IconFind, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Filing 66

SECOND AMENDED ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against IconFind, Inc. by Google, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Appendix A, # 3 Appendix B, # 4 Appendix C, # 5 Appendix D, # 6 Appendix E, # 7 Appendix F, # 8 Appendix G, # 9 Appendix H, # 10 Appendix I, # 11 Appendix J, # 12 Appendix K)(Malecek, Michael)

APPENDIX A
U.S. Pat. No. 7,181,459

Resnick

1. A computer implemented
method of categorizing a
network page, comprising:

Resnick discloses the PICS labeling infrastructure for an Internet Web
page (i.e., “network page”):
“The Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) establishes
Internet conventions for label formats and distribution methods.”
Resnick at p. 87, cols. 1-2.
“PICS provides a common format for labels, so that any PICScompliant selection software can process any PICS-compliant label.”
Resnick at p. 88, col. 2.
Resnick discloses that the PICS labels can be embedded as a META
element in any Internet Web document:
“Anything that can be named by a URL can be labeled, including
documents that are accessed via ftp, gopher, or Netnews, as well as
http.” Resnick at p. 90, col. 2.

[a] providing a list of
categories, wherein said list
of categories include a
category for transacting
business and a category for
providing information, and
wherein said list of
categories include a
category based on copyright
status of material on a page;

“PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to embed
labels in html documents, using the META element in the document
header. The general format is <META http-equiv=”PICS-Label”
content=”labellist”>.” Resnick at p. 91, col. 1.
Resnick discloses providing a list of labeling vocabularies (i.e.,
categories) including the claimed categories:
“Labeling vocabularies may be designed for classification rather than
blocking, coupled with indexing engines that search based on labels
and with browsers that display them.” Resnick at p. 92, col. 2.
Since Resnick discloses that all web pages can be classified, and it
was well known that web pages existed in the categories of
“transacting business” and “providing information”, it is inherent that
Resnick provides a list of categories that includes “transacting
business” and “providing information”:
“PICS provides a labeling infrastructure for the Internet. It is value
neutral----it can accommodate any set of labeling dimensions and any
criteria for assigning labels.” Resnick at p. 93, col. 1 (emphasis
added). Therefore, labeling dimensions for “providing information”
and “transacting business” could easily be created using the disclosed
PICS system and it would have been obvious to do so.
Creating categories for “transacting business,” “providing

-1-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

information,” and a category based on the copyright status of material
on a page were known element prior to August 9, 2001. Their
combination with the Resnick system is a combination of known
elements that yields predictable results and is thus obvious. See KSR
Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007) (“The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.”).
Categories for “transacting business” and “providing information”
were known elements prior to August 9, 2001 as evidenced by a
number of online directories. See, e.g., Yahoo!’s homepage from
February 8, 1999 available at
http://web.archive.org/web/19990208021547/http://www.yahoo.com/;
see also Baeza-Yates at 10.4.2.1 (“There exist today many large
online text collections to which category labels have been assigned.
Traditional online bibliographic systems have for decades assigned
subject headings to books and other documents. MEDLINE, a large
collection of biomedical articles, has associated with it Medical
Subject Headings (MeSH) consisting of approximately 18,000
categories . The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) has
developed a hierarchy of approximately 1200 category (keyword)
labels. Yahoo!, one of the most popular search sites on the World
Wide Web, organizes Web pages into a hierarchy consisting of
thousands of category labels.”); see, e.g., Baeza-Yates at 10.4.2.1
discussing MeSH categories and HiBrowse interface.
Resnick discloses that labeling dimensions based on copyright status
can be created:
“Intellectual property vocabularies may develop for notifying people
about who owns a document and how it may be copied and used. Of
course, this is only one piece of the intellectual property protection
puzzle since it offers notification but not enforcement.” Resnick at p.
92, col. 2.
Categories based on copyright status were also known elements in the
field of categorization of online content prior to August 9, 2001. See,
e.g., Open Publication License v1.0, published June 8, 1999, available
at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/; The Assayer: Help, publicly
available since at least February 2, 2001 at
http://www.theassayer.org/help.html (Listing the following categories
based on copyright status:
“0. Copyrighted, with a licensing agreement that prohibits selling or
permanent use (an anti-book)
1. Copyrighted, with no licensing agreement (a traditional book) [also

-2-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

books on iUniverse]
2. Copyrighted, doesn't cost money to read, but otherwise not free
3. Public domain
4. Copylefted, but with restrictions on modification and/or sale
5. Copylefted: anyone can read, modify, and sell”).
In the alternative, if Resnick is found not to satisfy this claim
limitation, Resnick in combination with the teachings of Dublin
disclose the limitation of this claim. The motivation to combine the
references may be found in the common knowledge of those skilled
in the art, the prior art as a whole, and/or the nature of the purported
problem itself. Resnick and Dublin both disclose systems that
categorize network pages Therefore, the motivation to combine the
references is inherent in the references.
Dublin discloses providing the claimed categories. See Appendix B
at claim 1[a].
[b] assigning said network
page to one or more of said
list of categories;

Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be used to assign web pages to
categories:
“PICS labels describe content on one or more dimensions....
Each rating service can choose its own labeling vocabulary. For
example, Yahoo labels might include a “coolness” dimension and a
subject classification dimension.” Resnick at p. 88, col. 2 - p. 89, col.
1.
“Labeling vocabularies may be designed for classification rather than
blocking, coupled with indexing engines that search based on labels
and with browsers that display them.” Resnick at p. 92, col. 2.
“PICS provides a labeling infrastructure for the Internet.
It is value neutral----it can accommodate any set of labeling
dimensions and any criteria for assigning labels.” Resnick at p. 93,
col. 1.

[c] providing a
categorization label for the
network page using the
copyright status of material
on the network page; and

Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be created using the copyright
status of material on the network page:
“Intellectual property vocabularies may develop for notifying people
about who owns a document and how it may be copied and used. Of
course, this is only one piece of the intellectual property protection
puzzle since it offers notification but not enforcement.” Resnick at p.
92, col. 2.
Resnick also discloses providing (and displaying) the categorization

-3-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

label for the network page:
As an example, Resnick discloses using the PICS system to indicate
the MPAA rating of a movie: “In this case, there is just a single
category, with five possible values: G through NC-17. In actual
labels, these values would be represented by the integers 0--4; the
service description allows a software program to determine that a
value of 1 corresponds to the PG rating and even to display the PG.gif
icon to a user.” Resnick at p. 90, cols 1-2.
The PICS system provides:
“A syntax for describing a rating service, so that computer programs
can present the service and its labels to users.
A syntax for labels, so that computer programs can process them. A
label describes either a single document or a group of documents
(e.g., a site). A label may be digitally signed and may include a
cryptographic hash of the associated document.” Resnick at p. 89,
cols 1-2.
In the alternative, if Resnick is found not to satisfy this claim
limitation, Resnick in combination with the teachings of Dublin
disclose the limitation of this claims. Dublin discloses providing the
categorization label. See Appendix B at claim 1[c].
[d] controlling usage of the
network page using the
categorization label and the
copyright status of the
network page.

Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be created using the copyright
status of material on the network page:
“Intellectual property vocabularies may develop for notifying people
about who owns a document and how it may be copied and used. Of
course, this is only one piece of the intellectual property protection
puzzle since it offers notification but not enforcement.” Resnick at p.
92, col. 2.
Resnick also discloses “providing indicia” of the category to the user:
“Labeling vocabularies may be designed for classification rather than
blocking, coupled with indexing engines that search based on labels
and with browsers that display them.” Resnick at p. 92, col. 2.
As an example, Resnick discloses using the PICS system to indicate
the MPAA rating of a movie: “ In this case, there is just a single
category, with five possible values: G through NC-17. In actual
labels, these values would be represented by the integers 0--4; the
service description allows a software program to determine that a
value of 1 corresponds to the PG rating and even to display the PG.gif

-4-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

icon to a user.” Resnick at p. 90, cols 1-2.
Resnick also discloses that web pages can be queried based on the
PICS labels:
PICS specification includes a “query-syntax for an online database of
labels (a label bureau).” Resnick at p. 89, col. 1.
“PICS provides a labeling infrastructure for the Internet. It is value
neutral----it can accommodate any set of labeling dimensions and any
criteria for assigning labels. Any PICS-compatible software can
interpret labels from any source because each source provides a
machine-readable description of its labeling dimensions.” Resnick at
p. 93, col. 2.
“Selection software can meet diverse needs by blocking reception,
and labels are the raw materials for implementing context-specific
selection criteria. The availability of large quantities of labels will
also lead to new sorting, searching, filtering, and organizing tools that
will help users surf the Internet more efficiently.” Resnick at p. 93,
col. 2.
Therefore, Resnick discloses that searching for web pages can be
performed based on categories and copyright status.
In the alternative, if Resnick is found not to satisfy this claim
limitation, Resnick in combination with the teachings of Dublin
disclose the limitation of this claims. Dublin discloses “providing
indicia” of the categories. See Appendix B at claim 1[d].

6. The method of claim 1,
wherein said plurality of
categories based on the
copyright status of material
on a page comprise
categories related to public
domain, fair use only, use
with attribution, and
permission of copyright
owner needed.

-5-

Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be created using the copyright
status of material on the network page:
“Intellectual property vocabularies may develop for notifying people
about who owns a document and how it may be copied and used. Of
course, this is only one piece of the intellectual property protection
puzzle since it offers notification but not enforcement.” Resnick at p.
92, col. 2.
It is inherent that the “Intellectual property vocabularies” include the
recited categories because categories based on copyright status were
also known elements in the field of categorization of online content
prior to August 9, 2001. See, e.g., Open Publication License v1.0,
published June 8, 1999, available at
http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/; The Assayer: Help, publicly

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

available since at least February 2, 2001 at
http://www.theassayer.org/help.html (Listing the following categories
based on copyright status:
“0. Copyrighted, with a licensing agreement that prohibits selling or
permanent use (an anti-book)
1. Copyrighted, with no licensing agreement (a traditional book) [also
books on iUniverse]
2. Copyrighted, doesn't cost money to read, but otherwise not free
3. Public domain
4. Copylefted, but with restrictions on modification and/or sale
5. Copylefted: anyone can read, modify, and sell”).
In the alternative, if Resnick is found not to satisfy this claim
limitation, Resnick in combination with the teachings of Dublin
disclose the limitation of this claims. Dublin discloses the claimed
categories. See Appendix B at claim 6.

9. The method of claim 1,
wherein said categories
include:
a plurality of categories
based on the copyright
status of the material on a
page.

Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be created using the copyright
status of material on the network page:
“Intellectual property vocabularies may develop for notifying people
about who owns a document and how it may be copied and used. Of
course, this is only one piece of the intellectual property protection
puzzle since it offers notification but not enforcement.” Resnick at p.
92, col. 2.
It is inherent that the “Intellectual property vocabularies” include the
recited categories because categories based on copyright status were
also known elements in the field of categorization of online content
prior to August 9, 2001. See, e.g., Open Publication License v1.0,
published June 8, 1999, available at
http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/; The Assayer: Help, publicly
available since at least February 2, 2001 at
http://www.theassayer.org/help.html (Listing the following categories
based on copyright status:
“0. Copyrighted, with a licensing agreement that prohibits selling or
permanent use (an anti-book)
1. Copyrighted, with no licensing agreement (a traditional book) [also
books on iUniverse]
2. Copyrighted, doesn't cost money to read, but otherwise not free
3. Public domain
4. Copylefted, but with restrictions on modification and/or sale
5. Copylefted: anyone can read, modify, and sell”).

-6-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

16. The method of claim 1,
further comprising
providing an indicium for
each of said categories.

Resnick discloses providing an indicium for each of the categories
using the META tags:
“PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to embed
labels in html documents, using the META element in the document
header. The general format is <META http-equiv=”PICS-Label”
content=’labellist’>. Other document formats could be similarly
extended.” Resnick at p. 91, col. 1 (“A Tour of the PICS
Specification”).
As an example, Resnick discloses using the PICS system to indicate
the MPAA rating of a movie: “ In this case, there is just a single
category, with five possible values: G through NC-17. In actual
labels, these values would be represented by the integers 0--4; the
service description allows a software program to determine that a
value of 1 corresponds to the PG rating and even to display the PG.gif
icon to a user.” Resnick at p. 90, cols 1-2.
Resnick also discloses displaying the labels to the user:
“Labeling vocabularies may be designed for classification rather than
blocking, coupled with indexing engines that search based on labels
and with browsers that display them.” Resnick at p. 92, col. 2.

17. The method of claim 16,
wherein said indicium
comprises an icon.

Resnick discloses using an icon to indicate each category to which a
page is assigned to the user:
As an example, Resnick discloses using the PICS system to indicate
the MPAA rating of a movie: “ In this case, there is just a single
category, with five possible values: G through NC-17. In actual
labels, these values would be represented by the integers 0--4; the
service description allows a software program to determine that a
value of 1 corresponds to the PG rating and even to display the PG.gif
icon to a user.” Resnick at p. 90, cols 1-2.

19. The method of claim 1,
further comprising
providing a categorization
code that can be used to
label the page with the
categorization label that
indicates the categories to
which the page is assigned.

-7-

Resnick discloses multiple “vocabularies” for labeling network pages
(i.e., a categorization code):
“PICS provides a labeling infrastructure for the Internet. It is value
neutral----it can accommodate any set of labeling dimensions and any
criteria for assigning labels. Any PICS-compatible software can
interpret labels from any source because each source provides a
machine-readable description of its labeling dimensions.” Resnick at
p. 93, col. 2.

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

“The labeling vocabulary. A common set of dimensions would make
publishers’ self-labels more useful to consumers, but cultural
divergence may make it difficult to arrive at a single set of
dimensions. Governments may also mandate country-specific
vocabularies. Third-party labelers are likely to use a wide range of
other dimensions.” Resnick at 92, col. 1; Resnick discloses a
vocabulary for ratings in Resnick Ratings.
Resnick also discloses using the vocabularies to label network pages
that indicate the categories to which the page is assigned:
“PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to embed
labels in html documents, using the META element in the document
header. The general format is <META http-equiv=”PICS-Label”
content=’labellist’>. Other document formats could be similarly
extended.” Resnick at p. 91, col. 1 (“A Tour of the PICS
Specification”).
20. The method of claim 19,
wherein said categorization
code comprises an indicium
for each of said categories.

Resnick discloses multiple “vocabularies” for labeling network pages
(i.e., a categorization code):
“The labeling vocabulary. A common set of dimensions would make
publishers’ self-labels more useful to consumers, but cultural
divergence may make it difficult to arrive at a single set of
dimensions. Governments may also mandate country-specific
vocabularies. Third-party labelers are likely to use a wide range of
other dimensions.” Resnick at 92, col. 1. Each “vocabulary” (i.e.,
category) has its own META tag (i.e., indicium). See Renick at p.
90-91, “A Tour of the PICS Specifications”; see also, e.g., Resnick
Ratings.
Resnick also discloses that the vocabularies comprise an indicium for
each of the categories:
“PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to embed
labels in html documents, using the META element in the document
header. The general format is <META http-equiv=”PICS-Label”
content=’labellist’>. Other document formats could be similarly
extended.” Resnick at p. 91, col. 1 (“A Tour of the PICS
Specification”).

21. The method of claim 20,
wherein said indicium
comprises two letters.

-8-

The label disclosed in Resnick is not limited to less than two letters.

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

22. The method of claim 20,
wherein said categorization
label includes the indicia for
each category to which a
page is assigned.

Resnick discloses indicating each of the categories to which a page is
assigned using the META tags: “PICS specifies three ways to
distribute labels. The first is to embed labels in html documents, using
the META element in the document header. The general format is
<META http-equiv=”PICS-Label” content=’labellist’>. Other
document formats could be similarly extended.” Resnick at p. 91, col.
1.
The “labellist” is described at Resnick at p. 90, cols. 1-2.

27. The method of claim 19,
further comprising making
said categorization label
recognizable by a search
engine.

PICS specification includes a “query-syntax for an online database of
labels (a label bureau).” Resnick at p. 89, col. 1.
“PICS provides a labeling infrastructure for the Internet. It is value
neutral----it can accommodate any set of labeling dimensions and any
criteria for assigning labels. Any PICS-compatible software can
interpret labels from any source because each source provides a
machine-readable description of its labeling dimensions.” Resnick at
p. 93, col. 2.
“Selection software can meet diverse needs by blocking reception,
and labels are the raw materials for implementing context-specific
selection criteria. The availability of large quantities of labels will
also lead to new sorting, searching, filtering, and organizing tools that
will help users surf the Internet more efficiently.” Resnick at p. 93,
col. 2.
Resnick discloses providing the categorization label in the META
tags: “PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to
embed labels in html documents, using the META element in the
document header. The general format is <META http-equiv=”PICSLabel” content=’labellist’>. Other document formats could be
similarly extended.” Resnick at p. 91, col. 1 (“A Tour of the PICS
Specification”). It is well known in the art that META tags are
recognizable by a search engine. See, e.g., HTML 4.0 at § 7.4.4;
HTML 4.0 at B.4.

28. The method of claim 1,
further comprising making
said categories to which a
page is assigned
recognizable by a search
engine.

-9-

PICS specification includes a “query-syntax for an online database of
labels (a label bureau).” Resnick at p. 89, col. 1.
“PICS provides a labeling infrastructure for the Internet. It is value
neutral----it can accommodate any set of labeling dimensions and any
criteria for assigning labels. Any PICS-compatible software can
interpret labels from any source because each source provides a

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

machine-readable description of its labeling dimensions.” Resnick at
p. 93, col. 2.
“Selection software can meet diverse needs by blocking reception,
and labels are the raw materials for implementing context-specific
selection criteria. The availability of large quantities of labels will
also lead to new sorting, searching, filtering, and organizing tools that
will help users surf the Internet more efficiently.” Resnick at p. 93,
col. 2.
Resnick discloses providing the categorization label in the META
tags: “PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to
embed labels in html documents, using the META element in the
document header. The general format is <META http-equiv=”PICSLabel” content=’labellist’>. Other document formats could be
similarly extended.” Resnick at p. 91, col. 1 (“A Tour of the PICS
Specification”).
It is well known in the art that META tags are recognizable by a
search engine. See, e.g., HTML 4.0 at § 7.4.4; HTML 4.0 at B.4.
29. The method of claim 1,
wherein said list of
categories is provided on a
graphical user interface.

Resnick discloses providing its categories on a graphical user
interface:
“A syntax for describing a rating service, so that computer programs
can present the service and its labels to users.” Resnick at p. 89, col.
1, Resnick at Figure 3.
“[T]he machine-readable service description is a resource that other
computer programs can use for automatically generating interfaces
that present the service to users. Consider the prototype shown in
Figure 3 for configuring selection software. Here, the parent is setting
rules for what Johnny can visit, based on a rating service which has
separate dimensions for language, nudity/sex, and violence.2 The
parent drags the slider to indicate the maximum permitted
value on the violence scale, noting the height of the thermometer and
the text description (e.g., “Strong, vulgar language. . .”) associated
with each level on the scale. The software has taken the thermometer
icons and text directly from the service description.” Resnick at p. 89,
col. 2 - p. 90, col. 1; Resnick at Figure 3.

30. A computer
implemented method for
categorizing a network
page, comprising:

-10-

Resnick discloses the PICS labeling infrastructure for an Internet Web
page (i.e., “network page”):
“The Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) establishes
Internet conventions for label formats and distribution methods”.
GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

Resnick at p. 87, cols. 1-2.
“PICS provides a common format for labels, so that any PICScompliant selection software can process any PICS-compliant label.”
Resnick at p. 88, col. 2.
Resnick discloses that the PICS labels can be embedded as a META
element in any Internet Web document:
“Anything that can be named by a URL can be labeled, including
documents that are accessed via ftp, gopher, or Netnews, as well as
http.” Resnick at p. 90, col. 2.

[a] providing a list of
categories, wherein said list
of categories include a
category for transacting
business and a category for
providing information, and
wherein said list of
categories include a
plurality of categories based
on the copyright status of
material on a page;

“PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to
embed labels in html documents, using the META element
in the document header. The general format is <META
http-equiv=”PICS-Label” content=”labellist”>.” Resnick at p. 91,
col. 1.
Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be used to classify web pages:
“Labeling vocabularies may be designed for classification
rather than blocking, coupled with indexing engines that search based
on labels and with browsers that display them.” Resnick at p. 92, col.
2.
Since Resnick discloses that all web pages can be classified, and it
was well known that web pages existed in the categories of
“transacting business” and “providing information”, it is inherent that
Resnick provides a list of categories that includes “transacting
business” and “providing information”.
“PICS provides a labeling infrastructure for the Internet.
It is value neutral----it can accommodate any set of labeling
dimensions and any criteria for assigning labels.” Resnick at p. 93,
col. 1. Therefore, labeling dimensions for “providing information”
and “transacting business” could easily be created using the disclosed
PICS system.
Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be created using the copyright
status of material on the network page:
“Intellectual property vocabularies may develop for notifying people
about who owns a document and how it may be copied and used. Of
course, this is only one piece of the intellectual property protection
puzzle since it offers notification but not enforcement.” Resnick at p.
92, col. 2.

-11-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

In the alternative, if Resnick is found not to satisfy this claim
limitation, Resnick in combination with the teachings of Dublin
disclose the limitation of this claims. Dublin discloses providing the
categorization label. See Appendix B at claim 30[a].
[b] providing a
categorization code for
labeling the network page
with a categorization label,
wherein said categorization
label indicates a set of
categories and subcategories
to which the network page is
assigned, and wherein said
categorization label
indicates the copyright
status of material on the
network page; and

Resnick discloses multiple “vocabularies” for labeling network pages
(i.e., a categorization code):
“PICS provides a labeling infrastructure for the Internet. It is value
neutral----it can accommodate any set of labeling dimensions and any
criteria for assigning labels. Any PICS-compatible software can
interpret labels from any source because each source provides a
machine-readable description of its labeling dimensions.” Resnick at
p. 93, col. 2.
“The labeling vocabulary. A common set of dimensions would make
publishers’ self-labels more useful to consumers, but cultural
divergence may make it difficult to arrive at a single set of
dimensions. Governments may also mandate country-specific
vocabularies. Third-party labelers are likely to use a wide range of
other dimensions.” Resnick at 92, col. 1.
Resnick also discloses using a META tag (i.e., a categorization label),
defined by the vocabulary, to indicate the categories to which the
network page is assigned:
“PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to
embed labels in html documents, using the META element
in the document header. The general format is <META
http-equiv=”PICS-Label” content=”labellist”>.” Resnick at p. 91,
col. 1.
As an example, Resnick discloses using the PICS system to indicate
the MPAA rating of a movie: “ In this case, there is just a single
category, with five possible values: G through NC-17. In actual
labels, these values would be represented by the integers 0--4; the
service description allows a software program to determine that a
value of 1 corresponds to the PG rating and even to display the PG.gif
icon to a user.” Resnick at p. 90, cols 1-2.
Resnick discloses including a copyright status label:
“Intellectual property vocabularies may develop for notifying people
about who owns a document and how it may be copied and used. Of
course, this is only one piece of the intellectual property protection
puzzle since it offers notification but not enforcement.” Resnick at p.

-12-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

92, col. 2.
In the alternative, if Resnick is found not to satisfy this claim
limitation, Resnick in combination with the teachings of Dublin
disclose the limitation of this claims. Dublin discloses providing the
categorization label. See Appendix B at claim 30[b].
[c] controlling usage of the
network page using the
categorization label and the
copyright status of the
network page.

Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be created using the copyright
status of material on the network page:
“Intellectual property vocabularies may develop for notifying people
about who owns a document and how it may be copied and used. Of
course, this is only one piece of the intellectual property protection
puzzle since it offers notification but not enforcement.” Resnick at p.
92, col. 2.
Resnick also discloses “providing indicia” of the category to the user:
“Labeling vocabularies may be designed for classification rather than
blocking, coupled with indexing engines that search based on labels
and with browsers that display them.” Resnick at p. 92, col. 2.
As an example, Resnick discloses using the PICS system to indicate
the MPAA rating of a movie: “ In this case, there is just a single
category, with five possible values: G through NC-17. In actual
labels, these values would be represented by the integers 0--4; the
service description allows a software program to determine that a
value of 1 corresponds to the PG rating and even to display the PG.gif
icon to a user.” Resnick at p. 90, cols 1-2.
Resnick also discloses that web pages can be queried based on the
PICS labels:
PICS specification includes a “query-syntax for an online database of
labels (a label bureau).” Resnick at p. 89, col. 1.
“PICS provides a labeling infrastructure for the Internet. It is value
neutral----it can accommodate any set of labeling dimensions and any
criteria for assigning labels. Any PICS-compatible software can
interpret labels from any source because each source provides a
machine-readable description of its labeling dimensions.” Resnick at
p. 93, col. 2.
“Selection software can meet diverse needs by blocking reception,
and labels are the raw materials for implementing context-specific
selection criteria. The availability of large quantities of labels will

-13-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

also lead to new sorting, searching, filtering, and organizing tools that
will help users surf the Internet more efficiently.” Resnick at p. 93,
col. 2.
Therefore, Resnick discloses that searching for web pages can be
performed based on categories and copyright status.
In the alternative, if Resnick is found not to satisfy this claim
limitation, Resnick in combination with the teachings of Dublin
disclose the limitation of this claims. Dublin discloses providing the
categorization label. See Appendix B at claim 30[c].

31. A computer
implemented method of
categorizing a network
page, comprising:

Resnick discloses the PICS labeling infrastructure for an Internet Web
page (i.e., “network page”):
“The Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) establishes
Internet conventions for label formats and distribution methods”.
Resnick at p. 87, cols. 1-2.
“PICS provides a common format for labels, so that any PICScompliant selection software can process any PICS-compliant label.”
Resnick at p. 88, col. 2.
Resnick discloses that the PICS labels can be embedded as a META
element in any Internet Web document:
“Anything that can be named by a URL can be labeled, including
documents that are accessed via ftp, gopher, or Netnews, as well as
http.” Resnick at p. 90, col. 2.

[a] providing a list of
categories, wherein said
categories include a
category based on the
copyright status of material
on a page, and wherein the
copyright status comprises
categories related to public
domain, fair use only, use
with attribution, and
-14-

“PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to
embed labels in html documents, using the META element
in the document header. The general format is <META
http-equiv=”PICS-Label” content=”labellist”>.” Resnick at p. 91,
col. 1.
Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be used to classify web pages:
“Labeling vocabularies may be designed for classification
rather than blocking, coupled with indexing engines that search based
on labels and with browsers that display them.” Resnick at p. 92, col.
2.
“PICS provides a labeling infrastructure for the Internet. It is value
neutral----it can accommodate any set of labeling dimensions and any
criteria for assigning labels.” Resnick at p. 93, col. 1.

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

permission of copyright
owner needed;

Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be created using the copyright
status of material on the network page:
“Intellectual property vocabularies may develop for notifying people
about who owns a document and how it may be copied and used. Of
course, this is only one piece of the intellectual property protection
puzzle since it offers notification but not enforcement.” Resnick at p.
92, col. 2.
It is inherent that the “vocabularies” includes the recited categories.
The recited categories based on copyright status were known
elements in the field of categorization of online content prior to
August 9, 2001. See, e.g., Open Publication License v1.0, published
June 8, 1999, available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/; The
Assayer: Help, publicly available since at least February 2, 2001 at
http://www.theassayer.org/help.html (Listing the following categories
based on copyright status:
“0. Copyrighted, with a licensing agreement that prohibits selling or
permanent use (an anti-book)
1. Copyrighted, with no licensing agreement (a traditional book) [also
books on iUniverse]
2. Copyrighted, doesn't cost money to read, but otherwise not free
3. Public domain
4. Copylefted, but with restrictions on modification and/or sale
5. Copylefted: anyone can read, modify, and sell”).
In the alternative, if Resnick is found not to satisfy this claim
limitation, Resnick in combination with the teachings of Dublin
disclose the limitation of this claims. Dublin discloses providing the
categorization label. See Appendix B at claim 31[a].

[b] assigning said network
page to one or more of a
plurality of said list of
categories;

Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be used to classify web pages:
“PICS labels describe content on one or more dimensions....
Each rating service can choose its own labeling vocabulary. For
example, Yahoo labels might include a “coolness” dimension and a
subject classification dimension.” Resnick at p. 88, col. 2 - p. 89, col.
1.
“Labeling vocabularies may be designed for classification
rather than blocking, coupled with indexing engines that search based
on labels and with browsers that display them.” Resnick at p. 92, col.
2.

-15-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

“PICS provides a labeling infrastructure for the Internet.
It is value neutral----it can accommodate any set of labeling
dimensions and any criteria for assigning labels.” Resnick at p. 93,
col. 1.
[c] providing a
categorization label for the
network page using the
copyright status of material
on the network page; and

Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be created using the copyright
status of material on the network page:
“Intellectual property vocabularies may develop for notifying people
about who owns a document and how it may be copied and used. Of
course, this is only one piece of the intellectual property protection
puzzle since it offers notification but not enforcement.” Resnick at p.
92, col. 2.
Resnick also discloses providing (and displaying) the categorization
label for the network page:
As an example, Resnick discloses using the PICS system to indicate
the MPAA rating of a movie: “ In this case, there is just a single
category, with five possible values: G through NC-17. In actual
labels, these values would be represented by the integers 0--4; the
service description allows a software program to determine that a
value of 1 corresponds to the PG rating and even to display the PG.gif
icon to a user.” Resnick at p. 90, cols 1-2.
The PICS system provides:
“A syntax for describing a rating service, so that computer programs
can present the service and its labels to users.
A syntax for labels, so that computer programs can process them. A
label describes either a single document or a group of documents
(e.g., a site). A label may be digitally signed and may include a
cryptographic hash of the associated document.” Resnick at p. 89,
cols 1-2.
In the alternative, if Resnick is found not to satisfy this claim
limitation, Resnick in combination with the teachings of Dublin
disclose the limitation of this claims. Dublin discloses providing the
categorization label. See Appendix B at claim 31[c].

[d] controlling usage of the
network page using the
categorization label and the
copyright status of the
network page.

-16-

Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be created using the copyright
status of material on the network page:
“Intellectual property vocabularies may develop for notifying people
about who owns a document and how it may be copied and used. Of
course, this is only one piece of the intellectual property protection

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A

puzzle since it offers notification but not enforcement.” Resnick at p.
92, col. 2.
Resnick also discloses “providing indicia” of the category to the user:
“Labeling vocabularies may be designed for classification rather than
blocking, coupled with indexing engines that search based on labels
and with browsers that display them.” Resnick at p. 92, col. 2.
As an example, Resnick discloses using the PICS system to indicate
the MPAA rating of a movie: “ In this case, there is just a single
category, with five possible values: G through NC-17. In actual
labels, these values would be represented by the integers 0--4; the
service description allows a software program to determine that a
value of 1 corresponds to the PG rating and even to display the PG.gif
icon to a user.” Resnick at p. 90, cols 1-2.
Resnick also discloses that web pages can be queried based on the
PICS labels:
PICS specification includes a “query-syntax for an online database of
labels (a label bureau).” Resnick at p. 89, col. 1.
“PICS provides a labeling infrastructure for the Internet. It is value
neutral----it can accommodate any set of labeling dimensions and any
criteria for assigning labels. Any PICS-compatible software can
interpret labels from any source because each source provides a
machine-readable description of its labeling dimensions.” Resnick at
p. 93, col. 2.
“Selection software can meet diverse needs by blocking reception,
and labels are the raw materials for implementing context-specific
selection criteria. The availability of large quantities of labels will
also lead to new sorting, searching, filtering, and organizing tools that
will help users surf the Internet more efficiently.” Resnick at p. 93,
col. 2.
Therefore, Resnick discloses that searching for web pages can be
performed based on categories and copyright status.
In the alternative, if Resnick is found not to satisfy this claim
limitation, Resnick in combination with the teachings of Dublin
disclose the limitation of this claims. Dublin discloses “providing
indicia” of the categories. See Appendix B at claim 31[d].

-17-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX A