Xerox Corporation v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 186

Letter to The Honorable Leonard P. Stark from John G. Day regarding Xerox's May 19, 2011 Markman Hearing slides. (Attachments: # 1 Markman Hearing Slides)(Day, John)

Xerox Corp. v. Google, Inc.
Case No. 10-136-LPS

Claim Construction
Hearing for
U.S. Patent 6,778,979
May 19, 2011
Slide 1

“selected document content”

Slide 2

“selected document content”
Parties’ Constructions
Xerox

Defendants

“all or part of the
content of a document
in electronic form”

Indefinite

Slide 3

“selected document content”
Law on Indefiniteness
“A claim will be found indefinite only if it ‘is insolubly
ambiguous, and no narrowing construction can
properly be adopted . . . .’”
Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
Leader Techs., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 692 F.Supp.2d 425, 436
(D. Del. 2010).

Slide 4

“selected document content”
“Selected document content” is the input to the claimed
method (i.e., the document content in which entities are
identified and that is categorized).
selected
document
content

Slide 5

“selected document content”

“Applicant’s claims recite
automatically generating a query
from selected document content,
from which both a set of entities
and a classification label are
automatically identified and
assigned, respectively.”
9/8/2003 Applicant’s
Amendment at 10;
emphasis in original.

Slide 6

“selected document content”

“all or part of the content of a
document in electronic form”
“In operation as shown in FIG. 38,
the document content 3612 or
alternatively limited context (i.e.,
words, sentences, or paragraphs)
surrounding the entity 3808 is
analyzed by categorizer 3610 to
produce a set of categories 3620.”
979/48:52-55; emphasis added

Slide 7

“categorizing the selected document
content . . .”

Slide 8

“categorizing the selected document
content . . .”
Parties’ Constructions
Xerox

Defendants

“determining the subject matter
“using the organized
of the selected document
classification of document
content using one or more of
content to categorize the
the categories defining the
selected document content and
organized classification of
to assign to the selected
document content and
document content a single
assigning the corresponding
classification label.”
classification label(s) to the
selected document content.”
Slide 9

“categorizing the selected document
content . . .”
The “crux of the . . . dispute”
according to Defendants
“The crux of the parties’ dispute is whether, as
Defendants contend, a single classification label
is assigned in the ‘categorizing’ step and used to
identify ‘the’ single category used to restrict a
search in the ‘formulating’ step, or whether, as
Xerox contends, more than one classification
label may be assigned in the ‘categorizing’ step
and employed in the ‘formulating’ step.”
Defendants’ Opening Br. at 11.
Slide 10

“categorizing the selected document
content . . .”
Law on “a” meaning “one or more”
“That ‘a’ or ‘an’ can mean ‘one or more’ is best
described as a rule, rather than merely as a
presumption or even a convention. The
exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a
patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or
‘an’ to ‘one’.”
Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342-43
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted).

Slide 11

“categorizing the selected document
content . . .”
Use of one or more labels + categories
(1) “a” means “one or more”
(2) one or more labels
correspond to one or
more categories of
information in IRS
(3) “the” refers back to one
or more labels /
categories
(4) search is restricted to
one or more categories
of information in IRS
(identified by one or
more labels)
Slide 12

“categorizing the selected document
content . . .”
The ’979 Patent teaches the use
of one or more labels.
“Document classification labels
define the set of categories 3620
output by the categorizer 3610.
These classification labels in one
embodiment are appended to the
query 3812 by query generator
3810 to restrict the scope of the
query (i.e., the entity 3808 and the
context vector 3822) to folders
corresponding to classification
(979/48:52-55)
labels in a document collection of
an information retrieval system.”
979/49:31-37; emphasis added
Slide 13

“classification label”

Slide 14

“classification label”
Parties’ Constructions
Xerox

Defendants

“a label in any format that
identifies a category
in the organized
classification of
document content.”

“classifying word or
phrase”

Slide 15

“classification label”
Example of Defendants’ General
Dictionary Definitions
...

Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary, Unabridged (2002)
Slide 16

“classification label”
Law on Use of General Dictionaries
“By design, general dictionaries collect the
definitions of a term as used not only in a
particular art field, but in many different settings. .
. . For that reason, we have stated that a generalusage dictionary cannot overcome art-specific
evidence of the meaning of a claim term.”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Slide 17

“classification label”
Examples of Art-Specific Dictionaries
“[a]n identifier within or attached to a set of
data elements.”
IBM Dictionary of Computing (1994).

“[a] data item that serves to identify a data record
(much in the same way as a key is used) . . . .”
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Computing & Communications (2003)

Slide 18

“query”

Slide 19

“query”
Parties’ Constructions
Xerox

Defendants

“a set of data specifying
search criteria”

“request for search
results”

Slide 20

“query”

Slide 21

“query”
A “query” in the ’979 Patent is
defined by its contents
“The query generated may include
some or all of the following
elements…: (a) a set of entities
3808…, (b) a set of categories
3620 generated by the categorizer
3610…, (c) an aspect vector 3822
generated by categorizer 3610 or
short run aspect vector generator
3820, and (d) a category
vocabulary 3621 generated by the
(979/48:52-55)
categorizer 3610”
979/48:41-51
Slide 22

“to restrict . . . label”

Slide 23

“to restrict . . . label”
Parties’ Constructions
Xerox

Defendants

“the set of data specifying
search criteria includes data
items corresponding to one or
more entities identified in the
‘automatically identifying’ step
and one or more classification
labels assigned in the
‘automatically categorizing’
step.”

“to confine a search at the
information retrieval system to
the category of information
identified by the assigned
classification label, where the
search seeks information
concerning the set of entities.”

Slide 24

“to restrict . . . label”

Slide 25

“to restrict . . . label”
The specification portion Defendants cite confirms
that Xerox’s construction is correct, despite Defendants’
misleading underlining.
“The specification explains that ‘the search is
focused on documents found in the single node
of the document hierarchy genetics, at 3910’.”
Defs.’ Br. at 8 (quoting 979/50:10-11);
emphasis in original.

Slide 26

Order of Steps (Claims 1, 18)
Parties’ Constructions (Claims 1, 18)
Xerox

Defendants

Step (a) must be performed
before steps (c) and (d).

Step (a) must be performed
before steps (c) and (d).

Step (b) must be performed
before the completion of step (d).

Step (b) must be performed
before step (d).

Step (c) must be performed
before the completion of step (d).

Step (c) must be performed
before step (d).

Slide 27

Order of Steps (Claims 1, 18)
Law on order of steps
“[A]s a general rule the claim is not limited to
performance of the steps in the order
recited, unless the claim explicitly or implicitly
requires a specific order.”
Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added).

Slide 28

Order of Steps (Claims 1, 18)
Law on order of steps
“First, we look to the claim language to determine
if, as a matter of logic or grammar, they must be
performed in the order written. . . . If not, we next
look to the rest of the specification to determine
whether it directly or implicitly requires such a
narrow construction. If not, the sequence in
which such steps are written is not a
requirement.”
Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369-70
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
Slide 29

Order of Steps (Claims 1, 18)
“The computer system may be
implemented by any one of a
plurality of configurations. For
example, processor may in
alternative embodiments, be defined
by a collection of microprocessors
configured for multiprocessing. In
yet other embodiments, the
functions provided by software
components may be distributed
across multiple computing devices
(such as computers and peripheral
devices) acting together as a single
processing unit.”

979/75:15-22
Slide 30

Order of Steps (Claims 1 & 2; 18 & 19)
Parties’ Constructions (Claims 1 & 2)
Xerox

Defendants

The step of Claim 2 The steps of claim 1
must be performed must be performed
during or after the before the step of 2.
completion of step
(d) of Claim 1.

Slide 31

Order of Steps (Claims 1 & 2; 18 & 19)
“Entities” (Claim 1) and “terms” (Claim 2)
can be present in the formulated query before
“categories” (Claim 1).
“Document classification labels define the set of
categories 3620 output by the categorizer 3610.
These classification labels in one embodiment are
appended to the query 3812 by query generator
3810 to restrict the scope of the query (i.e., the
entity 3808 and the context vector 3822)”
979/49:31-35; emphasis added.

Slide 32

The Parties’ Production History
Docs

336,217
(83,779)

300,000

252,438

283,179

(100,228)

182,951

200,000

100,000

Yahoo
Google
Xerox

38,410
40,019
(1,609)

25,000

Aug

Sept Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May
Slide 33

The Parties’ Deposition History
Apr. 25/May 10: Xerox requests
follow-up to Google 30(b)(6)

Yesterday, Google offered
June 14 for this deposition

?

5-7 wks
Apr. 23: Defs request
Chuat/Fernstrom depositions

June 29/July 1: Xerox’s
proposed deposition dates

9 wks +
Feb. 7: Xerox requests
30(b)(6) depositions of Yahoo

May 3-6: Yahoo 30(b)(6)
depositions occur
12 wks +

Feb. 1: Xerox requests
30(b)(6) deposition of Google

Apr. 7: Google 30(b)(6)
deposition occurs

9 wks +
Jan. 28: Defs request
depositions of inventors / Zell

Mar. 30, Apr. 1 & 7: Inventor
/ Zell depositions occur

9 wks +

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June
Slide 34