Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 484

***DEFICIENT DOCUMENT, PLEASE IGNORE.***MOTION to Strike or Exclude Expert Testimony From Dr. L. Karl Branting Regarding Written Description Under Daubert and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence by Bright Response LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Wiley Decl, # 2 Exhibit A)(Wiley, Elizabeth) Modified on 7/27/2010 (sm, ).

Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 484 Att. 2

EXHIBIT A

Dockets.Justia.com

E. VII. A. B.

GREBE ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 26. .......................................................................................................................... 1 8 THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE '947 PATENT ARE OBVIOUS .................................................................. 3 8

THE `947 PATENT IS A COMBINATION OF PRIOR ART ELEMENTS. ................................................................................ 5 8 THE COMBINATIONS IN THE `947 PATENT CLAIMS ARE PREDICTABLE AND DO NOT YIELD ANY UNPREDICTABLE RESULTS. ..... 6 9 1. The Combinations In the `947 Patent Are Predictable .............................................................................. 6 9 2. The Combinations In the `947 Patent Do Not Yield Unpredictable Results ............................................. 01 1 C. ONE SKILLED IN THE ART WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO PURSUE THE CLAIMED COMBINATIONS THROUGH MARKET FORCES AND TRENDS ............................................................................................................................... .................. 02 1 VIII. THE GRAHAM FACTORS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE `450 PATENT CLAIMS WHICH MERELY COMBINE KNOWN ELEMENTS ARE OBVIOUS ................................................................................................................... 104 A. B. C. D. THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART ........................................................................................................ 04 1 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRIOR ART AND THE CLAIMS AT ISSUE ............................................................................ 05 1 LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART ................................................................................................... 07 1 THE SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS SET FORTH IN GRAHAM DO NOT ALTER THE CONCLUSION OF OBVIOUSNESS ................ 08 1

IX. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE READ TO COVER GRADIENT DESCENT ALGORITHMS AND LOGISTIC REGRESSION, THEY ARE OBVIOUS. ................................................................................................... 111 . X. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE READ TO COVER SEARCH QUERIES, THEY ARE INVALID FOR LACK OF ADEQUATE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION. ........................................................................................... 113 XI. XII. MATERIALITY OF OMITTED REFERENCES. ................................................................................................ 113 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 114

BRANTING EXPERT REPORT ON INVALIDITY

CASE 2:07-cv-371

patent. However, case-based reasoning is not related to, but is instead distinct from, logistic regression and gradient descent. X. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE READ TO COVER SEARCH QUERIES, THEY ARE INVALID FOR LACK OF ADEQUATE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION. 276. I have been informed by counsel that to meet the written description requirement,

an application must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail, that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the full scope of the claimed invention as of the filing date sought. I understand the question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. 277. I am of the opinion that at the time the `947 patent was filed, one of ordinary skill

in the art would not understand that the specification described in sufficient detail an invention to receive, interpret, and retrieve one or more responses to an Internet search query, an Internet user's click or a web page, which I understand is what Plaintiff contends meets the noninteractive electronic message limitation in the accused products. XI. MATERIALITY OF OMITTED REFERENCES. 278. As I demonstrate above,30 the EZ Reader product as described in Rice et al. 1996

and in the EZ Reader User's Guide invalidates all of the asserted claims of the `947 patent because it was in public use in the United States more than one year prior to the date of the patent application. 279. The EZ Reader product is not cumulative of the references that were before the

examiner. Rice et al. 1996 discloses the use of a rule base and a case base for electronic message interpretation, which is an element of the '947 patent claim 26. I have examined each of the

30

see supra, section VI.D. 113
CASE 2:07-cv-371

BRANTING EXPERT REPORT ON INVALIDITY