Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 82

DECLARATION in Support re 70 (Christine P. Sun) Opposition to Overture's Motion for Protective Order filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit I# 8 Exhibit J# 9 Exhibit K# 10 Exhibit L# 11 Exhibit M# 12 Exhibit N# 13 Exhibit O# 14 Exhibit P# 15 Exhibit Q# 16 Exhibit R)(Related document(s) 70 ) (Sun, Christine)

Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Doc. 82 Att. 7

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 82-8

Filed 08/11/2003

Page 1 of 4

/-/S
Our Case No. 9623/112
In re Application of: Davis , Darren J. et a!.
iTJ
!21
-c:::

::u

Serial No. 09/322 677
Filing Date: May 28 , 1999

Examiner: Nguyen, C.

(TJ

Group Art Unit No. 2764

For

SYSTEM AND METIlOD FOR ll'WLUENCING A POSITION ON A SEARCH RESULT LIST GENERATED BY A COMPUTER NETWORK SEARCH ENGINE

DECLARATION UNDER 37 C.F.R ~ 1. 132
Assistant Commissioner for Patents Washington, D.C. 20231
Dear Sir:

The undersigned, Daxren J. Davis, declares as follows:

I am an inventor of the invention described in the above identified application.
1 have read the Office Actions dated January 31 ,

2000 and June 28 2000 and the

Interview Summary of August 1, 2000. I understand that the Examiner bas
requested additional facts idenhfyIDg features recited in the pending claims but not
present in the press Ie1ease dated May 19 1998 or in the GoTo.com search engine as

it existed in May, 1998.
The GoTo.corn search engine as.it existed in May, 1998 was a beta or test version of

a system then under development In May, 1998 , at least some features claimed in
the Independent claIms of the subject application were not yet implemented or in the
pubhc domain.

With respect to claim 1 of the subject application,

at least the act of "

recording a

retrIeval request event in an account

database corresponding to the

searcher's

GOG 31714

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 82-8

Filed 08/11/2003

Page 2 of 4

retrieval request" was not disclosed in the May 19,

1998 press release. Also, it

is

opinion that the act of "recording a retrieval request event U1 an account database corresponding to the searcher s retrieval request" was not inherent in the May 19,
1998 press release, because this act is not a necessary result flowing from the
operation ofthe system d=ribed in the May 19, 1998 press release. Moreover, the
invention defined by claim 1 was not in

existence in May, 1998 but only was

implemented In the system after that time.

With respect to claim 11 of the subject apphcation, at least the act of "estimating

the

cost of a search listing for a specified time period upon receiving a request trom a
web site promoter" was not disclosed in the May 19, 1998 press release. Also , it is

my opinion that the act of "estunating the cost ora search listing for a specIfied time
period upon receiving a request trom a web site promoter" was not inherent in the

May 19,

1998 press release,

because tbis act is not a necessary result flowing fi-om

the operation of the system described in the May 19, 1998 press release. Moreover,
the invention defined by claim 11 was not in existence in May, 1998 and has not yet
been implemented in the system at this time.

With respect to claim (iJof the subject application, at least the act of "generating a

search listing activity report including information on retrieval requests received

trom searchers during a specified time period" was not disclosed in the May 19
1998 press release. Also, it is my opinion that the act or "generating a search listing
act:!Vlty report including information on retrieval requests received from searchers

during a specified time period" was not inherent in the May 19,

1998 press release

because this act is not a necessary result flowing from the operation of the system
described in the May 19, 1998 press release. Moreover, the invention defined by

claim 13 was not In existence in May, 1998 but only was inlp1emented in the system
after that time.

With respect to claim 14 of the subject application,

at least the act of "suggesting

alternative search terms to the searcher for generatmg additional search result lists
related to the searcher s search request" was not disclosed in the May 19, 1998 press
release. Also, it is my opinion that the act of "suggesting alternative search terms to
the searcher for generat:!ng additional search result hsts related to the searcher's

GOG 31715

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 82-8

Filed 08/11/2003

Page 3 of 4

search request" was not inherent in the May 19 , 1998 press release, because this act
is not a necessary result flowing from the operation of

the system descnoed in the

May 19, 1998 press release. Moreover, the invention deflDed by claim 14 was not in
existence in May, 1998 but only was implemented in the system after that time.
With respect to

claim 15 of the subject application ,

the subject matter

of

this claim

as a whole was not disclosed In the May 19 , 1998 press release. Also, It is my

opinion that the subject matter oftrus claim was not inherent in the May 19, 1998

press release because this method is not a necessary result flowing fiom the
operation of

the system described in the May 19, 1998 pre~ release. Moreover, the
1998 but was part

invention defined by claim 15 was not in existence on May 19 ,
a system made public only after that date.
With respect to claim 30 of

the subject application ,

the subject matter

of

this claim

as a whole was not disclosed in the May 19 , 1998 press release. Also, it is my
opinion that the subject matter of this claim was not

inherent in the May 19, 1998

press reJease because this method is not a
operation of

necessary result flowing fiom the

the system described in the May 19, 1998 press release. Moreover; the

invention defined by claim 30 was not in existence on May 19, 1998. but was part

a system made public only after that date.
10.

With respect to claim 52 of the subject application, the subject matter of this claim
as a whole was not disclosed in the May 19 ,
1998 press release. Also, it is
1998

opinion that the subject matter oftbis claim was not inherent in the May 19,
press release because this method is operation of not

a necessary result flowing from the

the system described in the May 19, 1998 press release. Moreover, the
1998 but was part

invention defined by claim 52 was not in existence on May 19 ,
a system made publIc only after that date.
11.
With respect to claim 68 of

the subject applIcatIOn, the subject matter

of

tlus claim

as a whole was not disclosed in the May 19 ,
opinion that the subject matter of

1998 press release. Also ,

it is my
1998

this claim was not inherent in the May 19 ,

press release because this system is not a natural result flowing from the operation

the system described in the May 19 , 1998 press release. Moreover, the invention

GaG 31716

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 82-8

Filed 08/11/2003

Page 4 of 4

defined by claim 68 was not In existence in" May, 1998 and bas not yet been
implemented in the system at this time.
12.

I further state that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true and that
all statements made on infonnation and belief are believed to be true, and further
that these statements were made with the knowledge that wi1Jful false statements

and the like so made are pumshable by fine or imprisonment,
statements may jeopardize the validity of this appIication
thereon.

or both, under

Section 1001 or Title 1 g of the United States Code and that such willful false
or any patent issuing

q /1(.,-/00

Dat

GOG 31717