Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 90

Brief Responsive Claim Construction; tutorial date 10/15/03 at 2:00 pm; hearing date 10/22/03 at 2:00 pm filed by Google Inc.. (Durie, Daralyn) Modified on 8/22/2003 (dlp, COURT STAFF).

Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Doc. 90

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 1 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP JOHN W. KEKER - #49092 DARALYN J. DURIE - #169825 MICHAEL S. KWUN - #198945 CHRISTINE P. SUN - #218701 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY INC., sued under its former name GOOGLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

OVERTURE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, v. GOOGLE INC., a California corporation, Defendant and Counterclaimant.

Case No. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL) GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF (REDACTED VERSION) Tutorial: Hearing: Courtroom: Judge: October 15, 2003, 2:00 p.m. October 22, 2003, 2:00 p.m. 2, 17th Floor Hon. Jeffrey S. White

PUBLIC VERSION REDACTED

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 2 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3. IV. III. B. I. II.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2 A. Overview of the '361 Patent ....................................................................................2 1. 2. 3. Search engines "prioritize results in accordance with consumers' preferences"..............................................................................2 The problems the '361 inventors set out to solve: bad search results, and ineffective advertisements ........................................................2 The basics of the "pay for performance" model described in the '361 specification: you get for what you pay for........................................3

Overview of Google AdWords Select .....................................................................4

LEGAL STANDARD..........................................................................................................5 A. Claim Interpretation Begins With a Review of the Intrinsic Evidence: The Language of the Claims, the Patent Specification, and the File History......................................................................................................................5 Dictionary Definitions, Although Often Useful, Are Never Alone Determinative...........................................................................................................6 The Specification Is Crucial to Defining the Meaning of a Disputed Term.........................................................................................................................8

B. C.

ARGUMENT.....................................................................................................................11 A. "search listing" and "search result list" .................................................................11 1. The parties' proposed constructions ..........................................................11 a. b. "search listing"...............................................................................11 "search result list" ..........................................................................11

Summary of dispute ...................................................................................11 A "search listing" is an entry in (or intended to be in) a search result list.....................................................................................................12 a. b. The definition of "search listing" should not include the phrase "search term" ......................................................................12 Google's construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the claim language, read in light of the specification ...................................................................................13 i

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 3 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. 5. 4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

Page

Google's construction of "search result list" is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the claim terms, as used in the specification ...............................................................................................13 a. b. A "list" is a series of entries, arranged one after the other ...............................................................................................13 A "search result" is something obtained in response to a search submitted by a consumer using an Internet search engine..................................................................................14 (i) Overture's definition does not provide a meaningful definition of "result," and does not provide any definition of "search".....................................14 Google's definition is consistent with the intrinsic evidence ...............................................................15 The extrinsic evidence confirms that a search result is different from prior art Internet advertisements that appeared alongside or above search results......................................................................17

(ii) (iii)

Google does not contend that a search result list must be displayed ....................................................................................................18

"[modifiable] bid amount".....................................................................................18 1. 2. 3. 4. The parties' proposed constructions ..........................................................18 Summary of dispute ...................................................................................18 Googles agrees that the triggering event required by the '361 patent is a click-through.............................................................................19 A bid amount is the amount a successful bidder will pay..........................20 a. b. c. The ordinary meaning of "bid amount," read in light of the specification, is the amount the advertiser will pay .................20 The prosecution history confirms the meaning of "bid amount"..........................................................................................22 In a patent application it has described as "related" to the '361 patent application, Overture has confirmed that "bid amount" refers to the actual price that will be paid ...............23 The extrinsic evidence supports Google's construction ................24

d.

ii
317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 4 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. D. C. 5. (ii) (i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

Page

Google's definition is supported by extrinsic evidence concerning Overture's "pay for performance" system .........................................................24 Google's definition is consistent with eBay's description of an analogous system ...................................25

"Modifiable" means the bid amount can be changed by the web site promoter ..............................................................................................26

"a modifiable bid amount that is independent of other components of the search listing"...................................................................................................27 1. 2. 3. 4. The parties' proposed constructions ..........................................................27 Summary of dispute ...................................................................................27 The ordinary meaning of "independent of" is "unconstrained by"..............................................................................................................27 The specification supports Google's interpretation ...................................28

The Ordering Limitations ......................................................................................30 1. The parties' proposed constructions ..........................................................30 a. b. c. "ordering . . . in accordance with the values of the respective bid amounts".................................................................30 "arranged in an order determined using the bid amounts" ........................................................................................30 "arranged in an order corresponding to the bid amounts" ........................................................................................30

Summary of dispute ...................................................................................30 The dictionary definitions fail to resolve all ambiguities about the definitions of the ordering terms..........................................................30 Overture has misstated Google's position .................................................32 The specification supports Google's constructions ...................................32 Google's construction is not in conflict with the principle of claim differentiation...................................................................................34 Overture's definitions would render the claims invalid.............................35 a. Overure's definitions are indefinite ...............................................35 iii

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 5 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V. H. I. G. F. E. b. (i) (ii) (iii)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

Page

"corresponding to" .............................................................36 "determined using" ............................................................37 "in accordance with"..........................................................37

If construed as Overture proposes, the claims would be invalid for lack of a supporting written description.......................37

"in response to"......................................................................................................39 1. 2. 3. The parties' proposed constructions ..........................................................39 Summary of dispute ...................................................................................40 The ordinary meaning of "in response to," read in the context of the specification, is "in fulfillment of" ..................................................40

"database" ..............................................................................................................41 1. 2. 3. The parties' proposed constructions ..........................................................41 Summary of dispute ...................................................................................41 The ordinary meaning of "database," read in the context of the specification, is broad ................................................................................42

"deducted from an account"...................................................................................43 1. 2. 3. The parties' proposed constructions ..........................................................43 Summary of dispute ...................................................................................43 The ordinary meaning of "deduct" is to "subtract" from a total; read in view of the specification, this requires a prepaid account .......................................................................................................43

"account record" ....................................................................................................44 "from a/the searcher" .............................................................................................45

CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................46

iv
317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 6 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cases

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F.3d 774 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 36 Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 6 Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, 314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................ 38 Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................ 36 Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc., 234 F.3d 14 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................ 9, 46 Athletic Alternatives, Inc v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................... 1 Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., Inc., 181 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................. 4 Bell Atlantic Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Comms. Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 9 Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., Inc., 318 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 8, 23 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................ 34 Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 7, 31 Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelectronics Int'l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................ 10 Cultor Corp. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 224 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................. 9 CVI/Beta Ventures v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................ 10 Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs. Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc) .................................................................................. 5 Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Indentix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................ 36

v
317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 7 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont'd)

Page(s)

Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................. 23 Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 296 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................ 38 Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enters., Inc., 302 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................ 6, 44 Hill-Rom Co. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 209 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................. 8 Hormone Res. Found., Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 904 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................ 35 In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................................................ 38 Innovad, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 260 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................ 10 Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 8 Kemode Mfg. Co. v. United States, 347 F.2d 315 (Ct. Cl. 1965) ...................................................................................................... 36 Kraft Foods, Inc. v. International Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................ 6, 35 Liebscher v. Boothroyd, 258 F.2d 948 (C.C.P.A. 1958) .................................................................................................... 7 Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................................................ 39 Markman v. Westview Instrs., Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) .......................................... 6 Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................. 38 Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 9 Morton Int'l v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................... 36 Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................ 7, 35 vi

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 8 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont'd)

Page(s)

North Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................... 34 O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. 9 Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 8 Personalized Media Comms., L.L.C. v. International Trade Comm'n, 161 F.3d 696 (1998).................................................................................................................. 36 Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................................ 7, 42 Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, 237 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................... 10, 38 Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................ 38 Renishaw PLC v. Marposs SpA, 158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................. 7, 8, 10, 31 SciMed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................ 8, 9, 33 Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................. 36 Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................. 36 Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................. 6, 17 Tandon Corp. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................ 35 Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc. 279 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................. 4, 35, 39 Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 6 Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................ 12 Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................... 1, 5, 6, 7 vii

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 9 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont'd)

Page(s)

Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................................... 38, 39 Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................ 12 United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. 4 Vas-Cath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................ 38 Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................... 4 Wang Labs., Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 197 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................... 9, 35, 39 Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................ 8, 9 Statutes 35 U.S.C. § 112................................................................................................................. 35, 37, 38 Regulations 37 C.F.R. § 1.104 .......................................................................................................................... 23 37 C.F.R. § 1.72 .............................................................................................................................. 8 65 F.R. 54604 (Sept. 8, 2000)....................................................................................................... 23

viii
317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 10 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

I.

INTRODUCTION1

Overture's Opening Brief demonstrates a slavish devotion to selected dictionary definitions, while ignoring the fact that such definitions are only one part of the claim construction inquiry. Overture overlooks the fact that well-established precedent ­ including Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the case it cites repeatedly ­ also requires that claims be construed in view of the patent specification and file history. Overture's failure to address the patent specification and file history leads to two fundamental problems. First, Overture frequently proposes that the Court simply replace each of the disputed words with synonyms found in dictionaries. These purported definitions may be accurate as far as they go, but they fail to shed any light on the crucial interpretive disputes that must be resolved in order for the court (or a jury) to address the ultimate issues of invalidity and non-infringement. Second, by ignoring its own description of the purported invention, Overture seeks to enlarge the scope of some of the patent's claim terms in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with the stated purpose of the invention. At the same time, Overture recognizes that the meaning of other claim terms is constrained by the invention that is described in the specification. Overture has thus failed to follow the "predictable claim construction analysis [that] is essential to the patent system." Athletic Alternatives, Inc v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the reasons expressed below, Google submits that principles of claim construction ­ We recognize that brevity is the soul of wit. This brief may not be witty, but we believe that it is as brief as it reasonably can be. Google notes that the Honorable Jeffrey S. White's Standing Order provides that briefs "in support of, or opposition to, any motion, with the exception of summary judgment motions, may not exceed fifteen pages." Standing Order ¶ 7. It is Google's understanding that claim construction proceedings, which are mandated by the Patent Local Rules and which are not based on the filing of any notice of motion or motion pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Civil Local Rule 7-2, are not "motions," and that the Court's page limits therefore do not apply. If the Court concludes that this brief is subject to a page limit, then Google respectfully requests leave to file this brief as an oversized brief. Google will, of course, file a shorter brief should the Court so direct, but respectfully submits that good cause exists for the filing of this brief in its present form. 1

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 11 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

construing the claim language in light of the ordinary meaning of the terms, read in light of the specification ­ support its constructions, and yield interpretations that are faithful to the purpose of the invention, as explained by the inventors themselves. II. A. Overview of the '361 Patent2 1. Search engines "prioritize results in accordance with consumers' preferences" BACKGROUND

The '361 patent claims a purportedly novel method of doing what search engines are supposed to do ­ "prioritize results in accordance with consumers' preferences." Patent at 2:6567.3 The results delivered by search engines are based on queries entered by searchers. Id. at 2:42-46. "[S]earch services . . . enable consumers to search the Internet for a listing of web sites based on a specific topic, product, or service of interest." Id. at 2:32-35. The raison d'ętre of a search engine is to "deliver relevant information . . . to interested parties." Id. at 3:43-44. 2. The problems the '361 inventors set out to solve: bad search results, and ineffective advertisements

According to the '361 inventors, pre-existing search engines were ill-equipped to achieve their goals for two reasons. First, these prior art search engines, which "rel[ied] in large part on complex, mathematics-based database search algorithms that select and rank web pages based on multiple criteria such as keyword density and keyword location," id. at 2:48-53, sometimes returned "random and even irrelevant" search results, id. at 2:55, and failed properly to prioritize Patent claims are written for the hypothetical person skilled in the relevant art. See, e.g., Generation II Orthotics Inc. v. Medical Tech. Inc., 263 F.3d 1356, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("the viewing glass through which the claims are construed is that of a person skilled in the art"). Based on the '361 specification's description of the claimed invention, a person skilled in the art is knowledgeable about Internet search services and Internet advertising. Because Overture's Opening Brief fails to propose a definition of a person skilled in the art, Google's definition is uncontested.
REDACTED
2

Citations herein to the "Patent" are citations to the '361 patent, a copy of which appears as Overture Markman Exh. 1. Citations to specific columns and lines in a patent are in the form ___:___, where the number before a colon indicates the column number, and the number or numbers after a colon indicate the line number or numbers. 2
GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

3

317500.01

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 12 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

search results according to the searcher's preferences, id. at 2:65-67. Second, traditional Internet advertising methods, such as "banner" advertisements, often generated little consumer interest. Id. at 3:16-33. Even banner advertisements that were targeted to search terms, id. at 3:28-30, often failed to deliver a good return on investment. Interest in such traditional advertisements was low, because "visitors to a web site seek specific information and may not be interested in the information announced in the banner." Id. at 3:36-38. In their patent, the '361 inventors propose a single solution to both these problems: "[W]eb site promoters should be able to control their placement in search result listings so that their listings are prominent in searches that are relevant to the content of their web site." Id. at 3:51-54. According to the inventors, this would make search results more relevant, because advertisers would "have an incentive to select and bid on those search keyword that are most relevant to their web site offerings." Id. at 4:1-2. Moreover, by allowing advertisers to place their advertisements in the search results themselves, advertisers would be provided with a "costeffective way to target consumers." Id. at 3:58. 3. The basics of the "pay for performance" model described in the '361 specification: you get for what you pay for

The '361 abstract succinctly describes the inventors' claimed invention. Advertisers submit "search listings" having a description, at least one search term, and a bid amount. See id., Abstract. Advertisers bid on search terms "through a continuous online competitive bidding process." Id. The inventors later describe this process as a "pay-for-performance" process that "applies market principles to advertising on the Internet." Id. at 5:1-5. "A higher bid . . . will result in a higher rank value and a more advantageous placement." Id. The described invention thus embodies an old adage: you get what you pay for. Overture's inventors do not claim to have invented any of the elements that make up their purported invention. The idea of keyword-triggered advertisements was well-known, and the inventors concede that others had done it before. Id. at 3:28-30. Selling placement in search engine results had also been tried before, by a company called Open Text. Declaration of

3
317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 13 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Michael S. Kwun ("Kwun Decl."), Exh. 1 at OVG 1371 (of record)4 (1996 article noting that "Open Text Index search engine recently began selling Web site `preferred' status in its index"). The pricing model chosen by the inventors ­ cost-per-click rather than per-impression pricing, see, e.g., Patent at 5:22-27 ­ was also someone else's idea; Proctor & Gamble had bargained for cost-per-click advertisements on Yahoo! as early as 1996. See Kwun Decl., Exh. 2 at OVG 1216 (of record). Finally, the notion of selling advertisement placements through an auction had also been tried by others. See Kwun Decl., Exh. 3 at OVG 1124 (of record) (citing articles from 1997 that described advertising auctions). At best, the '361 patent represents a narrow improvement in a crowded field. See Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., Inc., 181 F.3d 1291, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("non-pioneers . . . must craft narrow claims to evade the strictures of a crowded art field"). B. Overview of Google AdWords Select Claims should be construed objectively; the meaning of a claim term does not depend on the method or device accused of infringement. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). However, because claim construction is for "resolution of disputed meanings," see id. (quoting United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), some familiarity with the defendant's method or device may be useful in order to allow the court better to understand the areas of dispute. Id. Google has long offered a "traditional" search engine that ranks search results on the basis of their relevance using a complex "PageRank" algorithm.5 In February 2002, Google introduced a new service, AdWords Select ("AWS"), see <http://www.searchenginewatch.com/ searchday/article.php/2159301>,6 which Overture accuses of infringing the '361 patent.
4

24 25 26 27 28

Articles cited during the prosecution of a patent application are intrinsic evidence. Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1372 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In this brief, Google will include "of record" parenthetical references when citing articles that were cited during prosecution. The first four pages of the '361 patent list articles and patents that were cited during prosecution. 5 See <http://www.google.com/technology/index.html> (describing PageRank). 6 SearchEngineWatch.com is a site that is well known as a source of independent analysis in the Internet search industry. 4

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 14 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

"AdWords advertisements appear on search result pages when a query matches the keywords purchased by advertisers. The advertisements appear to the right of search results, in small boxes labeled `sponsored links.'" Id. AWS advertisements are priced using a cost-per-click model. Id. "However, unlike other programs where the highest bidder takes the top placement, Google measures clickthrough rates, or popularity, to help determine the position of an ad." Id. "In essence, this means that if one ad is twice as effective as another ad, Google will rank the first ad as if its maximum costper-click were double what the advertiser actually set . . . ." Id. AWS also incorporates a feature called the "AdWords Discounter." Id. The AdWords Discounter "monitors all bids placed for keywords, constantly on the lookout for changes. If a competitor's bid drops on a keyword, the discounter automatically lowers your bid . . . ." Id. III. A. LEGAL STANDARD

Claim Interpretation Begins With a Review of the Intrinsic Evidence: The Language of the Claims, the Patent Specification, and the File History The interpretation of patent claims is a question of law to be decided by the Court. Cybor

Corp. v. FAS Techs. Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454-56 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Overture repeatedly cites Texas Digital in support of its assertion that claim terms ought to be construed based on their dictionary definitions. But Texas Digital cautions that one must consult the intrinsic evidence: By examining relevant dictionaries, encyclopedias, and treatises to ascertain possible meanings that would have been attributed to the words of the claims by those skilled in the art, and by further utilizing the intrinsic record to select from those possible meanings the one or ones most consistent with the use of the words by the inventor, the full breadth of the limitations intended by the inventor will be more accurately determined and the improper importation of unintended limitations from the written description into the claims will be more easily avoided. Id. at 1205 (emphasis added). Thus Texas Digital makes clear that dictionary definitions of claim terms, alone, are insufficient. The Texas Digital approach is consistent with numerous decisions of the Federal Circuit, both before and after Texas Digital, that make clear that the process of interpreting claims is more sophisticated than Overture suggests. In construing the claims of a patent, courts first consider three sources: the language of 5

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 15 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the claims, the patent specification and the prosecution history. Markman v. Westview Instrs., Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Collectively, the claims, specification, and prosecution history, which are the intrinsic evidence, are "the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language." Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "We begin our claim construction analysis, as always, with the words of the claim." Id. at 1324. Words in the claim are given their ordinary meaning unless the patentee gives special meaning to them in the specification or prosecution history. Kraft Foods, Inc. v. International Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Dictionaries and treatises are often helpful sources in determining the ordinary meaning of claim language. Texas Digital, 308 F.3d at 1203. "The specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication." Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enters., Inc., 302 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition, the prosecution history "is often of critical significance in determining the meaning of the claims." Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted). If the intrinsic evidence fails to resolve all ambiguities about the meaning of the claim language, the Court may rely upon extrinsic evidence. Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 832 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Extrinsic evidence may be used to educate the Court about the technology or to provide definitions of terms of art, but may not be used to contradict the terms of the claims. Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. B. Dictionary Definitions, Although Often Useful, Are Never Alone Determinative Dictionaries and treatises "are always available to the court to aid in the task of determining meanings that would have been attributed by those of skill in the relevant art to any disputed terms used by the inventor in the claims." Texas Digital, 308 F.3d at 1208. Consulting dictionaries and treatises is particularly helpful "to ensure that [the Court's] understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is not entirely at variance with the understanding of one skilled in 6

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 16 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the art." Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). However, as the Federal Circuit cautioned as recently as June of this year, "precedent referencing the use of dictionaries should not be read to suggest that abstract dictionary definitions are alone determinative." Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003). To the contrary, "a common meaning, such as one expressed in a relevant dictionary, that flies in the face of the patent disclosure is undeserving of fealty." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs SpA, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). "While dictionaries and treatises are useful resources in determining the ordinary and customary meaning or meanings of disputed claim terms, the correct meaning of a word or phrase is informed only by considering the surrounding text." Brookhill Wilk 1, 334 F.3d at 1300. Dictionary definitions must be applied with care. "Courts must exercise caution lest dictionary definitions . . . be converted into technical terms of art having legal, not linguistic, significance." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1250 ("Indiscriminate reliance on definitions found in dictionaries can often produce absurd results.") (quoting Liebscher v. Boothroyd, 258 F.2d 948, 951 (C.C.P.A. 1958)). The Court should reject dictionary definitions that "hav[e] no relation to the claimed invention." Texas Digital, 308 F.3d at 1203. Instead, the Court should look for the definition that is "is most consistent with the use of the words by the inventor." Id. Only if there are multiple definitions that are "most consistent" with the usage in the specification should the claims be construed to encompass all of those meanings. See id.; see also id. at 1205 (claim construction requires selecting from among the ordinary meanings for the claim terms "the one or ones most consistent with the use of the words by the inventor" (emphasis added)). Regardless of the dictionary definitions proffered by the parties, "if the inventor has disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage, by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction," the inventor's description of his invention will control. Id. Even where there is no expression of "manifest" exclusion, if the specification "uses the words in a manner clearly inconsistent with . . . a dictionary definition," that definition should be rejected. Id. Thus, "the 7

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 17 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction." Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1250. C. The Specification Is Crucial to Defining the Meaning of a Disputed Term "Claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification "is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Guttman, 302 F.3d at 1360 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court must "look to the specification to ascertain the meaning of the claim term as it is used by the inventor in the context of the entirety of his invention." Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An inventor's description of his or her invention in the patent's abstract is particularly relevant to determine the invention's scope. See Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (relying on "[b]oth the abstract and the preferred embodiment" to construe claim language). The Federal Circuit has "frequently looked to the abstract to determine the scope of the invention." Hill-Rom Co. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 209 F.3d 1337, 1341 n.* (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., Inc., 318 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (interpreting claims in light of the abstract).7 The Court should examine the specification "to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the claims." Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2000). For example, where the specification describes a feature as being part of the "present invention," that is "strong evidence" that the scope does not extend to features contrary to the one described. SciMed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As the Federal Circuit has explained: Where the specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in Patent Examiners are not allowed to use the abstract to interpret claims, 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(b), but that is "a rule of the Patent and Trademark Office that governs the conduct of patent examiners in examining patent applications; it does not address the process by which courts construe claims in infringement actions." Hill-Rom, 209 F.3d at 1341 n.*. 8
GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)
7

27 28

317500.01

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 18 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

question. Id. at 1341. In Watts, the court interpreted the term "sealingly connected" to mean sealingly connecting using a varying taper angle, based on the specification's description of the invention as using that feature. 232 F.3d at 883. Similarly, although the parties in Wang Labs., Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 197 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999), agreed that the claim term "frame" could, considered in isolation, apply both to bit-mapped and character-based display systems, because only the latter type of system was both described and enabled by the specification, the court concluded that bit-mapped systems were outside the scope of the patent. Id. at 1164. And in SciMed, the court construed claim language requiring an "inflation lumen" separate from a "guide wire lumen" to mean coaxial lumens (one in which the inflation lumen surrounds the guide wire lumen) and not to mean side-by-side lumens, because the repeated descriptions in the specification of coaxial lumens "[r]ead together . . . lead to the inescapable conclusion" that the claim language, though otherwise subject to a broader reading, had to be construed narrowly. 242 F.3d at 1342.8 Claims "must be interpreted in light of the teachings of the written description and purpose of the invention described therein." Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc., 234 F.3d 14, 25 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (relying on description "in great detail" in the specification in construing the claim term "help access window"). Courts also may properly reject proposed constructions that encompass subject matter outside the stated purpose of the invention. See also Cultor Corp. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 224 F.3d 1328, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (explicit description in the specification requiring the use of a citric acid catalyst was a disclaimer of methods using other acid catalysts); O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (district court properly construed claim term "passage" to mean the specific type of passage disclosed in a preferred embodiment); Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (limitation of "including" a restriction ring mean permanent attachment of a restriction ring, where the specification described a unitary structure as being important to the invention); Bell Atlantic Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Comms. Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1271-73 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (construing "mode" narrowly, where the specification consistently implied a narrow meaning for that term). Describing an embodiment as a "preferred" embodiment does not necessarily change this principle. Where an embodiment is described as the invention itself, the scope of the claims should be construed with reference to that description. Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 9
GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)
8

317500.01

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 19 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Innovad, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 260 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (excluding feature from scope of claim that contradicted stated purpose of invention); Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelectronics Int'l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rejecting construction that "would contradict the clear purpose of the invention"); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, 237 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (district court properly relied on the "fundamental purpose and significance" of the invention in construing claims); CVI/Beta Ventures v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d 1146, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (adopting construction that "is consistent with and furthers the purpose of the invention"). Reliance on the specification to clarify claim terms should not be confused with the prohibited practice of simply reading limitations from the specification into a claim. See Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1248. The claim construction inquiry is limited to defining words that actually appear in the claims; statements in the specification that do not relate to words that actually appear in a claim cannot be used to the limit the claim. See id. ("a party wishing to use statements in the written description to confine or otherwise affect a patent's scope must, at the very least, point to a term or terms in the claim with which to draw in those statements"). However, where the specification clarifies the meaning of a claim term, for example by providing a "patent disclosure of singular purpose," courts are entitled to rely upon the context provided by the specification to define the scope of the claims. Id. at 1251-53 (construing "when" narrowly in light of the specification).

REDACTED

10
317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 20 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 b. A.

IV.

ARGUMENT

"search listing" and "search result list" 1. The parties' proposed constructions a. "search listing" Overture's Proposed Construction a collection of information that includes at least one search term and that can be included in a search result list

Google's Proposed Construction an entry in (or intended to be in) a search result list "search result list"

Google's Proposed Construction the series of entries, selected from the database being searched by a searcher, arranged one after the other, containing the information responsive to the searcher's search 2. Summary of dispute

Overture's Proposed Construction a set of search listings that is obtained by calculation

Google has defined a search listing as an entry that is or is intended to be in a search result list, and a "search result list" as a series of such entries arranged one after the other (i.e. a "list"). Overture's definitions are both artificially narrower (requiring that search listings include at least one search term), and potentially broader than the scope of the invention disclosed (search listings in a search result list merely must be a "set" of search listings that is "obtained by calculation"). The parties also dispute whether the search result list must be responsive to the searcher's inquiry. Google contends that the search result list must be in fulfillment of the consumer's request for information, whereas Overture's proposed construction includes no analogous limitation. This dispute is relevant to infringement because Google contends that the list generated by AWS is not in response to the search request. Instead, a searcher using Google's site requests and receives a list generated by a Google "web search" server ­ that is, search listings from Google's neutral and unpaid database of web sites, ordered using Google's PageRank algorithm. The searcher also receives a list of advertisements displayed next to the 11
GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

317500.01

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 21 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PageRank results, which is not the information that the searcher has requested. Thus, if the Court adopts Google's construction, the list generated by AWS will not be a "search result list" as claimed by the '361 patent.9 3. A "search listing" is an entry in (or intended to be in) a search result list a. The definition of "search listing" should not include the phrase "search term"

In their brief summary of their purported invention, the inventors describe three distinct aspects of the invention, which "enable a web site promoter to [1] define a search listing for a search result list, [2] select a search term relevant to the promoter's web site, and [3] influence a search result position for the search listing on an Internet search engine." Patent at 4:55-60. Those three aspects correspond to (1) the search listing; (2) the search term; and (3) the bid amount. Overture's proposed definition for "search listing," however, already includes a search term. If Overture's definition were correct, the act of defining a search listing would necessarily include choosing a search term, and thus there would be no need further to state that the web site promoter "select[s] a search term." Id. at 4:58. If every "search listing" by definition includes at least one search term, then there would be no need expressly to require that the search listings recited in the claims must be associated with at least one search term, see, e.g., id. at 22:64-67 (claim 1), because that requirement would already be implicit in the requirement of a search listing. See Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rejecting claim construction that would render other express claim language mere surplusage); Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (claims should generally be interpreted to render all the limitations in the claim meaningful). Overture's Opening Brief emphasizes another point: the fact that search listings exist independent of whether they are included in a search result list. See, e.g., Opening Brf. at 8:9-11 (arguing that a search listing "exists on its own, regardless of whether it has been aggregated with other listings"). This, however, is not disputed. Indeed, during the meet-and-confer process that led to the filing of the joint claim construction statement, and after reading Overture's preliminary construction, Google amended its construction to include the parenthetical phrase "or intended to be in" in recognition of the fact that a search listing is a listing even before it is included in a search result ­ and, indeed, even if it is never included in a search result list. 12
9

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 22 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Overture's approach also suffers from a lack of internal consistency. Every claim also requires that each search listing be associated with, include, or have a bid amount. Overture's definition arbitrarily incorporates some extraneous claim language (search term) but not other such language (bid amount). Overture offers no reason to incorporate one limitation, but not the other, into its definition of a search listing. Finally, Overture's approach is inconsistent with the specification, which describes prior art search systems in which the listings were not necessarily tied to search terms. See Patent at 2:42-67. In these prior art systems, "search algorithms select and rank web pages based on multiple criteria such as keyword density and keyword location." Id. at 2:48-53. In fact, the specification makes clear that unpaid listings, which will not include bid amount-search term pairings, can be included in a search result list. Id. at 10:27-35. b. Google's construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the claim language, read in light of the specification

Google simply defines a "search listing" as an entry in a search result list (or, because listings exist prior to actually being in search results, an entry that is intended to be in a search result list). Coupled with Google's definition of "search result list," discussed below, this definition is consistent with both the ordinary meaning of the claim language and the specification. 4. Google's construction of "search result list" is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the claim terms, as used in the specification

The Court should begin by considering the ordinary meaning of the claim terms, read in light of the specification. Because a "search result list" is a list of search results, Google will begin by addressing the word "list." a. A "list" is a series of entries, arranged one after the other

A "list" is, as Google proposes, an ordered series of entries, and not merely a "collection of information" or a "set" of search listings. Google's definition is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the word "list." American Heritage defines a "list" as "a series of names, words, or other items written, printed, or imagined one after the other[.]" Kwun Decl., Exh. 4 at 1021. The New Oxford Dictionary of English similarly defines a list as "a number of connected items 13

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 23 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

or names written or printed consecutively, typically one below the other[.]" Kwun Decl., Exh. 5 at 1076. The word "set" does not imply any sort of order, while "list" does. Google's definition is also consistent with the language of the claims, each of which indicates that a "list" is what one gets after placing search listings in an order. Patent at 23:1112 (claim 1, "ordering the identified search listings into a search result list"); id. at 24:1 (claim 11, same); id. at 24:27-28 (claim 13, same); id. at 25:33-35 (claim 14, "the search result list arranged in an order determined using the bid amounts"); id. at 27:2-3 (claim 30, "the search result list arranged in an order corresponding to the bid amounts"); id. at 28:50-51 (claim 52, same). The context supplied by the patent specification also supports Google's definition. The specification consistently uses the term "search result list" to refer to an ordered set of search listings. The first mention of a "search result list" appears in the '361 abstract, which states that the invention relates to a system and method allowing one to "influence a position for a search listing within search result list." Patent, Abstract. The abstract goes on to explain that position is determined by "rank," which is in turn determined by the "bid amounts" of the search listings. Id. In the background section, the inventors note that "[t]he higher an advertiser's position on a search result list, the higher likelihood of a `referral'." Id. at 4:3-4. Simply put, the disclosed purpose of the invention ­ allowing advertisers "to pinpoint the placement of their web site description within the search results," id. at 5:11-12 ­ cannot be achieved unless a "search result list" is an ordered series of entries. If a list is merely a "set," none of this makes sense. b. A "search result" is something obtained in response to a search submitted by a consumer using an Internet search engine (i) Overture's definition does not provide a meaningful definition of "result," and does not provide any definition of "search"

Overture's definition of "search result" ­ "search listings . . . obtained by calculation" ­ is simply unhelpful. Overture asserts that "[t]he parties generally agree that a search result list includes a collection of information that is obtained or selected as the result of some type of action, such as a search and/or a calculation." Opening Brf. at 9:21-22 (emphases added). Google agrees that a "search result" should be the result of a search, but Overture's attempt to 14

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 24 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

equate "search" with "calculation" is inapposite. Indeed, Overture's inclusion of the phrase "obtained by calculation" derives from a dictionary definition for the word "result." See Overture Markman Exh. 6 (Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth ed. 1995); MerriamWebster Unabridged (Online ed. 2003)). Replacing "search" with "calculation" is tantamount to defining "search result" as the "result of a result," which is circular. Coupled with Overture's failure to explain what it means by "calculation," this renders Overture's definition unsatisfactory. Moreover, even Overture's reference to "search listing" fails to give meaning to the word "search," because, as noted above, Overture's attempt to include "search term" in its definition of "search listing" is improper. And without "search term," Overture's definitions for both "search listing" and "search result" lack any reference to the concept of "search." Given that the '361 patent claims a system and method that relates to search result lists generated by search engines, see, e.g., Patent, Title, any proper definition of these claim terms must be firmly rooted in the notion of a "search." Overture's attempts to dodge this central concept are unexplained in its Opening Brief, but it may be that Overture is hoping to argue that Google's PageRank search results ­ the main attraction at Google's web site ­ are not "search results" or "search listings" at all. In proving infringement, Overture would then focus exclusively on AWS's advertisements at the side of the page ­ thus avoiding thorny questions regarding which list in the Google system is the list of "search results." Because most jurors will instantly associate the word "search" with Google's PageRank search listings, rather than with AWS advertisements, Overture wants to downplay the significance of the term "search." The specification, however, describes an invention that is emphatically concerned with searches, and any definition of claim terms that include the word "search" should reflect that reality. (ii) Google's definition is consistent with the intrinsic evidence

The term "search result" is best understood as a term of art. The title of the patent refers to a "search result list" generated by a "search engine." See Patent, Title. Internet search engines address a problem that, although not entirely unique, is particularly prevalent on the 15

317500.01

GOOGLE'S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 90

Filed 08/22/2003

Page 25 of 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

World Wide Web, which "is composed of a seemingly limitless number of web pages dispersed across millions of different computer systems all over the world in no discernable organization." Id. at 2:26-29. Internet search engines represent one solution ­ well-known at the time the '361 patent application was filed ­ allowing Internet users to find information they are looking for. Id. at 2:29-32. At the time the '361 patent application was filed, search services were already second only to electronic mail among Internet tools. Id. at 2:36-41. When a person skilled in the art reads the '361 patent application, he or she will understand "search" to refer to Internet search services. A "search result," then, is the result of an Internet search ­ which is designed, as best as possible, to "prioritize results in accordance with consumers' preferences." Id. at 2:65-67. When using the describ