Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 218

MOTION to Strike 198 Opposed MOTION Granting Defendants Leave to Amend and Supplement Invalidity Contentions by Software Rights Archive, LLC. Responses due by 2/2/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of L Kaplan, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Kaplan, Lee)

Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 218 Att. 2

Exhibit 1

¡..

Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TEXAS EASTERN DISTRCT OF

MARHALL DIVSION

SOFTWAR RIGHTS ARCHI, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

ëivil Case No. 2:07-ev-51l (CE)

GOOGLE INC., YAHOO! INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., AOL LLC, AND LYCOS, INC.,

Defendants.

DEFENDANts'P. R. 3..~ DISCLOsuR

...... .

DEFENDANTS' P. R. 3-3 DISCLOsuR

SRA will contend that limitations of the asserted claims are not disclosed in the prior ar

identified by Defendants. To the extent that such an issue arses, Defendants reserve the right to
identify other references that would have made the addition of the allegedly missing limitation

to

the disclosed device or method obvious.
The accompanyig.Ù1validity claim char list specific examples of

where prior ar

references disclose, either expressly

or inherently, each limitation of

the asserted clais and/or

. examples of disclosures Ù1 view of which a person of ordiary skill in the art would have
cOIiideredeaeh lintation, and therefore the claim as a whole, obvious. The references;

however, may côntain.additiona1 support upon

which

Defendants may.re1y. Fureriore, where

Defendants cite to a particular figue in a reference, the citation should be understood to
encompass the caption and description of the

figure and any text relatig to the figue. SimilarlY,

where Defendants cite to paricular text referrng to a. figure, the citation should be

understood

to

include the corrspondÙ1g figue as well. Defendants may also rely on other documents and
information, includÙ1g cited references and prosecution histories for the patents-in-suit, and

expert testimony to provide corttext or to aidirt understadirtg the cited portioDSofthe
references. .
The '494 and '571 Patents issued from applications claiming priority to the '352

Patent.

In its Infngement Contentions, SRA has alleged a ''priority date" of June 14, 1993 for each

asserted claim of the patents-in-suit. Defen.dants dispute ths allegation; andSRA ha not carred
its burden of proving priority. The paten.t examner has already deteiiined tht the claims of

the

, 494 Patent are not entitled to a priority

date

ealier th MaYI7, 1996 (see~ e.g., Notice of

Allowabilty, Paper No.7 at 3 in the '494 prosecution history; EOO_0012228) and likewise with
respect to the claims of the ' 571 Patent (see, e.g., Offce Action dated July 19, 2000, Paper No.

Page

4

The following patents and publications are

prior

ar under at least

35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a),

(b), (e), and/or (g).
Table 3: Patents and

Printed Publications Anticipating

the Asserted Claims of the '352 .'

Patent
. ;;pl'õiFArt.,
... .,

;Kxblbif ikCllait
.

-;;/, ~,:'

'i."::

Ex A-I ExA..2

ExA-3 ExA-4

.

Salton J963 Chen, 1992 Gater, 1967
Salton. .1968 Ooffan, 1969
-----_.
.

EiA~5.
..ExA~6 Ex A-7 Ex A-8

Salton, 1970 Salton. 1971

. Scltnovich,
Slio, 1974

1971

E"A.9.
ExA-10 Ex A-J1 ExA-12
Ex A-13 Ex A-14

. Bichte1er 8GParsons, 1974

Pinski, 1976 Bichte1er& Eaton, 1977 Garfield, 1979
Tanner. 1982

ExA.15
.

Kochtai1êk,1982

EX,A-16 Ex A~17

Fox/Smart 1983
.

Ex A-18

Tb,esis, i 983 Fox Collections. 1983
Fox Salton

ExA.19 ExA-20
ExA-21 ExA-22
Ex A-23 Ex A-24

and MèGil,J983
1984
1985 986

Fox Agricultue,
Fox, Belew,)

Anistrong. 1988

Croft, Lucia &, Cohen, 1988
.

ExA-25 ExA-26
Ex A-27

Frise. 1988
Salton, Fox, 1988 1988 Turle. . 1989

..

ExA-28 ExA..29 ExA-30
Ex A-31

Croft &

Frisse/Couains. 1989

Rose, 1989 ThoInoson. 1989
Komiers. 1990

ExA-32 ExA-33 ExA-34 ExA-35 ExA-36 ExA-37

Lucarella, 1990
Nielsen, 1990

Nielsen, 1990b
.

Shepher, 1990

Berk, 1991

. .

. Page is .

.'ExliiJ)itÁ:ehart;., ~,";:?,; "if .Prlor,Ai'f'" Bur, 1991 ExA-38
.

.,,.. .

ExA-39 ExA-40
Ex A41

DuOD. 1991
Ge1bar. 1991

ExA42 ExA43
ExA-44 ExA-45 Ex A4t)

Rada, 1991 Rose, 1991
Shaw

1991 Shaw Par II, 1991
Par I 1991 & Croft. 1991

Tule.

Ture

ExA47 ExA48 ExA49
Ex A-50

A1aìn, 1992

Frei & Stieger.1992 Botafogo, 1992
Chen/Thesis. 1992

ExA-51
Ex A-52

Guin, 1992
UCINT, 1992
Bettbet. 1993
. Bruei, Croft, .. U.S, Chen,

Ex A-53 Ex A-54 Ex A-55 ExA~56
Ex A-57

1993
1993 Pat. 1992

No. 5,446,891

The asserted claims of

the '352 patent are invalid for public use and/or offers for så1e of

ptòducts al1d services that anticipate such claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or

(b) and/or the

purported invention of the claims was

made in this countr by another inventor who had not
and

abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it under35U.S.C. § 102(g). The following description

events are provided

on inormation and belief

and are supported by the il1fortation a.nd

documents that wil be

produced by Februar 13,2009.
Table 4: Public UseIrior Sale References Anticipating

the Asserted Claims of the. '352 Patent .

. EiiübitB(jhtiri' . d;, :;.
Ex B-1 Ex B-2 Ex B-3 Ex B-4 A-38) Ex Ex A-52)

..

... '.

,
~.:. ....

.:':;:pOor'Al. ;,:. TIP

.;;:..,

ENVSION. SMARr
Intetmedia STRUCTURE

(see (see

UCINT

Page 16

B. Disdosure oflnvalidity Due to ObviolisnessPursuant to P. R. 3-3(b)

and

(c)

The asserted claims of the '352 Patent are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
1. Obviousness Combinations
Each prior ar reference disclosed in the preceding sections (see § lILA), either

alone or.

in combination with other prior ar, also renders the asserted claims Ù1valid as obvious. .

Furermore, Defendants identify the following additional exemplar prior art references that
either alone or in combination with other prior art (inc1udÙ1g any of the above anticipatory

prior

art) renders the asserted claims invalid as obvious under 35 US.C. § 103:

· Salton, 1975 (see, e.g., Ex A-57).

· Conkin, 1987 (see, e.g., Ex A-58).

..

· ConkÙ1, 1988 (see, e.g., Ex A-59).
Seeley, J.,"The New of Reciprocal Inj/uencè," Can. Jour. Psych. 234..241 (1949).
Katz, L., "A New Status Index Derived From

Sociometric Analysis,"

Psychometrika, Vol. 18, No.1 pp.39-43 (1953).
. Bar-Hilel, Y., "A Logician's Reaction

to Recent Theorizing on Informition

Search Systems," American Documentation 8(2): 103-113 (1957).
. Harary, F., Norman, R.Z., Carght, D, "Structural Models: Anlntroductiòn to

the Theory of Directed Graph," JQhnWiley & Sons, Inc., (1965), (see, e.g.,
Preface, Ch. 1 (Digraphs and

Strctues), Ch. 5 (Digraphs and Matrces), aid Ch.

14 (NetWorks)).

. .

Bell Laboratories, "s - A Language for Data Anlysis" (1981).
Hubbell,. C., "An Input-Output Approach to. Clique Identifcation,".( 1965).
Jardine,N., van Rijsbergen, C.J., "The Use of

.

Hierarchical Clustering in

Information Retrieval," (1971).
Page 17

· Salton, G., Bergmark, D., "A Citation Study of

the Computer Science Literature,"

IEEE Trans on Professional Communcation 22(3): 146~ 15 8 (also published as

Cornell TR 79-364) (1979).

· van Rijsbergen, C,J., "Information Retrieval," (1979).

· Jain, A., Dubes,R., "Algorithmsfor Clustering Data," (1988).
· Salton, G., Buckley, C., '¡On the Use of Spreading Activation Methods

in

Automatic Information RetrieVal," (Proc. 11th SIGIR, pp. 147-160, a1sópublished

as Cornell TR 88-907) (Apri11988).
. Pao, M., Worten,D., "Retrieval Effectiveness by Semantic and Citation
Society

Searching," J. Am.

Info. Sci. 40(4):226-235(1989).

. Oolub, G., VanLoan, C.F., "Matrix Computation," (Johns Hopki University

Press) (1989).
. Consens, M.P. and Mendelzon, A.O., "Expressing Structural Hypertext Queries

in GraphLog," Hypertext '89 Proceedings, pp. 269-292 (1989).
. Kaufian L., Rousseeuvi, P. "Finding Groups in Data- An Introduction to

Cluster Analysis," (1990).
. Korfage, "To See, or Not to See - is Thatthe Query," Proceedings of

the 14th

Anua1 Internationa. ACM SIGIR Conferencè oii Researh and

Dêvelopmeiit in

InformationRetreva1,pp. 134- 141,(1991).

· Li, T., Chiu, V., Gey, F. "X-Window Interface to SMART, an Advanced Text

RetrievalSystem, "SIOIR Foru, pp. 5-16 (1992).
. Agosti, M.,Gradenigo, 0., Marchetti, P., "A Hypertext Environmentfor

Interacting With Large Databases," (IP&M 28:371-387) (1992).

Page 18

. Agosti, M., Marchett, P .," User Navigation in the IRS Conceptual Structure

Through a Semantic Association Function," (The Computer Journl

35:194-199)

(1992).
. Salton; G., Allan, J., Buckley, C.,

"Approâches to Passage Retrieval in Full Text
(1993).

Information Systems," (Proc. 16th SIGIR Conf.)

. Hearst, M;, Plaunt, C., "Subtopic Structurìngfor Full-Length Doeument Access,"

(proc. 16thSIGIR) (1993).
In addition, Defendants incorporate by reference each and every prior art reference of
record in the prosecution of

the patents~in-suit and related applications, including the statements
ar discussed

made therein by the applicant and the exatner, the prior

in thespecifiêation, and

any other statements found in the intrnsic record.
In partcular, each prior ar reference may be combined with (1) Ù1formation known

to

persons skilled in the ar at the time of

the alleged invention, (2)al1Y ofthe other anticipatory

prior ar references, (3) any statements in the Ù1trsic record ofpatents-in~suìt and related

applications, andlor(4) any of

the additional prior art idel1tified above, To the extent tht SRA

contends that any of the anticipatory priòr ar fails to disclose on.e or more limitations of

the

asserted claims, Defendants reserve

the right to identify other prior ar references tht, when
the älleged1y

combined with the anticipatory prior ar, would render the claims obvious despite

missing limitation. Defendants contentions are made subject to its reservations above and based
on Defendants' present understadig of the asserted claims of the '351 Patent and the

apparent

cOJitrctions in SRA' s Infrgement Contelltioiis.
Exhbit C includes claim chart for the asserted claims of the '352 Patent

using specific

and exemplar combinations of

references:

Page 19

Table 5: References Rendering Obvious Asserted Claims of the '352 Patent
....,. .:,;d.Ki~ì~i:~S,:C~~rtd'd:.~;;:
,.1;;.'/. ..i.:.:..~....;:~~1;:~tri:i~..:L-.....~.

ExC-l

103 Cha
Nielsen, 1990b and
Frisse, 1988
Salton, 1963 and Pinski,

1976

Salton & McGil, 1983
and Tapper, 1982

Fox Thesis, 1983 and
l3erk. 1991
Belew, 1986 and Rose,

1991

In addition to the exemplary combintiol1sof prior ar in Exhbit C, Defendants reserve
the right to rely on any other combination of any prior ar disclosed herein.
2. Motivation to Combine

The United States SupremeCo1. recently clarfied the standard for Whäl tyés of
inventions are patentable. See KSR Int JI CO.v. Teleflex Inc., 127 s. Ct.1727 (2007). Ill

. particular, the Sùpreme Cour emphasized that inventions arsing from ordinary innovation,
ordinary skìll, or common sense should not be patentable. See id. at 1732, 1738, 1742-1743,

1746. In that regard, à patent claim maybe obvious if the combination of elements Was obvious
to tr or there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there

was an
available

obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims. In addition, when a work is

in

one field of

endeavor, design incentives and

other market forces can prompt variations öfit,

either in the sate field or a different one. If a persol1 of ordina skillcaniinp1einent a
predictable variation, 35 U.S.C. § lO31ike1y bar its patentabilty.
The '352 Patent is obvious because it simply

uses known methods in the field of

information retreval to obtain predictable rèsu1ts. See KSR,127 S. Ct. at 1742 (2007). For
...
Page

20

Defendants' first common Interrogatory No.3, SRA declil1ed to identify with specificity each

passage Ù1 which eaCh c1aim.e1ement is described in any earlier fied application.
B. Disdosure of

Invalidity Due to Anticipation Pursuant to P. R. 3-3(b) and (e)
with P. R. 3-3(b) and (c), prior art references anticipating some or all of

In accordance

the

asserted claims are listed inthe tables below. The cliartsin Exhbits D-E identify specific
examples of where each limitation of the anticipated claims is found in that referel1ce, either
expressly, implicitly in the larger context of the passage, or inherently

as understood by å perSon

havig ordinar skill in the

ar.

The following patel1ts àndpublications are prior art ul1der at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a),
(b), (e), and/or

(g).

Table 6: Patents and Printed Publications Anticipatiílg
the Asserted Claims of

the '494Patetit
,. '.-'~ . . :::-;.:-.:,:. .:.:- .;-:: . ~

ErWbitp::'Ctiart. ExD-1
Ex 0-2

1~,'iPrior Art
Salton, .1963

Oarer,1967
Salton. 1968

ExD;-3

ExD~4

Goffan, i 969
Salton. 1970 Sa.ton, 1971
.

ExD-5. ExD-6 ExD-7 ExD-8 ExD-9 ExD-lO Ex D-ll .
ExD-12 ExD-13 ExD-14 Ex D-IS ExD-16 ExD-17 ExD-18 ExD-19 ExD-20
Ex D-21

Schinovich, 1971 Bichte1er & Parsons, 1974
Shimko, Chen. 1992 1974

Pinski, 1976 Bichte1er & Baton. 1977

Gareld,

1979

Tanner, 1982.

Kochtallek. 1982

Fox/Sma,
Fox

1983 Thesis, 1983
.

Fox Collections, 1983

Sàltônand McOil. 1983

Fox Agrculture, 1984
Fox. Belew, 1985 1986

ExD-22

Page

34

....ExIîIbitDCbárt ExD-25 ExD..26 ExD..27 , Ex D-48 ExD.-29 ExD-30 . ExD..31 ExD-32
ExD':33 ExD..34

.... dti;,ë'PrîoidArfc -,'...~'. ~d.

Croft, Lucia &Cohen, 1988
Arstrong, 1988.

Frisse. 1988 Sa.OOn, 1988
Fox, 1988

.

Bemers-Lee, 1989

Croft& Turle, 1989 Frisse/Cousins,1989
Lucarella, J 990
Thompson. 1989
. '.

ExD-35 ExD-36
Ex D-38

Rose, 1989 . Komners, 1.990 Nielsen, 1990
. i-.Uelsen,. 1 990b
,

ExD-39 ExD-40 ExD-41 ExD-42 ExD-43

Shepherd, .1990

..

Berk,1991
Burt, 1991
Dunlop. 1991

ExD44
Ex 0-45

Ge1bar 1991

ExD-46 ExD-47 ExD-48 ExD-49 ExD-50 ExD-51 ExD-52 ExD-53 ExD-54 ExD-55 ExD-56.. ExD-57 ExD-58 ExD-S9 ExD-60
Ex D-61

Ra, 1991
1991

.

Rose,

1991 ShawPart II, 1991. Turle & Groft, 1991
Turle, 1991
.

ShawPårI,

Alain 1992 Botafogo, 1992
Chen/hesis; 1992
,

Frei & Stieø;er, 1992 Guinai,. 1992.. UCINET 1992
.Betrabet Thesis, 1993
Betrbet. 1993
, ...

Bruei, 1993

Croft, 1993 Fox Eiiyision, 1993
,

ExD-62 ExD-63 ExD-64 ExD-65 ExD-66 ExD-67
ExD..68

Conr & Utt. 1994
DeBra, 1994

,

Hel'er, 1994
McKee, 1994 .

Pinern, 1994 LA Times

Ftei & Stieger, 1995
March 21 Press Release

ExD-69

Page

35

... .

Exlii)it D'(:harf
.

."!-:..

,.Prl9~,'Ar~:.

:.~.:.:.;,

ExF-7 ExD-71 ExD-72 ExD-73
Ex D-74

Aori1 24 Press Releae
N~tCar, 1996
Piroll, 1996
.

Ganner US 4,953,106

ExD-75 ExD-76
Ex 0-77

Kao1anUS 5446,891 Mauldin US 5748954 Shoham U.S. Pat. No. 5,855,015 OoyleUS 5,838,906
Weiss. . 1996

ExD-78

.ExD-?9.

Fral1ce,. 1995

The asserted c1a.ins of the '494 Patent are invalid for public use and/or offers for sale of
products and services that

anticipate such claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(b)andlorthe
the claims was nide in ths countr by another inventörwho had not

purported invention of

abandoned; suppressed, órconcea1edit under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). The following description and
events are provided on infonnation and belief and are supported by theinfoi:ation and

documents that wil be prodúcedby Februry 13, 2009.

'table 7: Public UselPrior Sale Referençes Antieipatiiig the Asserted Claims of the' 494 Patent .

... Exhibit'KÇhili(
(see Ex 0-7 IT

....... I.:::.:;,'::.'.

,.' ,,".

.,. ; PrlØr AM. .. ....,..';.:. .:'i..'. .¿'

Ex E-l Ex E-2 Ex E-3

ExE-4
Ex E-5

CvberPilot "V-Search" ENVISION SMART INTERMEl)lA TIP
.

(see ExD-56)
N/A
V-Seareh. "V-Search"

UCINT
LyÖos:¿

was disclosed to the public on or before March 29,1995 and Was

in public use for more than one year prior to May 17, 1996, the priority datë for the '494 Patent
See, e.g., Kaplan; LA Times, Marh 29,1995; Libertech March 21, 1995 Press

Rë1ease; Libertech

2 See, e.g., Char for Maù1din US 5748954 and related electronic information.

Page

36

Apri124, 1995 Press Release; STC0011254-56; EGG_0009554-93; EGG_0004956-99at
EOG_0004960. Plaintiff alleges that V-Search meets one or more limitations of

claims 1-3,7-9,

12-15, 18-21,23-25,31-33 of

the '494 Patent. see Plaintiffs Disclosur of Asserted Claim and
the right to contestP1aÙ1tifls allegation

Infrgement Contentions at 12. Defertdants reserve

that
Plaitiff has

V-Search meets one or more limtations of the assered claims of the' 494 Patent.

refused to identify how V-Search meets the specific.1imitatioris of

the claims of

the '494 Patent.

See

Softare Rights Archive,LLC's Objections and ResponSês to

Defendants'

First Setof

Common Interrogatories (Nos. 1-9) at 5.
Defendants'. discovery il1to V-Searh is only just begiining, and Defendants thus reserve
the right to supplement the

attached chars identifyg hoW V-Searchnieetslimitationsofthe
embodies one

claims of the' 494 Patent afer discovery is complete. To the extent tlt V-Search

or more e1einents of any of the claims of the' 494 Patent, the disclosure aid public use of VSearh more than Ol1e year prior to the' 494 Patent's fiing renders each such claim ofthe ' 494

Patent anticipated and/or obvious or otherwise invalid, either alone or in combinatiönwiththe
other prior

ar disclosed herein.

C. ))isclósûre of

Il1validity

Due to Obvi()ûsness Pursuant to P. R.3-3(b) and (c)

The asserted claim

of

the '494 Patent are il1valid as obvious ilnder 3S U.S.C. § 103.

1. Obviousness Combinations

Each prior ar reference disclosed in the preceding sectiol1s(see § IV.B), either alone or
in combination with other prior ar, also renders the asserted claims

invalid as obvious.

Furthermore, Defendants identify the following additional prior ar references tha.t either alone or

in combintion with other prior ar (including any of the above anticipatory prior ar) renders the
asserted claims invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103:

· Conkin, 1987 (see e.g., Ex D-23).
Page

37

· Conklin, 1988 (see e.g., Ex D~24).

Pitkow, 1994 (see, e.g., Ex D-80).
. Seeley, J.~ "The New ofRecíprocal Influence," Can. Jour. Psych. 234-241 (1949).

· Katz, L., "A New Status Index Derived From Sociometric Analysis,"
Psychoinetra, Vol. 18, No. Ipp. 39-43 (1953).

· Bar-Hilel, Y.,"A Logician's Reaction to Recent Theorizing onlnfortnation
Search Systems," American Documentation

8(2): 103-113 (1957).

.

Hata, F., Norman, R.Z., Carght, D, "Structural Models: An Introduction to
the. Theotyof Directed Graph," John Wiley & Sons, lnc.,(1965), (see. e.g.,
Preface, Ch. 1 (Digrphs and Strctus). Ch. 5 (Digrãphs and Matrices), and Ch.

14 (Networks)).

.
.

Bell Laboratories, "S - A Language for Data Analysis" (1981).

Hubbell, C.,"Ati Input..OutputAppróachto Clique Identifcation," (1965).
Jardine, N., van Rijsbergen, C.J., "The Use of Hierarchical Clustering in Information Retrieval," (1971).

.

.

Salton, 0.,

Bergmak, D., "A Citation Study of

the computer Scümce Literature,"

IEEE Transou Professional Communcation 22(3): 146-158 (also published as TR
79-364) (1979).
· van

Rijsbergen, C.J., "Information Retrieval," (1979).

· Jåin, A., Dubes, R., "Algorithms for Clustering Data,"(l988).
· Sa1tol1, G., Buckley, C., "On the Use of Spreading Activation Methods

in

Automatic Information Retrieval," (proc. 11th SIGIR, pp; 147-160, also published

as TR 88-907) (Apri11988).

Page 38

Pao, M., Worten, D., "Retrieval Effectiveness by

Semantic and Citation

Searching," J. Am. Society Info. Sci. 40(4):226-235 (1989).
. Oolub,G.1 Van Loan, C.F., "Matrix Computation," (Johns Hopkis University

Press) (1989).
Consens, M.P. and Mertde1zon, A.O., "Expressing Structutal Hypertext Queries

in

GraphLog," Hyperext '89 Proceedings, pp. 269-292 (1989);

. Kaufman L., Rousseeuw, P. "Finding Groups in Data -An Introduction to
Cluster

Analysis," (1990).

. Kôrfage, "To See, or

Not to See - is That the Qùety," ProceedÙ1gsofthe 14th

Annua. International ACM SIGm Conference OIl Research ånd Development in
Inforiation Retreval, pp. 134 - 141, (1991).

. Agosti, M., Gradenigo, G., Marchetti, P., "A Hypertext Envitonhient for

Interacting With Lar$e Databases," (IP&M28:371~381) (1992).
. Agosti, M., Marchetti, P., "User Navigation in the IRS Conceptual Structure

Through a Semantic Association Function," (Te Côinputer Jou:135:194..199)
(1992).
. Li, T., ehiu, V., Gey, F. "X-Window Interface toS1vRT, an Advanced Text

Retrieval System," SIGIR Foru, pp. 5-16 (1992).
. Salton,

G., Allan, J., Buckley, C., "Approaches to Passagri Retrievalin Full Text

. Information Systems," (Proc. 16th SIOIR Com.) (1993).
. Heart, M.,P1aunt, C., "SubtopicStructuringfot Full-Length Document Access,"

(proc. 16th SIGIR) (1993);

Page

39

. Salton, 0., Allan, J., Buckley, C., Singhl, A., "Automatic,

Theme Generation,

and Summarization of

Machine-Readable Texts," (Science, 264:1421-1426)

(1994).
. Woo-d, A., Drcw,

N., Beale, R., -Hendley, B., "HyperSpaèe: Web Browsîngwith

Visualisation," (proceedings from The Thid Itternationa1 World-Wide Web
Conference) (Apri110-14, 1995).

. Harary, F., Nonnl1, R.Z., Carright,D, "StructuralModels:An Introduction to
of

the Theory

Directed Graph,"JohnWiley& Sons, Iiic., (1965) (see, e.g.,

Preface, Ch. 1 (Digraphs and Strctures), Ch: 5 (Digraphs and Ma.trces), and Ch.

14

(Netwörks)).

. Kotfa.ge, "To See, or Not to See - is That the Query," Proceedings of the 14th

Anual Interntiona ACM SIGIR Conference

on Research and Development in

Information Retreval, pp. 134 - 141, (1991).

. Consel1s, M.P. andMende1zon, A.G., "Expressing Structural Hypertext Queries
in GraphLog,"

Hypertext '89 Proceedigs, pp. 269-292 (1989)..

"Documents relationships at a Glance," Electronic Documents," Vo!.3, p. 3
(1994)
. peT W095/00896 (published Januar 5,1995).
. References

and prior ar cited above as anticipating and/ör rel1derig obvious the

'352 Patent.

In. addition, Defendants Ù1corporate by reference each al1d every prior ar reference of
recordin the prosecutiol1of the patents-il1:-sut and related applications, ircludig the statements

Page

40

made therein by the applicant and the examer, the prior art

discussed in

the specification, and

any other statements found in the intrnsic record.

In particular, each prior ar reference may be combined with (1) inotfation kioWn to
persons skilled in the art at the tie of the alleged Ù1vention, (2) any of the

other anticipatory

prior ar references,

(3)

any statements in the intrsic record of patents..in-suit and related
the additional prior ar identified above. To the

applicàtions,andlor (4) any of

extent that SRA

contends that any of the anticipatory prior ar fails to disclose one or more Ihnitátionsof the
asserted c1àim, Defendants reserve the right to identify other prior ar references that, when
combined with the anticipatory prior ar, would render the claims obvious despite the àUeged1y

missing limitation. Defendants contentions are made subject to its reservations

above afid based

011 Defendats' present understading of the asserted claims of the '494 Patent al1d the apparent
constrctions inSRA's Itfrigement Contentions.

Exhibit F includes claim chas for the asserted claims of the '494 Patent using specific
and exemplar eombìnatiol1s of references:
TableS: References Rendering Obvious Asserted Claimsôfthe'494 Patent

,. .~...

Chart F-1

103

Char

ChartF-2

Nielsen, 1990b, Frisse, 1988

and prior public use of the Internet and references
re ardin same

Chart F~3

Salton, 1963, Pil1ski 1976 and prior
public use of the Interet and references

ChartF-4

re ardin . same & McOil, 1983, Tapper, 1982 Salton and prior públic use of the Intem.etand references re ardin same
Fox Thesis, 1983,Berk, 1991 and prior

CharF-5

public use of the Internet and references

re ardin .satne .

Page

41

B. Disclosure ofIllvalidity Due to Anticipation PursuanUo P. R. 3-3(b)

and (e)
anticipating some or all of

In accordance

with P. R 3-3(b) and (c), prior art references

the

asserted claims are listed in the tables below. The cha in Exhbits G..R identify

specific

examples of

where each limitation of

the anticipated clais is fourd in that reference, either

expressly, implicitly in the larger context of the passage, or inherently as understood by a persol1

having ordinary skill in the art.

The following patents and publications are prior ar under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a),
(b), (e), and/or (g).

Table9: Patents and Printed Publieatlons AntieipatIIig the Asserted Claiins of the '571 Patent

ExG-1 ExG-2

Garer,

1967

Salton, 1968
Ooffr, 1969
..

ExG-3.
ExG-4
Ex 0-5

Sa1tol1. 1970

Salton. 1971
Schiinovich. 1971.

ExG-6 ExG-7 ExG-8 ExG-9
Ex 0-10

Shio, 1974 Bichte1er, 1974

Pinki.1976
Tapper, 1982
.

ExG-ll
ExG..12 ExG-13

Kochtaek. 1982
Fox/Smar, 1983

ExG-14
Ex G-15

Fox Thesis,1983 Fox COllections, 1983
Salton

and McGil, 1983

ExG-16
Ex 0-17 Ex G-18 ExG..19

Fox Aitriculture. 1984
Fox, Belew, Conkin. 1985 1986 1987 .

ExG-20
Ex G-21

Conkin. 1988

Croft. Lucia.& Cohen, 1988
Frisse, 1988 .
.

ExG-22 ExG-23

Salton. 1988

Page

59

Ex G-24

Fox.

1988

ExG-25 ExG-26 ExG-27 ExG-28
Ex 0...29

Bemers-Lee, 1989

Croft & Turtle. 1989 Frisse/Cousins,1989
Thompson, 1989
Rose, 1989 .

ExG-30
Ex G-31
.

Kommers, 1990

ExG-32 ExG-33
Ex Ex Ex Ex 0-34 0-35 0..36 0-37

LucarelIa,1990 Nielsen, 1990
Nie1sel1, 1990b

Sheuhetd1990
Turle, 1991

Turle & Croft, 1991
Bruei, 1993
Oe1bar, 1991

ExG-38 ExG-39 ExG-40
Ex.G-41
Ex 0-42

Berk,1991
DUnloD, 1991

Rada,1991
Rose, 1991

ExG-43 ExG-44 ExG-45 ExG-46 ExG-47 ExG-48 ExQ-49
Ex G~50
Ex G-51

Frei & Stieger, 1992 Botafogo 1992 A1ain,1992
Guian, .1992

Chen/Thesis, 1992
Chen, 1992

UCINT,1992
Fox Croft,

Envision, i 993
1993

ExG-52 ExG-53 ExG-54
Ex G-55

Betrbet. .1993

..

Pinerton. 1994

Betrabet Thesis, 1993

Herzer.1994
McKee, Kro1, 1994 1994

.

ExG-56
ExG..57 ExG-58 ExG-59

Prei & StielZer, i 995
NetCara. 1996

ExG-60
Ex Ex 0-61 1-7

LA Times March 21 Press Release April i4 Press Release

..

Page

60

ExG-62 ExG-63 ExG-64 ExG-65 ExG-66 ExG-67
Ex 0-68

Piroll. 1996
Shoha US 5855015

Kaplan US 5446891
Bichte1er &

Eaton, 1977

Conr &Utt, 1994
Mauldin Chen Weiss,. Lin, 1991

US 5748954
Thesis, 1992
1996 . . .

..

ExG-76
N/A

. The followil1g systems are prior ar under at. least 35 l1.S.C~ §§ 102(a), (b) and/or (g).
Although Defendants' invest.igation contiues, infOliationavailab1e to date indicates tht

each

system was (1) knoWn or

used in this countr before the alleged invention of

the claied subject

matter of

the asserted c1àiins, (2) was in public \1e and/or on sale in ths countty more th one
date of the patent, and/or (3) Was Ù1ventedby another

yeathêfore the filing

who did not abandon,

suppress, or conceal, before the. alleged invention of the claimed subject matter of the asserted
claims. The following description and events are provided. oninoi1ation and belief, and are

supported by the

information and documents that wil be

produced by February 13, 2009,

Table 10: Public UselPrior Sale Reférencès Anticipating the Asserted Claims ofthe '571 Patent .
..c..

'Exhihif:UÇhårt~':.......
(see

:.

.,.:, ..._.. .. .":.

.. ....fpriói:Ar(";;...:

Ex 0-59)

Cvbemi10t
:

Ex H-1 Ex H-2 Ex H-3

V-Searh
ENVISION lntermedia
.

V-Search. "V-Search" was disclosed to the public on or about March 29, 1995 and

was

. in public use for more

than Ol1e year prior to May 17, 1996, the priority date for the' 571 Patent

See, e.g., Kaplan, LA Times, 1995; Libertech March 21,1995 Press Release; Libertech Apri124,
1995 Press Release; EOG_0009554-93; EGG_0004956-99 at EGG~ 0004960;STI~0011254-56.
P1àintiff alleges

tht V-Search meets one or more limtatiol1s of cliiims 5-7, 9~ i i and 2 i -22 of the

Page

61

'571 Patent. See Plaintiffs Oisc1osure of Asserted Claims and Infrngement Contentions at 12.
Defendants reserve

the right to contest P1aintifsa11egation tht V-Search meets one or more
the assertd claim of the '571 Patent. Plaintiff has refused to identify

limitations of

how V-

Search meets the specific 1imitatiol1s of

the

claims of

the '571 Patent. See Software Rights

Archive,LLC's Objections and Responses to Defendants' First

Set of Common Il1terrogatories

(Nos. 1-9) at 5.

Oefendants' discovery into V-Search is only just begining, and Defendants thus reserve
the right to supplement the

attached char identifyfughow V-Search meets limtations of the

claims of

the '571 Patent

after discovery is complete. To the extent that V-Search embodies one
the claims of the '571 Patent, the disclosure, public use, and possible
Patent's filing

or more elements of any of

offer for sale

of

V-Search more than one year prior to the '571

renders each such

claims of

the '571 Patent anticipated and/or obvious

or otherwise invalid, alone or in

combination with the other prior art disclosed herein.
C. Disclosure of Invalidity Due to Obviousness Pursuant to P. R. 3-3(b)3nd (c)
The asserted claims of

the '571 Patent are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

1. Obviousness Combinations
Each prior art reference disclosed in the preceding sections (see§ V.'s, either

alone orin

combination with other prior art, also rel1ders the asserted claims invalid as obvious.
Furtermore, Defendants identify the following additional prior ar references

that either alone or
the above anticipatory prior

in combination with other prior ar (including any of

art) tenders the

asserted claims invalid as obVious under 35 U.S.C. § 103:

· TIP (see, e.g., Ex G-69).
· SMART (see, e.g., Ex 0-70).
· Garfeld, 1979 (see, e.g., Ex G-71).
Page

62

Armtrong, 1988 (see, e.g.,

Ex 0-72).

Shaw Part I, 1991 (see, e.g., Ex 0-73).

· Shaw Par II, 1991 (see, e.g., Ex 0-74).

· France, 1995 (see, e.g., Ex 0-75)..
DeBra, 1994 (see, e.g., Ex. 0-81).
· Bll, 1991 (see, e.g., Ex. 0-77).
· Salton, 1975 (see, e.g., Ex.

0-78).

· Pitkow, 1994 (see, e.g., Ex. 0-79).
. U.S. Patent

No. 5,838,906 (see e.g., Ex 0-80).

. Seeley, J., "TheNew of Reciprocal1nfluence," Can. Jour. Psych. 234-241(1949).

Katz, L., "A New Status Index Derived From Sociometric Analysis,"
Psychonietra, Vol. 18, No.1 pp. 39-43 (1953).

. Bar-Hilel, Y., "A Logician's Reàction to Recent Theorizing on Information

Search Systems," American DOCUlentation 8(2): 103-113 (1957).
. Harary, F., Norman, R.Z., Carght, D, "Structural Models: An Introduction to
the Theory of

Directed Graph," John Wiley& Sons, Inc., (1965), (see,e.g.,
and Ch.

Preface, Ch. 1.(Digrphs and Stnctues),Ch. 5 (Digraphs and Matrces),

14 (Networks)).
. Bell Laboratories, "s - A Languge for Data Analysis" (1981).

Hubbell, C., "An Input-OutputApproach to Clique Identifcation," (1965).
. Jardine, N., van Rijsbergen, C.J.,"The Use ojHferarchical Clustefingin

Information Retrieval," (1971).

Page

63

. Salton, G., Bergark, D., "A Citation Study o/the Computer Science Literature,"

IEEE Tras on Professional Communication 22(3): 146-158 (also published as TR
79-364) (1979).

· van Rijsbergen, C.J., "Information Retrieval," (1979).

· Jain, A., Dubes, R., "Algorithmsfor Clustering Data,"(1988).
. Salton, 0., Buckley, C., "On the Use of Spreading

Actívation Methods in

Automatic Itiormation Retrii!al," (ptoc. 11 th SIGIR, pp. 147 -160,

also published

as TR 88-907) (Apri11988).
. Pao, M., Worten, D., "Retrieval Effectiveness by Semantic and Citation

Searching," J. Am. Society Info. Sci. 40(4):226-235 (1989).
. Golub, 0., Van Loan, C.F., "MatrixComputation," (Johns Hopkis University

Press) (1989).
. Consens, M.P. aò.d Mel1delzon, A.O., "Expressing StructutalHypertext Quëties

in GraphLog," H~ertext '89 Proceedings, pp.269-292 (1989).
. Kaufman, L., Rousseeuw, P. "Finding Groups in Data - An Introduction to

Cluster Analysis," (1990).
. Korfage,"To See, or Not to See - is That the

Query," ptoceedingsofthe 14th

Anual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Reseateh and Development in

Informtion Retreval, pp. 134 -141, (1991).
Agosti, M., Gradenigo, G.,

Marhetti, P., "A Hypertext Environmentfor

Interacting With Large Databases," (IP&M 28:371-387) (1992).

Page

64

Agosti, M., Marchett, P., "User Navigation in the IRS Conceptual Structúre
Through a Semantic Association Function," (The ComputerJou:a135:194-199)

(1992).
. Li, T., Chiu, V., Gey,F. "X-Window Interface to SMART, an Advanced Text

Retrieval System, "SiGIR Foni, pp. 5-16(1992).
Salton, G., Allan, J., Buckley, C., "Approaches to Passage Retrieval in Full Text
Information Systems," (proc. 16th SIGIR Com.) (1993).

.

Hearst, M., P1aunt, C.,." Subtopic Structuring for Full-Length Document Access,"
(proc. 16th SIOIR) (1993).

. Salton, G.., -Allan, J., Buckley, C., Singhál, A.; "A.utomatic¡ Theme-Gëneratiøn,

and

Summarization of

Machine-Readable Texts," (Science, 264:1421-1426)

(1994).
. Wood, A., Drew, N.,ßea1.e, R-., Hendley, B., "HyperSpáce: Web

BrdW$ing-ltitn

Visualisation," (Proceedings from The Thd International World-Wide Web
Conference) (Apri11O-14, 1995).
. Harar, F., Norman, R.Z., Carght, D, "Structural Models:

AnlntNJduclionto

the Theory of Directed Graph," John Wiley & Sons, Inc., (1965), (see, e.g.,

Preface, Ch. 1 (Digraphs and Strctures), Ch. 5 (Digrphs and Mátrces), andCh;
14 (Networks)).
. Korfhage, "To See, or Not to See ~ is tkat the Query,"Proceedings of

the 14th

Anual Intertatiol1 ACM SIGIR Conference on RèSearh ard.

Development in

Inormation

Retreval, pp. 134 ~ 141,(1991).

Pa:ge65

.

Consens, M.P. and Mende1zon, A.O., "Expressing Structural Hypertext Queries

in GraphLog," Hypertext '89 Proceedùgs, pp. 269-292 (1989).

.

"Documents relationships at a Glance," Electronic Documel1ts, Vol. 3, p. 3

(1994).

· PCT WO 95/00896 (published January 5, 1995).
. References al1d prior art cited above as anticipatÙ1gandlor renderil1g obvious the

'352 al1d ' 494 Pãtel1ts and references cited on the face of th:epaten.ts.in~suit.

In addition, Defendats incorporate by reference each and every ptior art reference of
recotd in

the prosecution of thepatents-in-suit and related applications, including the statements
ar discussed in the specification, and

made therein by the applicant and the examer, the prior

any othet statements found in the intrnsic record.
For example, durig prosecution of

the '571 Patent, the applicants cOl1tested thaf"it

would have been obvious to one of ordinar skill in the art at the time of the invention to extend
the hypeijump lin of Vertelney to Internet conïections because ths would greatly

enance the

utilty of

the system." Sèe Amendiel1t and Response at 1Q, Paper No. 12, June

6, 2000.
at 2-3,

However, the Examier maintained the rejection, (see Offce Action

Paper No. 14, July
Final

19,2000), and the applicants failed to refute theExaiiner'sflding. See Amendment after

Rejection, Paper No. 17 (amending claim to secure allowance). Accordingly, it was conoe:ded

that it would have been obvious at least to extend hypeijiUp link to Internet cortections.
In paricular, each prior ar reference may be combined with (1)

information known to
anticipatory

persons skilled in the ar at thefue of the alleged invention, (2) any of the other

prior ar references, (3) any statements in the intrsic record of patents-in~sùit and related

applications, and/ot (4) any of the additional prior art identified above. To the extent tht SRA

Page

66