond, shown in-part and annotated below:

57


As seen above in FIG. 4, four program titles of television programs are

presented on the display screen. A POSA would have recognized this as “wherein

the selected and presented subset of television content item comprises two or more

television content items.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶111).

As seen in FIG. 4, the program titles are alphabetically ordered for

presentation. (Exhibit-1108, ¶112). To the extent that Zigmond may not explicitly

disclose “wherein the selected and presented subset of [] content items are ordered

58

for presentation in accordance with a given relevance function,” this is disclosed in

Whitman.

When a user in Whitman submits a search query, the system identifies,

based on the search query and from a search phrase table, one or more related

search phrases (“content items”) to display to the user via a search phrase selection

process. (Exhibit-1104, 7:35-44; Exhibit-1108, ¶113). The selection process

retrieves, from the search phrase table, the related search phrase list linked to each

key term in the submitted search query. (Exhibit-1104, 12:66-13:4). The related

search phrase list stores a ranked list of one or more scored related search phrases.

(Exhibit-1104, 7:63-65, FIG. 1). The one or more related search phrases (“content

items”) in Whitman,

. . . are preferably selected for inclusion in the table using a scoring algorithm which scores the search phrases based on at least one of the following: (i) frequency of search phrase submission, (ii) number of matches found in response to search phrase submission; and (iii) actions performed by users with respect to search results of search phrase submission.

(Exhibit-1104, 2:28-35). Additional factors may also be considered by the scoring

algorithm. (Exhibit-1104, 5:44-64, 9:57-59, 12:66-13:25, Exhibit-1108, ¶114). A

POSA would have recognized that Whitman’s “scoring algorithm” corresponds to

the claimed “relevance function.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶114; Exhibit-1110, pp. 30-31,

48-51, 395, 401-403).

59

The selection process combines the related search phrase lists for each key

term and selects the highest-scoring related search phrases for display to the user.

(Exhibit-1104, 13:4-10, 13:26-28, 13:37-42, FIG. 7; Exhibit-1108, ¶115). A POSA

would have understood this to correspond to the claimed “wherein the selected and

presented subset of [] content items are ordered for presentation in accordance with

a given relevance function.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶115; Exhibit-1110, pp. 30-31, 48-51,

395, 401-403).

A POSA would have been motivated to modify Zigmond’s system to order

the content items for presentation in accordance with their corresponding scores

(generated via a “scoring algorithm,” i.e., relevance function), as disclosed by

Whitman. (Exhibit-1108, ¶116; Exhibit-1110, pp. 30-31, 48-51, 395, 401-403).

Both Zigmond and Whitman disclose improved searching techniques to identify

desired content more quickly. (Exhibit-1108, ¶116). Modifying Zigmond to order

the content items for presentation in accordance with their corresponding scores, as

disclosed by Whitman, would result in an output comprising content items that are

most likely to interest a user (i.e., the search phrases frequently entered by other

users). (Exhibit-1108, ¶116).

60

Dependent Claim 6

6. “The method of claim 5, wherein the given relevance function comprises popularity of the television content items.”

Zigmond discloses television content items, but to the extent that Zigmond

may not explicitly disclose, “wherein the given relevance function comprises

popularity of the television content items,” Whitman discloses a relevance function

comprising popularity of the content items. (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶118, 119). When a

user in Whitman submits a search query, the system identifies, based on the search

query and from a search phrase table, one or more related search phrases (“content

items”) to display to the user. (Exhibit-1104, 7:35-44; Exhibit-1108, ¶118).

Whitman states, “only the most highly scored N search phrases for a given key

term/prefix pair are preferably included in the [search phrase] table.” (Exhibit-

1104, 5:34-36). As discussed above for claim 5, a scoring algorithm is used to

generate the score assigned to each related search phrase in Whitman, and this

scoring algorithm corresponds to the claimed “relevance function.” (Exhibit-1104,

2:28-35; Exhibit-1108, ¶118). The scoring algorithm may be based on multiple

factors, including the frequency of submission of the related search phrase

(“content item”). (Exhibit-1104, 2:28-35, 5:44-64, 7:63-65; Exhibit-1108, ¶119).

When assigning scores based on frequency, “the related search phrase list 142 is a

61

list of the N (e.g., 50) most frequently submitted search phrases that both contain

the key term and produce at least one match.” (Exhibit-1104, 5:36-39, 5:44-47).

A POSA would have recognized that a scoring algorithm that takes into account

frequency of submissions of the search phrases when calculating scores

corresponds to the claimed “wherein the given relevance function comprises

popularity of the [] content items,” because a POSA would have understood that a

frequent submission of a particular search phrase by users indicates that the

particular search phrase is popular in comparison to a different search phrase that is

not frequently submitted by those users. (Exhibit-1108, ¶119).

As discussed above for claim 5, to improve the user experience, modifying

Zigmond to present content items in accordance with their scores generated using a

“scoring algorithm,” i.e., “relevance function,” as disclosed by Whitman, would

result in an output comprising content items that are most likely to be of interest to

a user (i.e., the search phrases with the highest scores). (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶116,

120). It would have been obvious to a POSA to determine “scores” for the

television content items based in part on the popularity of these content items,

which was an effective, well-known measure in television-based search systems

for determining television programs that likely would interest a user. (Exhibit-

1108, ¶120; Exhibit-1110, pp. 30-31, 48-51, 395, 401-403).

62

Dependent Claim 7

7. “The method of claim 5, wherein the given relevance function comprises temporal relevance of the television content items.”

Zigmond discloses television content items, to the extent that Zigmond may

not explicitly disclose “wherein the given relevance function comprises temporal

relevance of the television content items,” this is disclosed in Whitman. (Exhibit-

1108, ¶121).

As discussed above for claim 5, Whitman’s “scoring algorithm,” which

corresponds to the claimed “relevance function,” is used to assign a score to each

related search phrase. The search phrase data used to generate the search phrase

table is regenerated periodically from recent query submissions, such as by using

the last M days of entries in a transaction log, and heavily reflects the current

interests of users. (Exhibit-1104, 4:1-4; Exhibit-1108, ¶121). Whitman discloses

that the scores in more recent daily results files (used to generate the related search

phrase table) are weighted more heavily than those scores in less recent daily

results files, which is reflected in the search phrase data ultimately presented to the

user. (Exhibit-1104, 12:21-24; Exhibit-1108, ¶121).

As discussed above for claim 5, to improve the user experience, modifying

Zigmond to present content items in accordance with their scores generated using a

63

“scoring algorithm,” i.e., a “relevance function,” as disclosed by Whitman, would

result in an output comprising content items that are most likely to interest a user

(i.e., the search phrases with the highest score). (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶116, 122;

Exhibit-1110, pp. 30-31, 48-51, 395, 401-403). It thus would have been obvious to

a POSA to determine “scores” for Zigmond’s television content items based in part

on Whitman’s temporal relevance of these content items, because recently-aired

television programs were more likely to interest a viewer than older television

programs. (Exhibit-1108, ¶122).

Dependent Claim 9

9. “The method of claim 1, wherein the incremental text input specifies at least a portion of a title of the at least one desired television content item.”

Zigmond discloses a search-as-the-user-types mechanism that allows a user

to search for any word in the program titles of television programs by entering one

or more characters as search terms. (Exhibit-1103, [0003], [0027], [0044], [0081];

Exhibit-1108, ¶123). For example, when a user inputs the character “C” as the first

letter of a search, program titles from the “C” bin in FIG. 2 of Zigmond are

presented on a display screen of the client device. (Exhibit-1103, [0044]).

64

Dependent Claim 10

10. “The method of claim 1, wherein the method is implemented in a server system remote from the user.”

Zigmond discloses storing the database of content items at a remote server,

and prefetching data from the remote server. (Exhibit-1104, [0017], [0030], FIG.

1). To the extent that Zigmond may not explicitly disclose, “wherein the method is

implemented in a server system remote from the user,” this is disclosed in

Whitman. (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶124-126). Whitman discloses a search engine that is

used to assist customers of Amazon.com, Inc. in searching from an on-line catalog

of items. (Exhibit-1104, 4:23-27, 4:34-40). Fig. 1 of Whitman, which illustrates

the web site and components used to implement the search engine, is reproduced

below:

65


In Whitman, when a user submits a search query from a search page to the

web site via the Internet 120, the web server 131 passes the search query to a query

server 132. (Exhibit-1104, 4:45-48, 6:50-63, FIG. 2). In response to the search

query, query server 132 identifies one or more related search phrases (“content

items”) from the search phrase table to suggest to the user. (Exhibit-1104, 7:35-

52). The query server 132 returns a predetermined number of the related search

phrases with the highest score to the web server 131, which generates and returns a

query result page to the user via the Internet 120. (Exhibit-1104, 7:59-8:5; Exhibit-

1108, ¶126). A POSA would have known that the website 130, with both web

66

server 131 and query server 132, corresponds to the claimed “server system remote

from the user.” (Exhibit-1104, FIG. 1; Exhibit-1108, ¶126).

It would have been obvious to a POSA to modify Zigmond’s system to

implement the method in Whitman’s server system remote from the user. (Exhibit-

1108, ¶127). Both Zigmond and Whitman disclose improved searching techniques

to identify desired content more quickly. (Exhibit-1108, ¶127). Zigmond

discloses storing the database of content items at a remote server to alleviate local

memory constraints. (Exhibit-1103, [0029], [0032]; Exhibit-1108, ¶127). A

POSA would have been motivated to modify Zigmond to implement the method in

a remote server from the user, as disclosed by Whitman, which is a combination of

prior art elements according to known methods (i.e., remote processing) to yield

predictable results, namely to alleviate local memory constraints. (Exhibit-1108,

¶127; Exhibit-1110, pp. 279-280).

Dependent Claim 11

11. “The method of claim 1, wherein the method is implemented in a device included in or proximate to a television set for displaying the subset of television content items.”

The interactive client-server data search system of Zigmond is illustrated in

FIG. 1, reproduced below:

67


As shown in FIG. 1, client 102 (a television-based device having an

associated display screen 116) is in communication with server 104 (comprising at

least part of a headend or other node of a television-based network) over a

communication channel 120 (a television-based network or link(s) thereof).

(Exhibit-1103, [0024]).

Prior to receiving user input of a first character, the client receives a first

set of bins from the server. (Exhibit-1103, [0034], [0051], [0061]-[0063], FIG. 2;

68

Exhibit-1108, ¶129). The first set is cached at the client device. (Exhibit-1103,

[0051], [0054], [0063], claim 25; Exhibit-1108, ¶129). In response to the first user

input received from the user (i.e., a first character in a search query), the client

searches the cached set of bins to identify the bin corresponding to the first

character. (Exhibit-1103, [0035], [0065]; Exhibit-1108, ¶129). The client then

presents on the display screen program titles from the bin. (Exhibit-1103, [0035],

[0051], [0066]). These steps are then repeated for each additional character the

user enters. (Exhibit-1103, [0035], [0036], [0067], [0068]; Exhibit-1108, ¶130). A

POSA would have recognized that locally searching the cached bins at a client

device (i.e., a television-based device), and presenting search results at the client

device corresponds to the claimed “wherein the method is implemented in a device

included in or proximate to a television set for displaying the subset of television

content items.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶130).

Dependent Claim 12

12. “The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the descriptive terms prior to receiving the incremental text input from the user.”

Zigmond discloses indexing the program titles (“descriptive terms”) prior to

receiving input search characters from the user. (Exhibit-1108, ¶131). Specifically,

once a user initiates a search function at a client device, the index (including the

69

bins indexed by the program titles), shown in FIG. 2, are retrieved from the

program titles index. (Exhibit-1103, [0017], [0042], [0053], [0056], [0061];

Exhibit-1108, ¶131). A user may then input an initial character (“incremental text

input”) and the system will then retrieve program titles (“descriptive terms”) of

television programs (“television content items”) corresponding to the initial

character. (Exhibit-1103, [0018], [0025], [0065], [0077]; Exhibit-1108, ¶132). A

POSA would have understood the retrieval of the index and bins from the program

titles index prior to receiving the initial character input from the user to show

“determining the descriptive terms prior to receiving the incremental text input

from the user,” because the descriptive terms must already have been determined

in order to be retrieved. (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶132, 133; Exhibit-1110, pp. 30-31, 186-

191, 212-213).

Dependent Claim 13

13. “The method of claim 12, wherein determining the descriptive terms comprises identifying a set of candidate terms comprising ordered or unordered words.”

Zigmond discloses a program titles data structure that comprises program

titles (“descriptive terms”) for television programs, and a program titles index of

the words and characters of the program titles data structure. (Exhibit-1103,

[0030], [0055], [0056]; Exhibit-1108, ¶134). The words in the program titles

70

corresponds to the claimed “candidate terms.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶134). Zigmond

discloses that the program titles (“descriptive terms”) can include multiple words

(“candidate terms”). (Exhibit-1103, [0081]). Therefore, a POSA would have

recognized that the program titles in Zigmond constitute a set of ordered or

unordered words. (Exhibit-1108, ¶134).

Dependent Claim 14

14. “The method of claim 13, further comprising identifying the location of stop words in the descriptive terms.”

To the extent that Zigmond may not explicitly disclose “identifying the

location of stop words in the descriptive terms,” this is disclosed in Whitman. As

discussed above in reference to claim element 1[h], the “key terms” in Whitman

correspond to the claimed “descriptive terms.” Whitman discloses that “[k]ey

terms are preferably all terms that may appear in a search query excluding single

letter terms (e.g., I, A, T, F) and common words (e.g., the, to, at, in, if).” (Exhibit-

1104, 5:2-5). A POSA would have recognized that to exclude common words

(“stop words”) from the key terms (“descriptive terms”), such common words

would first have to be identified. (Exhibit-1108, ¶135).

It would have been obvious to a POSA to combine Zigmond with Whitman

to exclude common terms (“stop terms”) from the program titles (“descriptive

71

terms”). (Exhibit-1108, ¶136; Exhibit-1110, 121, 166-167, 188-189, 473, Figure

7.1). Both Zigmond and Whitman disclose improved searching techniques to

identify desired content more quickly. (Exhibit-1108, ¶136). A POSA,

recognizing that common terms “do not further the search refinement process,”

(i.e., the common terms do not assist in identifying the desired content items),

would have been motivated to exclude common terms from the program titles.

(Exhibit-1104, 5:2-6; Exhibit-1108, ¶136).

Dependent Claim 17

17. “The method of claim 1, further comprising providing the user with visual cues to assist the viewer in entering generally optimal incremental text input for a search.”

Zigmond discloses that the client search application presents a program

search screen that includes a character input field. (Exhibit-1103, [0028]). The

program search screen (element 122) and character input field (element 126) are

illustrated in FIG. 1 of Zigmond, reproduced below:

72


A POSA would have understood that Zigmond’s disclosure of presenting a

program search screen and a character input field corresponds to “providing the

user with visual cues to assist the viewer in entering generally optimal incremental

text input for a search.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶137-139).

73

Dependent Claim 18

18. “The method of claim 1, wherein the descriptive terms include at least one of title, cast, director, description, and keyword information relating to the television content item.”

Zigmond discloses a program database that stores television programs

(“television content items”). (Exhibit-1103, [0030]; Exhibit-1108, ¶140). Zigmond

also discloses a program titles data structure of program titles (“descriptive terms”)

for those programs stored in the program database, and an index to words and

characters of program titles data structure. (Exhibit-1103, [0030], [0055], [0056];

Exhibit-1108, ¶140). A POSA would have understood this to show “wherein the

descriptive terms include at least one of title, cast, director, description, and

keyword information relating to the television content item.” (Exhibit-1108,

¶140).

Independent Claim 19

Claim 19 has substantially similar limitations as independent claim 1,

discussed above, and differs from claim 1 only in that claim 19 is directed to a

system including a database of television content items and associated descriptive

terms, and a computer-readable medium storing program code for implementing

the steps of claim 1. (Exhibit-1108, ¶141).

74

19[a]. “a database in an electronically readable medium for storing the relatively large set of selectable television content items and associated descriptive terms that characterize the selectable television content items;”

Zigmond discloses a “program database” that stores television programs

(“selectable television content items”) and that includes (1) a program titles data

structure comprising program titles (“descriptive terms”) for those television

programs and (2) a program titles index that is an index to words and characters of

the program titles data structure. (Exhibit-1103, [0030], [0055], [0056]; Exhibit-

1108, ¶¶142, 143).

19[b]. “program code on a computer-readable medium, which when executed on a computer system performs functions including:”

Zigmond discloses that the client device includes one or more processors

and a memory that “includes processor-executable instructions that are executable

by processor 108(C) to effectuate functions of client 102.” (Exhibit-1103, [0024]).

Zigmond further discloses that the server includes one or more processors and a

memory that “includes processor-executable instructions that are executable by

processor 108(S) to effectuate functions of server 104.” (Exhibit-1103, [0029]). So

the steps of claim 1, as discussed above, simply are implemented in program code

in claim 19. For the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, the

75

Zigmond/Whitman combination satisfies the limitations of claim 19. (Exhibit-

1108, ¶144).

Dependent Claims 21-25, 27-29, 31, 32, 35, and 36

Claims 21-25, 27-29, 31, 32, 35, and 36 recite limitations substantially

similar to dependent claims 3-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, and 18, respectively, discussed

above. Compared to their method claim counterparts, dependent claims 21-25, 27-

29, 31, 32, 35, and 36 contain no meaningful distinction, and the same arguments

above regarding dependent claims 3-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 respectively apply

to dependent claims 21-25, 27-29, 31, 32, 35, and 36. (Exhibit-1108, ¶145).

Dependent Claim 30

30. “The system of claim 19, wherein the plurality of subsets of television content items is present in the system prior to receiving the incremental text input from the user.”

In response to a user activating the search feature in Zigmond, the system

retrieves the index in FIG. 2, and its associated bins (“subsets of television content

items”), from the program titles index. (Exhibit-1103, [0017], [0042], [0053],

[0056], [0061], FIG. 2; Exhibit-1108, ¶146). Next, the user inputs a first character

received by the client device. (Exhibit-1103, [0018], [0025], [0065], [0077]). A

POSA would have known that it would have been required to generate the

76

associated bins (i.e., “present in the system”) before retrieving them. (Exhibit-

1108, ¶¶146, 147).

GROUND 2: Claims 2 and 20 Are Obvious Over Zigmond in View of Whitman and Further in View of Gross

As discussed below and in the Declaration of Dr. Edward Fox (Exhibit-

1108), claims 2 and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Zigmond in view of

Whitman, and further in view of Gross.

Dependent Claim 2

2. “The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second prefixes are in an ordered format.”

Zigmond discloses when “user input of a second character after the first ‘T’

character is detected by search input obtainer 406, search results cacher 404 and

search results presenter 408 can cause presentation of titles for the identified two-

character combination at search results field 128.” (Exhibit-1103, [0068]). For

example, if the user inputs an initial character of “T” (first prefix) and then inputs a

second character of “E” (second prefix), program titles from the “TE” bin (shown

in FIG. 3) are output to the user. (Exhibit-1103, [0048]). A POSA would have

understood this to correspond to an ordered format. (Exhibit-1108, ¶148).

Whitman discloses multi-term search queries comprising the exact author (“mark

twain”), title (“walking the dog”), and/or subject (“sea stars”), and multi-term

77

search queries comprising prefixes. (Exhibit-1104, 6:45-47, 9:26-29, FIG. 3;

Exhibit-1108, ¶149). This is illustrated in FIG. 2 of Whitman, shown annotated

below:


However, to the extent that the combined system of Zigmond and Whitman

may not explicitly disclose that the first and second prefixes (for different words)

are in an ordered format, this is disclosed in Gross.

Gross discloses that multiple words can be entered in a search entry field,

and that search results may be based on the exact word sequence in the search

78

entry field, which is the claimed “ordered format.” “[T]he user can specify that an

exact word match is to be performed.” (Exhibit-1105, [0172], emphasis added).

Gross discloses an option where a character string including two prefixes and a

space will only match results with the first word preceding the second word (e.g.,

“mark-down”) (id.), i.e., “in an ordered format.” (Exhibit-1108, ¶152).

Gross shows that it was known to conduct a search in which an exact match

is executed (i.e., in an ordered format) for multi-prefix search queries. A POSA

would have understood that search engines commonly generated search results that

included exact matches to a multi-term search query. (Exhibit-1108, ¶152; Exhibit-

1110, pp. 120-124, 212-217, 462). Therefore, a POSA would have been motivated

to modify the combined system of Zigmond and Whitman to include multiple

ordered prefixes, as disclosed in Gross. (Exhibit-1108, ¶153). Zigmond,

Whitman, and Gross all disclose improved searching techniques and allowing a

user to locate desired content quickly. (Exhibit-1108, ¶153). A modified system

of Zigmond and Whitman that not only allows for entry of multiple prefixes, but

also allows for entry in an ordered format, as taught by Gross, would further

enhance the speed and accuracy of the system in locating desired content.

(Exhibit-1108, ¶153).

79

Dependent Claim 20

Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 discussed above,

and contains no meaningful distinction, so the same arguments above regarding

dependent claim 2 apply to claim 20. (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶148-153).

GROUND 3: Claims 8 and 26 Are Obvious Over Zigmond in View of Whitman and Further in View of Thomas


1108), claims 8 and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over Zigmond in view of

Whitman, and further in view of Thomas.

Dependent Claim 8

8. “The method of claim 5, wherein the given relevance function comprises location relevance of the television content items.”

To the extent that the combined system of Zigmond and Whitman may not

expressly disclose “wherein the given relevance function comprises location

relevance of the television content items,” this is disclosed in Thomas.

Thomas is directed to a computer system that analyzes content from various

sources, including television, to identify programs of interest to a user based on a

user profile. (Exhibit-1106, Abstract). For example, the computer system

monitors all TV new programs and breaks down each TV news program into

individual stories. (Exhibit-1106, [0033]). For each story, the computer system

80

can produce metadata that includes, in part, a description of the event in the story

and the location of the event in the story. (Exhibit-1106, [0034], [0036], [0038]).

A client system then ranks the stories based in part on the location of the event in

the story. (Exhibit-1106, [0043]). After a user request, the stories may be

presented to the user based on the ranking. (Exhibit-1106, [0043]).

As discussed above for claim 5, modifying Zigmond to order the content

items for presentation in accordance with their corresponding scores (generating

using a scoring algorithm, i.e., “relevance function”), as disclosed by Whitman,

would result in an output comprising content items that are most likely to interest a

user (i.e., the search phrases with the highest scores), thereby improving the user

experience of the system. (Exhibit-1108, ¶156). Thomas shows that it was known

to rank television content items based on the location relevance of these items.

Therefore, it would have been obvious to determine “scores” for the television

content items in Zigmond based in part on the location-relevance of these content

items, as disclosed in Thomas. (Exhibit-1108, ¶156). Specifically, a POSA would

have recognized that in television-based search systems, viewers are likely to be

interested in television programs that involve local subject matter (i.e., local news,

sporting events involving local team, etc.). (Exhibit-1108, ¶157). Calculating the

score for the television-content items in Zigmond based on location-relevance

81

would improve the ability of the Zigmond/Whitman system to provide relevant

content and/or content recommendations to a user, thus allowing the user to more

easily and quickly locate television content items of interest and/or relevance to the

user, thereby improving the user experience. (Exhibit-1108, ¶157).

Dependent Claim 26

Claim 26 recites limitations substantially similar to limitations of dependent

claim 8, discussed above, and contains no meaningful distinction, so the same

arguments above apply. (Exhibit-1108, ¶¶154-157).

GROUND 4: Claims 15, 16, 33, and 34 Are Obvious Over Zigmond in View of Whitman and Further in View of Brown


1108), claims 15, 16, 33, and 34 are unpatentable as obvious over Zigmond in view

of Whitman and further in view of Brown.

82

Dependent Claim 15

15. “The method of claim 12, wherein determining the descriptive terms comprises adding phonetically equivalent words to the descriptive terms.”


explicitly disclose “wherein determining the descriptive terms comprises adding

phonetically equivalent words to the descriptive terms,” this is disclosed in Brown.

Brown discloses approximate string-matching algorithms to account for different

pronunciations of words to be matched together. (Exhibit-1107, 2:47-53). Brown

further discloses an index that maps input data to records containing the same or

phonetically similar data. (Id., 3:63-65). Furthermore, it was well-known that

adding phonetically equivalent words to descriptive terms was a common practice

for search systems. (Exhibit-1108, ¶159; Exhibit-1110, p. 169).

Brown shows that it was known to include phonetically equivalent words to

descriptive terms in a search system. Therefore, a POSA would have been

motivated to combine the systems of Zigmond and Whitman and include an index

of descriptive terms that includes phonetically equivalent words as taught by

Brown. (Exhibit-1108, ¶160). A POSA would have known that such an

implementation would have facilitated searching, because a user would be

permitted to enter a phonetically equivalent word without knowing the spelling of

83

the title or other descriptor of a television content item to find the desired

television content item, thus providing for easier searching and an improved user

experience. (Exhibit-1108, ¶160).

Dependent Claim 16

16. “The method of claim 12, wherein determining the descriptive terms comprises adding commonly misspelled words of words in the descriptive terms.”


explicitly disclose, “wherein determining the descriptive terms comprises adding

commonly misspelled words of words in the descriptive terms,” this is disclosed in

Brown.

Brown discloses approximate string matching algorithms to account for

misspellings of words to be matched together. (Exhibit-1107, 2:47-53). Brown

further discloses allowing for misspellings of words while still correctly producing

accurate search results. (Id., 3:39-44). A POSA would have recognized that

including common misspellings for words in the descriptive terms was known for

search systems. (Exhibit-1108, ¶163; Exhibit-1110, pp. 126, 169-170, 236-240,

462, 466).

Brown shows that it was known to include commonly misspelled words in

the index of descriptive terms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify

84

the system of Zigmond and Whitman to include common misspellings in the index

of descriptive terms as taught by Brown. (Exhibit-1108, ¶164). A POSA would

have known that such an implementation would have facilitated searching, because

a user would be permitted to enter an incorrect spelling to find the desired

television content item, thus providing for easier searching and an improved user

experience. (Exhibit-1108, ¶164).

Dependent Claims 33 and 34

Claims 33 and 34 recite limitations substantially similar to limitations of

dependent claims 15 and 16, respectively, discussed above. Compared to their

method claim counterparts, these dependent claims contain no meaningful

distinction, and the same arguments above respectively apply. (Exhibit-1108,

¶¶158-164).

X. CONCLUSION

Inter partes review of claims 1-36 should be instituted and claims 1-36

should be canceled.

BANNER AND WITCOFF, LTD

Dated: March 7, 2017 By: / Frederic M. Meeker /

Frederic Meeker Reg. No. 35, 282

85

CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(D)

Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies

that the word count for the foregoing Petition for Inter Partes Review totals 12,719,

as counted by the Word Count feature of Microsoft Word, which is less than the

14,000 allowed under 37 CFR § 42.24(a)(1)(i).

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1), this count does not include the table of

contents, the table of authorities, mandatory notices under § 42.8, the certificate of

service, this certification of word count, the claims listing appendix, or appendix of

exhibits.

BANNER AND WITCOFF, LTD Dated: March 7, 2017 By: / Frederic M. Meeker /

Frederic Meeker Reg. No. 35,282 Customer No. 71867 Banner and Witcoff, LTD. 1100 13th Street, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005

86

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.105, I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the Petition for Inter Partes Review in connection with U.S. Patent No. 7,895,218 and supporting evidence to be served via FedEx Priority Overnight on March 7, 2017, on the following: ROPES & GRAY LLP PATENT DOCKETING 39/361 1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK NY 10036-8704

BANNER AND WITCOFF, LTD

Dated: March 7, 2017 By: / Frederic M. Meeker /

Frederic Meeker Reg. No. 35,282 Customer No. 71867 Banner and Witcoff, LTD. 1100 13th Street, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW et seq.

Documents

Transcript of PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW et seq.