Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 532

REPLY to Response to Motion re 415 Emergency MOTION to Strike Portions of Defendants' Invalidity Expert's Report and Defendants' Summary Judgment Briefing and Request for Expedited Briefing filed by Bright Response LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Andrew D. Weiss, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Weiss, Andrew)

Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 532 Att. 2

EXHIBIT A

Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC F/K/A POLARIS IP, LLC v. GOOGLE INC., et al. NO. 2:07CV-371-TJW-CE

REPORT OF DEFENDANTS' EXPERT L. KARL BRANTING, PH.D, J.D. CONCERNING INVALIDITY OF CLAIMS 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, AND 38 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,411,947

BRANTING EXPERT REPORT ON INVALIDITY

CASE 2:07-cv-371

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. II. III. IV. A. B. C. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 1 LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................................................... 3 OVERVIEW OF THE '947 PATENT ................................................................................................................ 6 THE '947 PATENT GENERALLY ............................................................................................................................... . 7 THE '947 PATENT CLAIMS ............................................................................................................................... .... 0 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE METHODS AND SYSTEM CLAIMED BY THE '947 PATENT .......................................................... 2 1 1. A method for automatically processing a noninteractive electronic message using a computer (Claim 26[preamble]). ............................................................................................................................... .................... 2 1 2. Receiving the electronic message from a source (Claim 26[a]). ............................................................... 2 1 3. Interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine (Claim 26[b]). .. 3 1 4. Retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source (Claim 26[c]). ................................................ 3 1 5. Ordering ............................................................................................................................... ..................... 3 1 6. Dependent Claims ............................................................................................................................... ...... 3 1 THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART .......................................................................................... 5 1 A. B. THE PRIOR ART GENERALLY ............................................................................................................................... ... 5 1 EXEMPLARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 0 2 1. Allen ............................................................................................................................... ........................... 0 2 2. CBRExpress ............................................................................................................................... ............... 5 2 3. Nguyen .............................................................................................................................. ....................... 7 . 2 4. EZ Reader ............................................................................................................................... ................... 2 3 5. GREBE ............................................................................................................................... ........................ 1 4 6. Goodman ............................................................................................................................... ................... 4 4 7. Watson ............................................................................................................................... ...................... 8 4 THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE '947 PATENT ARE INVALID AS ANTICIPATED .............................................. 2 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

V.

VI. A.

ALLEN ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 26, 28, 30, 31, AND 38. ............................................................................................... 2 5 Allen anticipates Claim 26. ....................................................................................................................... 3 5 Allen anticipates Claim 28. ....................................................................................................................... 6 5 Allen anticipates Claim 30. ....................................................................................................................... 7 5 Allen anticipates Claim 31. ....................................................................................................................... 8 5 Allen anticipates Claim 38. ....................................................................................................................... 9 5 B. THE CBR EXPRESS MANUALS ANTICIPATE AND RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 26, 28, 30, 31, AND 33. ................................. 0 6 1. The CBR Express Manuals anticipate and render obvious claim 26. ........................................................ 1 . 6 2. The CBR Express Manuals anticipate and render obvious claim 28. ........................................................ 3 . 6 3. The CBR Express Manuals anticipate and render obvious claim 30. ........................................................ 4 . 6 4. The CBR Express Manuals anticipate and render obvious claim 31. ........................................................ 6 . 6 5. The CBR Express Manuals anticipate and render obvious claim 33. ........................................................ 7 . 6 C. NGUYEN ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 26 AND 28. .............................................................................................................. 7 6 1. Nguyen anticipates Claim 26. ................................................................................................................... 7 6 2. Nguyen anticipates Claim 28. ................................................................................................................... 2 7 D. EZ READER ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, AND 38. .................................................................................. 3 7 1. EZ Reader anticipates claim 26. ................................................................................................................ 6 7 2. EZ Reader anticipates claim 28. ................................................................................................................ 8 7 3. EZ Reader anticipates claim 30. ................................................................................................................ 8 7 4. EZ Reader anticipates claim 31. ................................................................................................................ 0 8 5. EZ Reader anticipates claim 33. ................................................................................................................ 0 8 6. EZ Reader anticipates claim 38. ................................................................................................................ 0 8

BRANTING EXPERT REPORT ON INVALIDITY

CASE 2:07-cv-371

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

research in Case-Based Reasoning at the University of Kaiserslautern, September 1998-June 1999. 14. I have reviewed extensive materials relating to this case including the asserted

patent, the patent history, claim construction briefs and order, and numerous technical papers and articles discussing the scope and content of the prior art in the timeframe relevant for the asserted patent. In all cases, I have applied the claim constructions propounded by the Court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 18, 2010 or constructions agreed by the parties for terms not expressly construed by the Court. The materials relied upon are listed in Exhibit 1. 15. In this report, where I have cited a reference as prior art, either the reference

predates the filing date of the Patent or I have been informed by counsel for Defendants that Defendants will be able to prove at trial that the reference is prior art as to the Patent. 16. I may present my opinions in the form of a tutorial or otherwise and reserve the

right to respond to any evidence Plaintiff Bright Response, LLC ("Bright Response") may present concerning the subject matter of this report. 17. It may be necessary for me to supplement this report based on material that

subsequently comes to light in this case, and I reserve the right to do so. I may be asked to present demonstrative evidence at trial, and I reserve the right to do so. 18. It may be necessary for me to revise or supplement this report, or submit a

supplemental or responsive report, based on any supplemental or responsive report of Bright Response, and I reserve the right to do so. III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES 19. As an expert assisting the Court in determining invalidity, I am obliged to follow

existing law. I have therefore been asked to apply the following legal principles to my analysis, and I have done so: 3
BRANTING EXPERT REPORT ON INVALIDITY CASE 2:07-cv-371