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 E
U.S. Pat. No. 7,181,459
1. A computer implemented
method of categorizing a
network page, comprising:

Khare in view of Resnick or Dublin
Khare discloses using metadata such as Platform for Internet Content
Selection (“PICS”) to categorize the rights management of an Internet
web page:
“The World Wide Web Consortium is dedicated to 'Realizing the Full
Potential of the Web'. One of the core principles behind that
commitment is 'automatability': enabling rich meta-data and context
to be associated with Web content so computers and humans can
effectively find, communicate, and use information. Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR) are an example of "rich" information.” Khare
at § 1.
“Rights Declaration. We need deterministic statements of the rights
being claimed, and distribution mechanisms for binding these
declarations to the information objects. We believe that machinereadable meta-data formats & transport mechanisms, such as PICS,
are an ideal way to capture rights declarations. [See attached <draftreagle-PICS-copyright-00.txt>]”. Khare at § 2.1.
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.
“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 httpequiv=”PICS-Label” content=”labellist”>.” Resnick at p. 91, col. 1.
The motivation to combine the references may be found in the

-1-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

common knowledge of those skilled in the art, the prior art as a
whole, and/or the nature of the purported problem itself. Khare
discloses using PICS to categorize network pages, Resnick also
discloses using PICS to categorize network pages therefore the
motivation to combine the references is inherent in the references.
[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;

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
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

-2-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

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.
Khare discloses that PICS labels can be used to categorize network
pages based on the copyright status of material on the page:
“This document presents an alternative expression mechanism for the
copyright status of Web resources. Specifically it employs the
Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)[2] label format to
associate web resources with their copyright and usage information.
This in turn can be used by search engines, proxy servers, agents,
clients, and users for content selection or to aid in rights compliance.
This document employs the copy control system described in [1].”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, Abstract.
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”).
In the alternative, if Khare in view of Resnick is found not to satisfy

-3-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

this claim limitation, Khare 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. Khare discloses a system to categorize
network pages, Dublin also discloses a system to categorize network
pages therefore the motivation to combine the references is inherent
in the references.

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

Dublin discloses providing the claimed categories. See Appendix B
at claim 1[a].
Resnick discloses that network pages are assigned to categories using
the PICS labels:
“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.
Khare also discloses that PICS labels can be used to assign network
pages to categories:
“Rights Notification. Simple rights notification based upon a
standard meta-data labeling format. PICS is already converging as the
meta-data format for content rating. Many browsers can provide
advisory notice that a site is labeled in some system (RSAC,
SafeSurf~~, etc) and the corresponding ratings for that page.” Khare
at § 2.3.

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

-4-

“Detached labels can easily associate copyright information with any
web referenceable resource including audio and visual content.”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, § 2.3.
Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be used for copyright status:
“Intellectual property vocabularies may develop for notifying people

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

on the network page; and

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].
Khare discloses that PICS labels can be used for copyright status:
“This document presents an alternative expression mechanism for the
copyright status of Web resources. Specifically it employs the
Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)[2] label format to
associate web resources with their copyright and usage information.
This in turn can be used by search engines, proxy servers, agents,
clients, and users for content selection or to aid in rights compliance.
This document employs the copy control system described in [1].”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, Abstract.
“Detached labels can easily associate copyright information
with any web referenceable resource including audio and visual
content.” Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, §
2.3.

-5-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

“In [1], Daviel specified a system in which a Web document has
"Print", "Save", and "Quote" variables associated with it, where ({0 =
disallowed}, {1 = conditionally allowed}, {2 = unconditionally
allowed}). These permissions are associated with a document by
encoding them in an HTTP header, or HTML META tag. PICS is a
more effective means of associating Web resources with their
copyright status and control information as demonstrated in section
2.3.” Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, § 2.1.
In the alternative, if Khare in view of Resnick is found not to satisfy
this claim limitation, Khare 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.

-6-

Khare discloses that PICS labels can be used to control usage of the
Web page:
“[H]ere is one possible course of events for Web [Rights
Management], based on the hypothesis that each layer will stabilize in
succession:
1. Rights Notification. Simple rights notification based upon a
standard meta-data labeling format. PICS is already converging as the
meta-data format for content rating. Many browsers can provide
advisory notice that a site is labeled in some system (RSAC,
SafeSurf~~, etc) and the corresponding ratings for that page.
2.Application-specific Rights Management. The next step is a
series of applications which protect rights within a single context. For
example, an OS might only print or display fonts based on the
embedded label -- as already occurs with embedded TrueType fonts.
Browsers could be programmed to always consult a 'blacklist' of
copyright-infringing resources run by a trusted third party. Rights
labels could reflect ACLs and protections already enforced by
underlying security mechanisms. Finally, we already have interest in
high-value lock-box enveloped data with rights labels, such as
Cryptolopes.
3.General-purpose Rights Management. In some sense, rights
management can converge with trust management -- RM is the asking
of "permission to take specified actions upon a given resource." Just
as with PICS, users will start asking for customizable, portable
enforcement policies. The policy language and policy-enforcement
engines will become cross-application services.
4.Automated Settlement Models. Finally, automated policy engines
can interface with an electronic payments infrastructure to actively
seek out and settle rights. New social and business models will drive
the development of micropayments, aggregation services, and other

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

players which will make many kinds of rights easily and
inexpensively clearable.” Khare at § 2.3.
“In [1], Daviel specified a system in which a Web document has
"Print", "Save", and "Quote" variables associated with it, where ({0 =
disallowed}, {1 = conditionally allowed}, {2 = unconditionally
allowed}). These permissions are associated with a document by
encoding them in an HTTP header, or HTML META tag. PICS is a
more effective means of associating Web resources with their
copyright status and control information as demonstrated in section
2.3.” Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, § 2.1.
“Multiple distribution methods (embedded within the document,
transported by the server, or distributed from a label bureau) improve
copy status and control management. Organizations can control the
use and access to their IPR from their server or proxy. Organizations
can also create "audit" spiders to understand the distribution and use
of their content on the Internet.” Khare at Using PICS for Copyright
Notice and Control, § 2.3.
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:

-7-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

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.
In the alternative, if Khare in view of Resnick is found not to satisfy
this claim limitation, Khare 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[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.

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

-8-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

4. Copylefted, but with restrictions on modification and/or sale
5. Copylefted: anyone can read, modify, and sell”).
In the alternative, if Khare in view of Resnick is found not to satisfy
this claim limitation, Khare in combination with the teachings of
Dublin disclose the limitation of this claims. Dublin discloses
providing the categorization label. 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.
Khare discloses that PICS labels can be used to create a plurality of
categories based on the copyright status of material on a web page:
“This document presents an alternative expression mechanism for the
copyright status of Web resources. Specifically it employs the
Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)[2] label format to
associate web resources with their copyright and usage information.
This in turn can be used by search engines, proxy servers, agents,
clients, and users for content selection or to aid in rights compliance.
This document employs the copy control system described in [1].”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, Abstract.
“In [1], Daviel specified a system in which a Web document has
"Print", "Save", and "Quote" variables associated with it, where ({0 =
disallowed}, {1 = conditionally allowed}, {2 = unconditionally
allowed}). These permissions are associated with a document by
encoding them in an HTTP header, or HTML META tag. PICS is a
more effective means of associating Web resources with their
copyright status and control information as demonstrated in section
2.3.” Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, § 2.1.

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

Khare discloses using a META tag (i.e., an indicium) to create a
label:
“He uses the copy control system in [1] to create the following label:
(PICS-1.1 "http://www.wipo.org/v1.5"
by "Mark Twain"
labels on "1994.11.05T08:15-0500"

-9-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

for "http://www.twain.com/story.html"
full "http://www.twain.com/IP-notice.html"
ratings (print 1 save 1 quote 2))”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, § 2.2.
“This document presents an alternative expression mechanism for the
copyright status of Web resources. Specifically it employs the
Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) [2] label format to
associate web resources with their copyright and usage information.
This in turn can be used by search engines, proxy servers, agents,
clients, and users for content selection or to aid in rights compliance.”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, Abstract.
“We argue that PICS is an effective method of communicating
intellectual property information about Web content.” Khare at
Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, § 1.
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,
Resnick discloses using an icon to indicate the category to the user:
wherein said indicium comprises
an icon.
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

-10-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

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.
Khare discloses describing categories with icons:
“Many Rating Systems: systems provide multiple axes with rational
points (some points can be described with text and icons)” Khare at
Using PICS Labels for Trust Management.

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.

Khare discloses using a metadata vocabulary (i.e., a categorization
code) to create a label. As an example, Khare discloses:
“He uses the copy control system in [1] to create the following label:
(PICS-1.1 "http://www.wipo.org/v1.5"
by "Mark Twain"
labels on "1994.11.05T08:15-0500"
for "http://www.twain.com/story.html"
full "http://www.twain.com/IP-notice.html"
ratings (print 1 save 1 quote 2))”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, § 2.2.
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 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:

-11-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

“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,
Khare discloses using a META tag (i.e., an indicium) to create a label
wherein said categorization code with multiple categories of copyright status:
comprises an indicium for each
of said categories.
“He uses the copy control system in [1] to create the following label:
(PICS-1.1 "http://www.wipo.org/v1.5"
by "Mark Twain"
labels on "1994.11.05T08:15-0500"
for "http://www.twain.com/story.html"
full "http://www.twain.com/IP-notice.html"
ratings (print 1 save 1 quote 2))”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, § 2.2.
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.
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,
The label disclosed in Resnick is not limited to less than two letters.
wherein said indicium comprises
two letters.

-12-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

22. The method of claim 20,
Khare discloses using a META tag (i.e., an indicium) to create labels
wherein said categorization label for each category to which a page is assigned:
includes the indicia for each
category to which a page is
“He uses the copy control system in [1] to create the following label:
assigned.
(PICS-1.1 "http://www.wipo.org/v1.5"
by "Mark Twain"
labels on "1994.11.05T08:15-0500"
for "http://www.twain.com/story.html"
full "http://www.twain.com/IP-notice.html"
ratings (print 1 save 1 quote 2))”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, § 2.2.
Resnick discloses indicating 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=”PICSLabel” 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,
Khare discloses that PICS labels can be used by search engines:
further comprising making said
categorization label recognizable “This [the PICS categorization system] in turn can be used by search
by a search engine.
engines, proxy servers, agents, clients, and users for content selection
or to aid in rights compliance.“ Khare at Using PICS for Copyright
Notice and Control, Abstract.
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
-13-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

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.

Khare discloses that PICS labels can be used by search engines:
“This [the PICS categorization system] in turn can be used by search
engines, proxy servers, agents, clients, and users for content selection
or to aid in rights compliance.“ Khare at Using PICS for Copyright
Notice and Control, Abstract.
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.

-14-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

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, and 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.
Khare discloses that PICS labels can be used by search engines,
which inherently have a graphical user interface:
“This [the PICS categorization system] in turn can be used by search
engines, proxy servers, agents, clients, and users for content selection
or to aid in rights compliance.“ Khare at Using PICS for Copyright
Notice and Control, Abstract.

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

Khare discloses using metadata such as Platform for Internet Content
Selection (“PICS”) to categorize the rights management of an Internet
web page:
“The World Wide Web Consortium is dedicated to 'Realizing the Full
Potential of the Web'. One of the core principles behind that
commitment is 'automatability': enabling rich meta-data and context
to be associated with Web content so computers and humans can
effectively find, communicate, and use information. Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR) are an example of "rich" information.” Khare
at § 1.
“Rights Declaration. We need deterministic statements of the rights
being claimed, and distribution mechanisms for binding these
declarations to the information objects. We believe that machinereadable meta-data formats & transport mechanisms, such as PICS,
are an ideal way to capture rights declarations. [See attached <draftreagle-PICS-copyright-00.txt>]”. Khare at § 2.1.

-15-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

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
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 httpequiv=”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. 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:

-16-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

“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.
Khare discloses that PICS labels can be used to provide categories for
network pages based on the copyright status of material on the page:
“This document presents an alternative expression mechanism for the
copyright status of Web resources. Specifically it employs the
Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)[2] label format to
associate web resources with their copyright and usage information.
This in turn can be used by search engines, proxy servers, agents,
clients, and users for content selection or to aid in rights compliance.
This document employs the copy control system described in [1].”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, Abstract.

[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

In the alternative, if Khare in view of Resnick is found not to satisfy
this claim limitation, Khare 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].
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.
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’>. 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

-17-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

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.
92, col. 2.
Khare discloses using a system for categorizing web pages (i.e., a
categorization code) used to provide the copyright status of the web
page in a label:
“This document presents an alternative expression mechanism for the
copyright status of Web resources. Specifically it employs the
Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)[2] label format to
associate web resources with their copyright and usage information.
This in turn can be used by search engines, proxy servers, agents,
clients, and users for content selection or to aid in rights compliance.
This document employs the copy control system described in [1].”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, Abstract.
“In [1], Daviel specified a system in which a Web document has
"Print", "Save", and "Quote" variables associated with it, where ({0 =
disallowed}, {1 = conditionally allowed}, {2 = unconditionally
allowed}). These permissions are associated with a document by
encoding them in an HTTP header, or HTML META tag. PICS is a
more effective means of associating Web resources with their
copyright status and control information as demonstrated in section
2.3.” Khare at “Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control”, §
2.1.

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

-18-

In the alternative, if Khare in view of Resnick is found not to satisfy
this claim limitation, Khare 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].
Khare discloses that PICS labels can be used to control usage of the
Web page:
“[H]ere is one possible course of events for Web [Rights
Management], based on the hypothesis that each layer will stabilize in
succession:

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

1. Rights Notification. Simple rights notification based upon a
standard meta-data labeling format. PICS is already converging as the
meta-data format for content rating. Many browsers can provide
advisory notice that a site is labeled in some system (RSAC,
SafeSurf~~, etc) and the corresponding ratings for that page.
2.Application-specific Rights Management. The next step is a
series of applications which protect rights within a single context. For
example, an OS might only print or display fonts based on the
embedded label -- as already occurs with embedded TrueType fonts.
Browsers could be programmed to always consult a 'blacklist' of
copyright-infringing resources run by a trusted third party. Rights
labels could reflect ACLs and protections already enforced by
underlying security mechanisms. Finally, we already have interest in
high-value lock-box enveloped data with rights labels, such as
Cryptolopes.
3.General-purpose Rights Management. In some sense, rights
management can converge with trust management -- RM is the asking
of "permission to take specified actions upon a given resource." Just
as with PICS, users will start asking for customizable, portable
enforcement policies. The policy language and policy-enforcement
engines will become cross-application services.
4.Automated Settlement Models. Finally, automated policy engines
can interface with an electronic payments infrastructure to actively
seek out and settle rights. New social and business models will drive
the development of micropayments, aggregation services, and other
players which will make many kinds of rights easily and
inexpensively clearable.” Khare at § 2.3.
“In [1], Daviel specified a system in which a Web document has
"Print", "Save", and "Quote" variables associated with it, where ({0 =
disallowed}, {1 = conditionally allowed}, {2 = unconditionally
allowed}). These permissions are associated with a document by
encoding them in an HTTP header, or HTML META tag. PICS is a
more effective means of associating Web resources with their
copyright status and control information as demonstrated in section
2.3.” Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, § 2.1.
“Multiple distribution methods (embedded within the document,
transported by the server, or distributed from a label bureau) improve
copy status and control management. Organizations can control the
use and access to their IPR from their server or proxy. Organizations
can also create "audit" spiders to understand the distribution and use
of their content on the Internet.” Khare at Using PICS for Copyright
Notice and Control, § 2.3.
Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be used for copyright status:

-19-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

“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
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.
In the alternative, if Khare in view of Resnick is found not to satisfy
this claim limitation, Khare 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].

-20-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

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

Khare discloses using metadata such as Platform for Internet Content
Selection (“PICS”) to categorize the rights management of an Internet
web page:
“The World Wide Web Consortium is dedicated to 'Realizing the Full
Potential of the Web'. One of the core principles behind that
commitment is 'automatability': enabling rich meta-data and context
to be associated with Web content so computers and humans can
effectively find, communicate, and use information. Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR) are an example of "rich" information.” Khare
at § 1.
“Rights Declaration. We need deterministic statements of the rights
being claimed, and distribution mechanisms for binding these
declarations to the information objects. We believe that machinereadable meta-data formats & transport mechanisms, such as PICS,
are an ideal way to capture rights declarations. [See attached <draftreagle-PICS-copyright-00.txt>]”. Khare at § 2.1.
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

-21-

“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 httpequiv=”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

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

status comprises categories
on labels and with browsers that display them.” Resnick at p. 92, col.
related to public domain, fair use 2.
only, use with attribution, and
permission of copyright owner
Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be used for copyright status:
needed;
“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”).
Khare discloses that PICS labels can be used to categorize network
pages based on the copyright status of material on the page:
“This document presents an alternative expression mechanism for the
copyright status of Web resources. Specifically it employs the
Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)[2] label format to
associate web resources with their copyright and usage information.
This in turn can be used by search engines, proxy servers, agents,
clients, and users for content selection or to aid in rights compliance.
This document employs the copy control system described in [1].”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, Abstract.

[b] assigning said network page

-22-

In the alternative, if Khare in view of Resnick is found not to satisfy
this claim limitation, Khare 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].
Resnick discloses that network pages are assigned to categories using

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

to one or more of a plurality of
said list of categories;

the PICS labels:
“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.
Khare also discloses that PICS labels can be used to assign network
pages to categories:
“Rights Notification. Simple rights notification based upon a
standard meta-data labeling format. PICS is already converging as the
meta-data format for content rating. Many browsers can provide
advisory notice that a site is labeled in some system (RSAC,
SafeSurf~~, etc) and the corresponding ratings for that page.” Khare
at § 2.3.

[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 used for copyright status:
“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.

-23-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

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].
Khare discloses using META tags (i.e., categorization labels) for
copyright status:
“This document presents an alternative expression mechanism for the
copyright status of Web resources. Specifically it employs the
Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)[2] label format to
associate web resources with their copyright and usage information.
This in turn can be used by search engines, proxy servers, agents,
clients, and users for content selection or to aid in rights compliance.
This document employs the copy control system described in [1].”
Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, Abstract.
“Detached labels can easily associate copyright information
with any web referenceable resource including audio and visual
content.” Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, §
2.3.
“In [1], Daviel specified a system in which a Web document has
"Print", "Save", and "Quote" variables associated with it, where ({0 =
disallowed}, {1 = conditionally allowed}, {2 = unconditionally
allowed}). These permissions are associated with a document by
encoding them in an HTTP header, or HTML META tag. PICS is a
more effective means of associating Web resources with their
copyright status and control information as demonstrated in section
2.3.” Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, § 2.1.
In the alternative, if Khare in view of Resnick is found not to satisfy
this claim limitation, Khare 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].

-24-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

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

Khare discloses that PICS labels can be used to control usage of the
Web page:
“[H]ere is one possible course of events for Web [Rights
Management], based on the hypothesis that each layer will stabilize in
succession:
1. Rights Notification. Simple rights notification based upon a
standard meta-data labeling format. PICS is already converging as the
meta-data format for content rating. Many browsers can provide
advisory notice that a site is labeled in some system (RSAC,
SafeSurf~~, etc) and the corresponding ratings for that page.
2.Application-specific Rights Management. The next step is a
series of applications which protect rights within a single context. For
example, an OS might only print or display fonts based on the
embedded label -- as already occurs with embedded TrueType fonts.
Browsers could be programmed to always consult a 'blacklist' of
copyright-infringing resources run by a trusted third party. Rights
labels could reflect ACLs and protections already enforced by
underlying security mechanisms. Finally, we already have interest in
high-value lock-box enveloped data with rights labels, such as
Cryptolopes.
3.General-purpose Rights Management. In some sense, rights
management can converge with trust management -- RM is the asking
of "permission to take specified actions upon a given resource." Just
as with PICS, users will start asking for customizable, portable
enforcement policies. The policy language and policy-enforcement
engines will become cross-application services.
4.Automated Settlement Models. Finally, automated policy engines
can interface with an electronic payments infrastructure to actively
seek out and settle rights. New social and business models will drive
the development of micropayments, aggregation services, and other
players which will make many kinds of rights easily and
inexpensively clearable.” Khare at § 2.3.
“In [1], Daviel specified a system in which a Web document has
"Print", "Save", and "Quote" variables associated with it, where ({0 =
disallowed}, {1 = conditionally allowed}, {2 = unconditionally
allowed}). These permissions are associated with a document by
encoding them in an HTTP header, or HTML META tag. PICS is a
more effective means of associating Web resources with their
copyright status and control information as demonstrated in section
2.3.” Khare at Using PICS for Copyright Notice and Control, § 2.1.
“Multiple distribution methods (embedded within the document,
transported by the server, or distributed from a label bureau) improve
copy status and control management. Organizations can control the

-25-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

use and access to their IPR from their server or proxy. Organizations
can also create "audit" spiders to understand the distribution and use
of their content on the Internet.” Khare at Using PICS for Copyright
Notice and Control, § 2.3.
Resnick discloses that PICS labels can be used for copyright status:
“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
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.

-26-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E

In the alternative, if Khare in view of Resnick is found not to satisfy
this claim limitation, Khare 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[d].

-27-

GOOGLE’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - APPENDIX E