I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 218

Declaration re 217 Opposition Of Emily O'Brien In Support Of Defendants' Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For Discovery Sanctions by Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P)(Noona, Stephen)

EXHIBIT L

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512

AOL, INC. et al.,
Defendants.

DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES (INTERROGATORY NO. 8)
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant Google Inc.
(“Google”) hereby further objects and responds in writing to I/P Engine, Inc.’s (“I/P Engine”)
First Set of Interrogatories as served on November 7, 2011.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Google hereby incorporates by reference and re-states each General Objection from
Google’s First and Second Supplemental Objections and Responses to I/P Engine’s First Set of
Interrogatories.
STATEMENT ON SUPPLEMENTATION
Google’s investigation in this action is ongoing, and Google reserves the right to rely on
and introduce information in addition to any information provided herein at the trial of this
matter or in other related proceedings. Google has yet to receive complete discovery responses
from I/P Engine. In addition, I/P Engine has yet to identify in a coherent way how it contends
Google infringes the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Google anticipates that facts it learns

01980.52020/4832162.1

1

later in the litigation may be responsive to one or more of the interrogatories and Google reserves
is right to supplement these interrogatories at appropriate points throughout this litigation
without prejudice and/or to otherwise make available to I/P Engine such information. Google
also reserves the right to change, modify or enlarge the following responses based on additional
information, further analysis, and/or in light of events in the litigation such as rulings by the
Court. Google reserves the right to rely on or otherwise use any such amended response for
future discovery, trial or otherwise.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
Google expressly incorporates the above objections as though set forth fully in response
to each of the following individual interrogatories, and, to the extent that they are not raised in
the particular response, Google does not waive those objections.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8
Identify and describe each basis for Google’s contention that the claims of the ‘420 and
‘664 Patents are invalid including, but not limited to, all facts, dates, documents,
communications and/or events, including prior art, which Google contends are pertinent thereto,
and identify the persons having the most knowledge of such facts, dates, documents,
communications and/or events.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Google incorporates here in response to this interrogatory its General Objections above
by this reference. Google objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that: (i) it is overbroad and
unduly burdensome; (ii) it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase “all facts, dates,
documents, communications and/or events;” (iii) it seeks information that is irrelevant,

01980.52020/4832162.1

2

immaterial or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Google
further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks proprietary, trade secret or other
confidential or competitively sensitive business information; and (iv) it is compound and/or is
comprised of subparts constituting more than one interrogatory in that it seeks information about
‘420 and ‘664 Patents. Google will only produce such relevant, non-privileged information
subject to adequate protections for Google’s confidential, trade secret and/or proprietary business
or technical information via a protective order entered by the Court in this action.
Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Google responds that in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), all or part of the non-objectionable
discovery sought may be obtained from documents that will be produced. Google will rely on
documents produced in this action and will identify those documents to the extent reasonable
after the time they are produced. Google will supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 8 to
reference relevant documents to the extent reasonable.
Google further responds that the following references, either alone or in conjunction with
the knowledge of one of skill in the art, render one or more of the asserted claims invalid:


“Content-Based, Collaborative Recommendation” by Balabanovic et al.



“Feature-based and Clique-based User Models for Movie Selection: A
Comparative Study” by Alspector et al.



“Using Collaborative Filtering to Weave an Information Tapestry” by Goldberg et
al.



“Architecting Personalized Delivery of Multimedia Information” by Loeb



U.S. Patent No. 5,794,237 to Gore



U.S. Patent No. 5,835,087 to Herz



U.S. Patent No. 5,855,015 to Shoham



U.S. Patent No. 6,202,058 to Rose

01980.52020/4832162.1

3



U.S. Patent No. 5,724,567 to Rose et al.



U.S. Patent No. 6,006,218 to Breese et al.



U.S. Patent No. 6,421,675 to Ryan et al.



U.S. Patent No. 5,963,940 to Liddy et al.

Google further asserts that the asserted claims of the ‘420 and ‘664 patent, as apparently
interpreted by Plaintiff, are invalid for lack of enablement and written description. In particular,
neither patent describes or enables using collaborative filtering or any other form of feedback on
a demand search. Rather, the patents only describe and enable using collaborative filtering with
persistent or “wire” search results.
Google reserves its right to supplement, revise or render more specific its responses to
Interrogatory No. 8, including during expert discovery.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Google identifies the following
documents previously produced by Google as showing that the asserted claims from the ‘420 and
‘664 patents are invalid: G-IPE-0217615 - G-IPE-0217641, G-IPE-0217642 - G-IPE-0217648,
G-IPE-0217649 - G-IPE-0217672, G-IPE-0217673 - G-IPE-0217683, G-IPE-0217684 - G-IPE0217693, G-IPE-0217694 - G-IPE-0217708, G-IPE-0217709 - G-IPE-0217756, G-IPE-0217757
- G-IPE-0217770, G-IPE-0217771 - G-IPE-0217780, G-IPE-0217781 - G-IPE-0217796, G-IPE0217797 - G-IPE-0217813, G-IPE-0217814 - G-IPE-0217870, G-IPE-0217871 - G-IPE0217956, G-IPE-0217957 - G-IPE-0217999, and G-IPE-0218000 - G-IPE-0218013.
Google served its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions on January 24, 2012. Google
hereby incorporates those Contentions by reference and submits that its response to this

01980.52020/4832162.1

4

Interrogatory also may be derived from those disclosures. Google reserves the right to amend
and/or supplement its invalidity contentions if and when further information becomes available.
Google reserves its right to supplement, revise or render more specific its responses to
Interrogatory No. 8, including during expert discovery.

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8
Google incorporates its General Objections, Specific Objections to Interrogatory No. 8,
and prior responses to Interrogatory No. 8 as if fully set forth herein.
Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Google further states that the
following additional prior art references, either alone or in conjunction with the knowledge of one
of skill in the art, render one or more of the asserted claims invalid:


U.S. Patent No. 6,185,558 to Bowman et al. (“Bowman”)



U.S. Patent No. 6,006,222 to Culliss (“Culliss”)



U.S. Patent No. 6,421,675 to Ryan et al. (“Ryan”)

Claim charts illustrating how Bowman, Culliss, and Ryan invalidate the asserted claims
are attached hereto as Exhibits A-7, A-8, and A-9.1
Plaintiff alleged that various references from Defendants’ Preliminary Invalidity
Contentions do not filter informons “for relevance to the query” or receive information “found to
be relevant to the query by other users,” on the theory that these references filter and rank for
relevance to the user instead of relevance to the query. See, e.g., I/P Engine’s Response to
Google’s Interrogatory No. 13 at 6 (stating that the Rose reference “ranks items based on how

1

Google further attaches to this interrogatory response, as Exhibits A-1 through A-6,
amended versions of the claim charts that were first presented as Exhibits to Defendants’
Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.

01980.52020/4832162.1

5

well their content matches a profile of interests stored for each user, not a query received from an
individual user”); 14 (“Nor does Balabanovic disclose ‘receiving information found to be
relevant to the query by other users.’ Balabanovic’s feedback is an indication of how well a user
liked an item.”)
Defendants further provide invalidity charts for Bowman, Culliss, and Ryan, which filter
information “for relevance to the query” and “receiv[e] information found to be relevant to the
query by other users.” See Exhibits A-7, A-8, A-9. For example, Bowman accepts a search
query from a user and generates a body of search results that match the query. (See Bowman at
Abstract; 5:31-32; claim 28). Bowman then gives each search result a ranking score based on
how often prior users who had entered the same query had selected that particular result. (See id.
at Abstract; 2:30-35; 5:32-35; claim 28). Items that were selected more often get higher ranking
scores, and the items with the highest ranking scores are presented to the user. (Id. at 9:60-64).
(As detailed in the attached charts, Bowman, Culliss, and Ryan also use content-based filtering
with their feedback-based filtering.)
Notably, while I/P Engine sought to distinguish the prior art references on the alleged
ground that they do not filter information “for relevance to the query” or “receiv[e] information
found to be relevant to the query by other users,” it has essentially ignored these limitations in its
Infringement Contentions. For example, I/P Engine’s Infringement Contentions state that
Google AdWords meets the ‘664 claim element of “receiving information found to be relevant to
the query by other users” because AdWords allegedly records an advertisement’s historical clickthrough rate and allegedly uses this click-through rate as a component of the advertisement’s
Quality Score. (See I/P Engine, Inc.’s Second Preliminary Infringement Contentions against
Google at 24-25). Even if these assertions are true—and they are not—I/P Engine does not even

01980.52020/4832162.1

6

try to explain how historical click-through rate constitutes “information found to be relevant to
the query by other users.” Rather, I/P Engine’s Infringement Contentions assert that an
advertisement’s historical click-through rate is the overall rate that the ad was clicked on by all
AdWords users, not just users who had entered the same query. Thus, I/P Engine’s own
Infringement Contentions fail to even allege how AdWords meets the limitation that I/P Engine
asserts was missing from Defendants’ prior invalidity charts, i.e. a measure of how relevant users
found an advertisement to be for any given query.
* * *
Google also notes that the Court’s Markman Order of June 15, 2012 (Dkt. 171) held that
“scanning a network” means “looking for or examining items in a network” and “a scanning
system” means “a system used to search for information.” (See id. at 23). Under this
construction, the process of “scanning” is not limited to spidering or crawling, as Defendants had
originally proposed, expanding the relevant art for this element further. Similarly, the Markman
Order also construed “collaborative feedback data” and “[feedback system for] receiving
information found to be relevant to the query by other users” so as not to require that the
feedback or received information comes from users with similar interests or needs, again
expanding the art relevant to this limitation. (See id.) Google’s investigation continues as to
relevant prior art under the Court’s constructions and Google reserves its rights to supplement its
response based on additional prior art discovered under that investigation.
Further, the Court has construed “demand search” as “a single search engine query
performed upon a user request,” and has construed “query” as a “request for search results.”
(Markman Order at 8, 23). The Court construed “scanning a network” as “looking for or
examining items in a network.” (Id. at 23). Thus, the element of “scanning a network to make a

01980.52020/4832162.1

7

demand search for informons” requires looking for or examining items to make a request for
search results, which makes no sense. The ‘420 specification also does not describe how to look
for or examine items to make a request for search results, nor does it enable one of skill in the art
to carry out this step. Accordingly, claims 10, 25, and their dependents are invalid for
indefiniteness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement.
Google understands that I/P Engine will supplement its Infringement Contentions by July
2, 2012, and Google reserves its rights to supplement this response based on I/P Engine’s
forthcoming supplemental Infringement Contentions.

Dated: July 2, 2012

By: /s/ David A. Perlson
Stephen E. Noona
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 West Main Street
Post Office Box 3037
Norfolk, VA 23514
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
David A. Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Defendant GOOGLE INC.

01980.52020/4832162.1

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On July 2, 2012, I caused to be served the foregoing Defendant Google Inc.’s Third
Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories
by email, on Plaintiff’s counsel of record.

/s/Joshua L. Sohn
Joshua L. Sohn

01980.52020/4832162.1

9

Exhibit A-7
U.S. Patent Claim Charts for the asserted ‘664 and ‘420 patents against U.S. Patent No. 6,185,558 (“Bowman”)
To the extent that either I/P Engine argues or the Court finds that this reference does not explicitly teach certain limitations in
the asserted claims, such limitations would have been inherent and/or obvious. This invalidity chart is based in whole or in part on
Defendants’ present understanding of the asserted claims, and I/P Engine’s apparent construction of the claims in their Infringement
Contentions. Defendants are not adopting I/P Engine’s claim construction, nor admitting to the accuracy of any particular claim
construction. To the extent that I/P Engine’s apparent claim construction or applications thereof are reflected in this invalidity chart,
nothing herein should be construed as an admission that Defendants agree with I/P Engine’s apparent claim construction or I/P
Engine’s application of that claim construction in its Infringement Contentions.
Defendants identification of this publication as prior art herein under 35 U.S.C. §§102(a), (b), (e), and/or (g) and §103 includes
the publication itself as well as the use of the products and systems described therein. Although Defendants’ investigation continues,
information available to date indicates that such products and systems were (1) known or used in the country before the alleged
invention of the claimed subject matter of the asserted claims, (2) were in public use and/or on sale in this country more than one year
before the filing date of the patent, and/or (3) were invented by another who did not abandon, suppress, or conceal, before the alleged
invention of the claimed subject matter of the asserted claim. Upon information and belief, these prior art products and systems and
their associated references anticipate and/or render obvious each of the asserted claims.
Defendants reserve all rights to amend their Invalidity Contentions if I/P Engine amends its Infringement Contentions.

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman

1. [preamble] A search system comprising:

See Bowman at 5:31-32 (stating that Bowman's system includes “a query
server for generating query results from queries.”)
See Bowman at Claim 28[a-b] (“A computer-readable medium whose contents
cause a computer system to rank items in a search result by: receiving a query
specifying one or more terms; generating a query result identifying a plurality
of items satisfying the query”)

01980.51928/4826250.1

1

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman

“Many World Wide Web sites permit users to perform searches to identify a
small number of interesting items among a much larger domain of items. As
an example, several web index sites permit users to search for particular web
sites among most of the known web sites.” Bowman at 1:18-22.
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 6:42-58.
Lashkari at 59.
Tapestry at 63.
Balabanovic at 69-70.
GroupLens at 2.
Rose at 2:51-55.
Culliss at Abstract, 4:20-26.
Ryan at Abstract, 1:8-10, 1:20-23.
[a] a scanning system for searching for
“In order to perform a search, a user submits a query containing one or more
information relevant to a query associated with a query terms. The query also explicitly or implicitly identifies a domain of
first user in a plurality of users;
items to search. For example, a user may submit a query to an online
bookseller containing terms that the user believes are words in the title of a
book. A query server program processes the query to identify within the

01980.51928/4826250.1

2

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman
domain items matching the terms of the query. The items identified by the
query server program are collectively known as a query result.” Bowman at
1:28-37.
"As an example, several web index sites permit users to search for particular
web sites among most of the known web sites. Similarly, many online
merchants, such as booksellers, permit users to search for particular products
among all of the products that can be purchased from a merchant. In many
cases, users perform searches in order to ultimately find a single item within
an entire domain of items." Bowman at 1:20-25.
"The memory 130 preferably contains a query server 131 for generating query
results from queries, a query result ranking facility 132 for automatically
ranking the items in a query result in accordance with collective user
preferences, and item rating tables 133 used by the facility." Bowman at 5:3135.
"In response to receiving the HTTP request documented in Log Entry 1, the
query server generates a query result for the query and returns it to the web
client submitting the query." Bowman at 7:65-67.
See also chart for claim 1(preamble), supra.
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 6:42-58.
Lashkari at 59.

01980.51928/4826250.1

3

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman
Tapestry at 63.
Balabanovic at 69-70.
GroupLens at 2.
Rose at 2:51-55.
Culliss at Abstract, 4:10-26

[b] a feedback system for receiving information
found to be relevant to the query by other users;
and

Bowman at Abstract (“[A] software facility . . . produces a ranking value for at
least a portion of the items identified in the query result by combining the
relative frequencies with which users selected that item from the query results
specifying each of the terms specified by the query.”)
Bowman at Claim 28[c] (“for each item identified in the query result,
combining the relative frequencies with which users selected the item in
earlier queries specifying each of the terms in the query to produce a ranking
value for the item.”)
Bowman at 2:32-34 (“The scores in the rating table preferably reflect, for a
particular item and term, how often users have selected the item when the item
has been identified in query results produced for queries containing particular
term.”)
"In augmenting the item rating table 300, the facility identifies the selection of
the item having item identifier ‘1883823064’ from a query result produced by
a query specifying the query terms ‘human’ and ‘dynamics’. FIG. 4 shows the
state of the item rating table after the item rating table is augmented by the
facility to reflect this selection." Bowman at 6:26-31.

01980.51928/4826250.1

4

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman
"The facility may also use the ranking values to subset the items in the query
result to a smaller number of items. By ordering and/or subsetting the items in
the query result in this way in accordance with collective and individual user
behavior . . . the facility substantially increases the likelihood that the user will
quickly find within the query result the particular item or items that he or she
seeks." Bowman at 2:62-3:2.
"Where information about user selections is stored in web server logs such as
those discussed above, the facility preferably identifies user selections by
traversing these logs. Such traversal can occur either in a batch processing
mode after a log for a specific period of time has been completely generated,
or in a real-time processing mode so that log entries are processed as soon as
they are generated." Bowman at 8:21-27.
Bowman at Fig. 4:

01980.51928/4826250.1

5

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 6:13-18, 10:44-47, 19:9-14; 23:45-24:13.
Lashkari at 59-60, 18.
Tapestry at 63.
GroupLens at 1, 2, 5-10.
Rose at 6:59-7:10.
Culliss at Abstract; 4:37-41.
Ryan at 2:31-37.

[c] a content-based filter system for combining the
information from the feedback system with the
information from the scanning system and for
filtering the combined information for relevance
to at least one of the query and the first user.

Bowman at 9:28-53 (“The facility uses rating tables that it has generated to
generate ranking values for items in new query results . . . scores may be
adjusted to more directly reflect the number of query terms that are matched to
the item, so that items that match more query terms than others are favored in
the rankings.”)
Bowman at claim 29 (“The computer-readable medium of claim 28 wherein
the contents of the computer-readable medium further cause the computer
system to perform the step of adjusting the ranking value produced for each
item identified in the query result to reflect the number of terms specified by
the query that are matched by the item.”)
Bowman at 1:42-45 (“As another example, the list may be ordered based on

01980.51928/4826250.1

6

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman
the extent to which each identified item matches the terms of the query.”)
"To generate a ranking value for a particular item in a query result, the facility
combines the rating scores corresponding to that item and the terms of the
query. In embodiments in which the goal is to generate ranking values for each
item in the query result, the facility preferably loops through the items in the
query results and, for each item, combines all of the rating scores
corresponding to that item and any of the terms in the query." Bowman at
2:40-47
"The facility uses rating tables that it has generated to generate ranking values
for items in new query results. FIG. 8 is a flow diagram showing the steps
preferably performed by the facility to order a query result using a rating table
by generating a ranking value for each item in the query result. In steps 801807, the facility loops through each item identified in the query result. In step
802, the facility initializes a ranking value for the current item. In steps 803805, the facility loops through each term occurring in the query. In step 804,
the facility determines the rating score contained by the most recentlygenerated rating table for the current term and item. In step 805, if any terms
of the query remain to be processed, then the facility loops up to step 803, else
the facility continues in step 806. In step 806, the facility combines the scores
for the current item to generate a ranking value for the item." Bowman at
9:28-43.
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 18:39-43.
Lashkari at 15-16, 60.

01980.51928/4826250.1

7

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman

Tapestry at 61, 63.
Balabanovic at 69, 66.
GroupLens at 2, 3.
Rose at Abstract, 6:5-11.
Culliss at 14:34-36, 13:35-42.
Ryan at 1:59-66, 23:38-49.
5. The search system of claim 1 wherein the
filtered information is an advertisement.

Bowman at 5:4, 9:2-3, claim 7 (disclosing that system users can purchase the
items represented by the search results, which effectively render the search
results as advertisements for those items)
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element,
this reference in combination with the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art renders this claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 61:4-18.
Culliss at 9:58-62.
Ryan at 4:57-59, 22:49-55.

6. The search system of claim 1 further
comprising an information delivery system for
delivering the filtered information to the first
user.

See Bowman at 9:56-58 (“In step 808, the facility displays the items identified
in the query result in accordance with the ranking values generated for the
items in step 806”)
"By ordering and/or subsetting the items in the query result in this way in

01980.51928/4826250.1

8

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman
accordance with collective and individual user behavior rather than in
accordance with attributes of the items, the facility substantially increases the
likelihood that the user will quickly find within the query result the particular
item or items that he or she seeks." Bowman at 2:63-3:3.
"In step 907, the facility selects for prominent display items having the top
three combined scores. In additional embodiments, the facility selects a small
number of items having the top combined scores that is other than three."
Bowman at 10:30-34.
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 6:13-18, Fig. 10 at 1106.
GroupLens at 10, 11.
Rose at Abstract.
Culliss at 4:25-31.
Ryan at 21:14-26, 23:47-49.

21. The search system of claim 1 wherein the
content-based filter system filters by extracting
features from the information.

See Bowman at 9:50-53; claim 29 (disclosing the extraction of words from the
content of each search result in order to determine how many of the words
from the query are found in the search result.)
"In steps 204-208, the facility loops through each item selection from a query
result that was made by a user during the time period." Bowman at 5:57-59.

01980.51928/4826250.1

9

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman
"Various embodiments of the invention base rating scores on different kinds of
selection actions performed by the users on items identified in query results.
These include whether the user displayed additional information about an
item, how much time the user spent viewing the additional information about
the item, how many hyperlinks the user followed within the additional
information about the item, whether the user added the item to his or her
shopping basket, and whether the user ultimately purchased the item."
Bowman at 3:16-24.
"On the other hand, in embodiments in which the goal is to select a few items
in the query result having the largest ranking values, the facility preferably
loops through the terms in the query, and, for each item, identifies the top few
rating scores for that term and any item." Bowman at 4:26-31.
Bowman at 7:46-55:

To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 6:18-29.

01980.51928/4826250.1

10

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman
Lashkari at 15-16, 60.
Tapestry at 67.
Balabanovic at 69.
GroupLens at 3.
Rose at 2:35-38; 6:10-25.
Culliss at 14:34-36.
Ryan at 16:4-9.

22. The search system of claim 21 wherein the
extracted features comprise content data
indicative of the relevance to the at least one of
the query and the user.

See chart for claim 21, supra.

26. A method for obtaining information relevant
to a first user comprising:

See chart for Claim 1.

searching for information relevant to a query
associated with a first user in a plurality of
users;

See chart for Claim 1(a)

receiving information found to be relevant to the
query by other users;

See chart for Claim 1(b).

combining the information found to be relevant to
the query by other users with the searched
information; and

See chart for Claim 1(b).

content-based filtering the combined information
for relevance to at least one of the query and the

See chart for Claim 1(c).

01980.51928/4826250.1

11

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman

first user.
28. The method of claim 26 further comprising
the step of delivering the filtered information to
the first user.

See chart for Claim 6, supra.

38. The method of claim 26 wherein the
searching step comprises scanning a network in
response to a demand search for the information
relevant to the query associated with the first
user.

See chart for Claim 1(a), supra.

01980.51928/4826250.1

12

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420
(“the ‘420 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman

10. [preamble] A search engine system
comprising:

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(preamble), supra.

[a] a system for scanning a network to make a
demand search for informons relevant to a query
from an individual user;

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(a), supra.

[b] a content-based filter system for receiving the
informons from the scanning system and for
filtering the informons on the basis of applicable
content profile data for relevance to the query;
and

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(c), supra.

[c] a feedback system for receiving collaborative
feedback data from system users relative to
informons considered by such users;

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(b), supra.

[d] the filter system combining pertaining
feedback data from the feedback system with
the content profile data in filtering each
informon for relevance to the query.

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(c), supra.

14. The system of claim 10 wherein the
collaborative feedback data comprises passive
feedback data.

Bowman at 2:31-35 (“The scores in the rating table preferably reflect, for a
particular item and term, how often users have selected the item when the item
has been identified in query results produced for queries containing particular
term.”)
Bowman at 7:31-33 (disclosing that user selections can comprise user requests
to see more information about one or more of the search results presented to
them).
Bowman at 9:2-3 (disclosing that user selections can also comprise a request
to purchase the item(s) corresponding to the search result(s))

01980.51928/4826250.1

13

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420
(“the ‘420 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman

"In augmenting the item rating table 300, the facility identifies the selection of
the item having item identifier ‘1883823064’ from a query result produced by
a query specifying the query terms ‘human’ and ‘dynamics.’ FIG. 4 shows the
state of the item rating table after the item rating table is augmented by the
facility to reflect this selection. It can be seen by comparing entry 405 in item
rating table 400 to entry 305 in item rating table 300 that the facility has
incremented the score for this entry from ‘45’ to ‘46’. Similarly, the facility
has incremented the rating score for this item identifier the term ‘dynamics’
from ‘22’ to ‘23’. The facility augments the rating table in a similar manner
for the other selections from query results that it identifies during the time
period." Bowman at 6:26-40.
"Various embodiments of the invention base rating scores on different kinds of
selection actions performed by the users on items identified in query results.
These include whether the user displayed additional information about an
item, how much time the user spent viewing the additional information about
the item, how many hyperlinks the user followed within the additional
information about the item, whether the user added the item to his or her
shopping basket, and whether the user ultimately purchased the item."
Bowman at 3:17-23.
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element,
this reference in combination with the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art renders this claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 10:44-47.
Tapestry at 62.
GroupLens at 6, 10.

01980.51928/4826250.1

14

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420
(“the ‘420 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman

Loeb at 41.
Culliss at Abstract; 4:32-34.
Ryan at 9:22-30, 9:41-48.
15. The system of claim 14 wherein the passive
feedback data is obtained by passively
monitoring the actual response to a proposed
informon.
25. A method for operating a search engine
system comprising:

See chart for Claim 14.

See chart for Claim 10(preamble).

scanning a network to make a demand search for
See chart for Claim 10(a).
informons relevant to a query from an individual
user;
receiving the informons in a content-based filter
system from the scanning system and filtering
the informons on the basis of applicable content
profile data for relevance to the query;

See chart for Claim 10(b).

receiving collaborative feedback data from system
users relative to informons considered by such
users; and

See chart for Claim 10(c).

combining pertaining feedback data with the
content profile data in filtering each informon
for relevance to the query.

See chart for Claim 10(d).

27. The method of claim 25 wherein the
collaborative feedback data provides passive
feedback data.

See chart for Claim 14.

01980.51928/4826250.1

15

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420
(“the ‘420 Patent”)

Disclosure in Bowman

28. The method of claim 27 wherein the passive
feedback data is obtained by passively
monitoring the actual response to a proposed
informon.

See chart for Claim 15.

01980.51928/4826250.1

16

Exhibit A-8
U.S. Patent Claim Charts for the asserted ‘664 and ‘420 patents against U.S. Patent No. 6,006,222 (“Culliss”)
To the extent that either I/P Engine argues or the Court finds that this reference does not explicitly teach certain limitations in
the asserted claims, such limitations would have been inherent and/or obvious. This invalidity chart is based in whole or in part on
Defendants’ present understanding of the asserted claims, and I/P Engine’s apparent construction of the claims in their Infringement
Contentions. Defendants are not adopting I/P Engine’s claim construction, nor admitting to the accuracy of any particular claim
construction. To the extent that I/P Engine’s apparent claim construction or applications thereof are reflected in this invalidity chart,
nothing herein should be construed as an admission that Defendants agree with I/P Engine’s apparent claim construction or I/P
Engine’s application of that claim construction in its Infringement Contentions.
Defendants identification of this publication as prior art herein under 35 U.S.C. §§102(a), (b), (e), and/or (g) and §103 includes
the publication itself as well as the use of the products and systems described therein. Although Defendants’ investigation continues,
information available to date indicates that such products and systems were (1) known or used in the country before the alleged
invention of the claimed subject matter of the asserted claims, (2) were in public use and/or on sale in this country more than one year
before the filing date of the patent, and/or (3) were invented by another who did not abandon, suppress, or conceal, before the alleged
invention of the claimed subject matter of the asserted claim. Upon information and belief, these prior art products and systems and
their associated references anticipate and/or render obvious each of the asserted claims.
Defendants reserve all rights to amend their Invalidity Contentions if I/P Engine amends its Infringement Contentions.

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss

1. [preamble] A search system comprising:

See Culliss at 4:10-26 (explaining that Culliss’ system accepts a search query
from a user and returns squibs of articles that match the query)
"As users enter search queries and select articles, the scores are altered. The
scores are then used in subsequent searches to organize the articles that match
a search query." Culliss at Abstract.

01980.51928/4826252.1

1

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss
"The present invention relates to search engines, and more particularly
pertains to a method for organizing information by monitoring the search
activity of users." Culliss at 1:17-20.
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 6:42-58.
Lashkari at 59.
Tapestry at 63.
Balabanovic at 69-70.
GroupLens at 2.
Rose at 2:51-55.
Bowman at 5:31-32; claim 28[a-b]
Ryan at Abstract, 1:8-10, 1:20-23.

[a] a scanning system for searching for
"The search engine then identifies in any conceivable manner the articles
information relevant to a query associated with a which are associated with the matched key terms. This can be done by
first user in a plurality of users;
comparing all or part of the search query, or terms equivalent to those in the
search query with the key terms in the index to identify the key terms which
match the search query. The search engine may account for Boolean logic
operators in the search query." Culliss at 4:12-15.

01980.51928/4826252.1

2

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss
“The search engine then compares the search query with the key terms from
the articles and retrieves at least a portion of the articles having key terms
which match the search query. The search engine will then display to the user
the portion of the article such as the title. The user can then scroll through
these retrieved portions of the articles and select a desired article.” Cullis at
1:44-47.
See also chart for claim 1(preamble), supra.

[b] a feedback system for receiving information
found to be relevant to the query by other users;
and

"As users enter search queries and select articles, the scores are altered. The
scores are then used in subsequent searches to organize the articles that match
a search query." Culliss at Abstract
"Once the user has selected a matched article, and as shown in FIG. 1 at 40,
the index can be altered such that the key term scores for the selected matched
article under the matched key terms are altered relative to other key term
scores." Culliss at 4:37-41.
“If the user selected only article A3, the key term scores for selected matched
article A3 under the matched key term groupings Alpha-Gamma would be
altered. Additionally, the key term scores for selected matched article A3
under the matched key term groupings Alpha-Alpha and Gamma-Gamma
could also be altered since the key terms Alpha and Gamma are each
represented individually in the results of the search query.” Culliss at 7:60-67.

01980.51928/4826252.1

3

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss

“Thus, after executing the search query "Alpha AND Gamma," the search
engine would display the squib of matched articles A1 and A3. If the user
selected only article A3, the index could be altered such that the key term
scores for the selected matched article A3 under the matched key terms Alpha
and Gamma are altered relative to the other key term scores. The index would
then look like this:” Cullis at 4:50-56.

“Further, the key term total scores for both article A1 and article A3 under the
matched key terms could also be altered. If the positive score is added to the
key term scores for the selected matched article A3 under the matched key
terms Alpha and Gamma, and the positive score is added to the key term total
scores for the matched articles A1 and A3 (regardless of whether they were
selected or not) under the matched key terms, the index would then look like
this:” Cullis at 5:49-54.

01980.51928/4826252.1

4

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss

To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 6:13-18, 10:44-47, 19:9-14; 23:45-24:13.
Lashkari at 59-60, 18.
Tapestry at 63.
GroupLens at 1, 2, 5-10.
Rose at 6:59-7:10.
Bowman at Abstract, claim 28[c], 2:32-34.
Ryan at 2:31-37.
[c] a content-based filter system for combining the
information from the feedback system with the
information from the scanning system and for
filtering the combined information for relevance
to at least one of the query and the first user.

Culliss at 14:34-36 (disclosing that a key term score for a search result may be
initially determined by the content of the search result – namely, how many
times the key term appears in the search result’s content.)
Culliss at 13:35-42 (“the comparison scores could be continuously combined
with the ranking provided by the search engine to supplement or correct such a
ranking. For example, the search engine may rank or organize the articles by
providing a relevancy score, such ad the percentile relevancy provided by the
search engines ‘Excite’ ™ or ‘Lycos’ TM.
"To this end, the key term scores of each matched article under each of the
matched key terms of the new search could then be associated in any possible

01980.51928/4826252.1

5

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss
manner to create a comparison score for each matched article. For example,
the key term scores could be added, multiplied together or averaged to create
the comparison score for that matched article." Culliss at 5:1-5.
“For the next search by either the same or a different user, the invention could
then rank the matched articles by using the key term scores, as shown in FIG.
1 at 50 and 60. To this end, the key term scores of each matched article under
each of the matched key terms of the new search could then be associated in
any possible manner to create a comparison score for each matched article.”
Culliss at 4:65-5:3.

01980.51928/4826252.1

6

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss

To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 18:39-43.
Lashkari at 15-16, 60.
Tapestry at 61, 63.
Balabanovic at 69, 66.

01980.51928/4826252.1

7

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss

GroupLens at 2, 3.
Rose at Abstract, 6:5-11
Bowman at 9:28-53; claim 29.
Ryan at 1:59-66, 23:38-49.
5. The search system of claim 1 wherein the
filtered information is an advertisement.

"For example, the user may enter the category key terms "Apartments" and
"Los Angeles" or the category key terms "Romantic" and "Comedy" to find
articles (i.e. advertisements or movies) which fall under two or more category
key terms." Culliss at 9:58-62.
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element,
this reference in combination with the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art renders this claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 61:4-18.
Bowman at 5:4, 9:2-3, claim 7.
Ryan at 4:57-59, 22:49-55.

6. The search system of claim 1 further
comprising an information delivery system for
delivering the filtered information to the first
user.

Culliss at 4:25-31 (“As shown in FIG. 1 at 20, the search engine will then
display a squib of each of the matched articles . . . the user can then scroll
through the squibs of the articles and select a desired one”)
"The matched articles can then be displayed to the user in order of comparison
score superiority, such as by displaying the matched article with the highest
comparison score first." Culliss at 5:7-10.

01980.51928/4826252.1

8

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss
“The invention could then display the article A3 to the user in a superior
position to article A1 because the comparison score for matched article A3 is
higher.” Culliss at 6:42-45.
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 6:13-18, Fig. 10 at 1106.
GroupLens at 10, 11.
Rose at Abstract.
Bowman at 9:56-58.
Ryan at 21:14-26, 23:47-49.

21. The search system of claim 1 wherein the
content-based filter system filters by extracting
features from the information.

Culliss at 14:34-36 (disclosing that Culliss extracts words from the content of
each search result in order to determine how often the words from the query
are found in these search results.)
"The articles are each associated with one or more of these key terms by any
conceivable method of association, such as through indexing all words or
through meta-tag headers containing key words selected by the author or
editor." Cullis at 3:61:63.
“The squib may comprise any portion, hypertext link to or representation of
the matched article, such as the title, headings, first few lines of text, audio,
video or any other type of information.” Cullis at 14:47-50.

01980.51928/4826252.1

9

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 6:18-29.
Lashkari at 15-16, 60.
Tapestry at 67.
Balabanovic at 69.
GroupLens at 3.
Rose at 2:35-38; 6:10-25.
Bowman at 9:50-53; claim 29.
Ryan at 16:4-9.

22. The search system of claim 21 wherein the
extracted features comprise content data
indicative of the relevance to the at least one of
the query and the user.

See chart for Claim 21, supra.

26. A method for obtaining information relevant
to a first user comprising:

See chart for Claim 1.

searching for information relevant to a query
associated with a first user in a plurality of
users;

See chart for Claim 1(a)

receiving information found to be relevant to the

See chart for Claim 1(b).

01980.51928/4826252.1

10

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss

query by other users;
combining the information found to be relevant to
the query by other users with the searched
information; and

See chart for Claim 1(b).

content-based filtering the combined information
for relevance to at least one of the query and the
first user.

See chart for Claim 1(c).

28. The method of claim 26 further comprising
the step of delivering the filtered information to
the first user.

See chart for Claim 6, supra.

38. The method of claim 26 wherein the
searching step comprises scanning a network in
response to a demand search for the information
relevant to the query associated with the first
user.

See chart for Claim 1(a), supra.

01980.51928/4826252.1

11

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420
(“the ‘420 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss patent Reference

10. [preamble] A search engine system
comprising:

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(a), supra.

[a] a system for scanning a network to make a
demand search for informons relevant to a query
from an individual user;

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(a), supra.

[b] a content-based filter system for receiving the
informons from the scanning system and for
filtering the informons on the basis of applicable
content profile data for relevance to the query;
and

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(c), supra.

[c] a feedback system for receiving collaborative
feedback data from system users relative to
informons considered by such users;

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(b), supra.

[d] the filter system combining pertaining
feedback data from the feedback system with
the content profile data in filtering each
informon for relevance to the query.

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(c), supra.

14. The system of claim 10 wherein the
collaborative feedback data comprises passive
feedback data.

Culliss at Abstract (“As users enter search queries and select articles, the
scores are altered”)
Culliss at 4:32-34 (disclosing that Culliss passively monitors whether the user
performs such selection actions as “opening, retrieving, reading, viewing,
listening to or otherwise closely inspecting the article.”)
"Once the user has selected a matched article, and as shown in FIG. 1 at 40,
the index can be altered such that the key term scores for the selected matched
article under the matched key terms are altered relative to other key term
scores." Culliss at 4:37-41.

01980.51928/4826252.1

12

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420
(“the ‘420 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss patent Reference

“For example, if the user selected only article A3 after executing a search
query containing the rating key term X-Rated, the key term score for article
A3 under the rating key term X-Rated would be altered relative to the other
rating key term scores.” Culliss at 11:45-53.
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element,
this reference in combination with the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art renders this claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 10:44-47.
Tapestry at 62.
GroupLens at 6, 10.
Bowman at 2:31-35; 7:31-33; 9:2-3.
Ryan at 9:22-30, 9:41-48.
15. The system of claim 14 wherein the passive
feedback data is obtained by passively
monitoring the actual response to a proposed
informon.
25. A method for operating a search engine
system comprising:

See chart for Claim 14, supra.

See chart for Claim 10(a).

scanning a network to make a demand search for
See chart for Claim 10(a).
informons relevant to a query from an individual
user;
receiving the informons in a content-based filter

01980.51928/4826252.1

See chart for Claim 10(b).

13

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420
(“the ‘420 Patent”)

Disclosure in Culliss patent Reference

system from the scanning system and filtering
the informons on the basis of applicable content
profile data for relevance to the query;
receiving collaborative feedback data from system
users relative to informons considered by such
users; and

See chart for Claim 10(c).

combining pertaining feedback data with the
content profile data in filtering each informon
for relevance to the query.

See chart for Claim 10(d).

27. The method of claim 25 wherein the
collaborative feedback data provides passive
feedback data.

See chart for Claim 14.

28. The method of claim 27 wherein the passive
feedback data is obtained by passively
monitoring the actual response to a proposed
informon.

See chart for Claim 15.

01980.51928/4826252.1

14

Exhibit A-9
U.S. Patent Claim Charts for the asserted ‘664 and ‘420 patents against U.S. Patent No. 6,421,675 (“Ryan”)
To the extent that either I/P Engine argues or the Court finds that this reference does not explicitly teach certain limitations in
the asserted claims, such limitations would have been inherent and/or obvious. This invalidity chart is based in whole or in part on
Defendants’ present understanding of the asserted claims, and I/P Engine’s apparent construction of the claims in their Infringement
Contentions. Defendants are not adopting I/P Engine’s claim construction, nor admitting to the accuracy of any particular claim
construction. To the extent that I/P Engine’s apparent claim construction or applications thereof are reflected in this invalidity chart,
nothing herein should be construed as an admission that Defendants agree with I/P Engine’s apparent claim construction or I/P
Engine’s application of that claim construction in its Infringement Contentions.
Defendants identification of this publication as prior art herein under 35 U.S.C. §§102(a), (b), (e), and/or (g) and §103 includes
the publication itself as well as the use of the products and systems described therein. Although Defendants’ investigation continues,
information available to date indicates that such products and systems were (1) known or used in the country before the alleged
invention of the claimed subject matter of the asserted claims, (2) were in public use and/or on sale in this country more than one year
before the filing date of the patent, and/or (3) were invented by another who did not abandon, suppress, or conceal, before the alleged
invention of the claimed subject matter of the asserted claim. Upon information and belief, these prior art products and systems and
their associated references anticipate and/or render obvious each of the asserted claims.
Defendants reserve all rights to amend their Invalidity Contentions if I/P Engine amends its Infringement Contentions.

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

1. [preamble] A search system comprising:

Ryan Abstract: "The present invention provides for a method of updatig an
internet search engine database with the results of a user's selection of specific
web page listings from the general web page listing provided to the user as a
result of his initial keyword search entry. By updating the database with the
selections of many different users, the database can be updated to prioritize
those web listings that have been selected the most with respect to a given

01980.51928/4829935.1

1

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan
keyword, and thereby presenting first the most popular web page listings in a
subsequent search using the same keyword search entry. "
Ryan at 1:8-10: "The present invention relates to a method and apparatus that
allows for enhanced database searching, and more particularly; for use as an
internet search engine."
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 6:42-58.
Lashkari at 59.
Tapestry at 63.
Balabanovic at 69-70.
GroupLens at 2.
Culliss at Abstract, 4:20-26.
Bowman at 5:31-32; claim 28[a-b]
Rose at 2:51-55, claim 26.

[a] a scanning system for searching for
Ryan at 1:23-31: "The search command is transmitted to a server computer,
information relevant to a query associated with a the has a search engine associated with the server computer. The search engine
first user in a plurality of users;
receives the search command, and then using it scans for these key words
through a database of web addresses and the text stored on the web sites.

01980.51928/4829935.1

2

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan
Thereafter, the results of the scan are transmitted from the server computer
back to the user's computer and displayed on the screen of the user's
computer."
Ryan at 1:32-40: “In order for the search engine to be aware of new web sites
and to update its records of existing sites, either the proprietors of the web
sites notify the search engine themselves or the information may be obtained
via a `web crawler` to update the database at the server computer. A web
crawler is an automated program which explores and records the contents of a
web site and its inks to other sites, thereby spreading between sites in an
attempt to index all the current sites.”
Ryan at 8:52-57: “Step 114, discussed in detail hereinafter, is the process of
selecting web pages from novel new search engine data sets produced in
accordance with the present invention. This can run, if desired, in parallel with
step 116 which obtains a selection of web pages from other existing search
engines.”
Fig. 1B:

01980.51928/4829935.1

3

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

See also chart for claim 1(preamble),supra.
[b] a feedback system for receiving information

01980.51928/4829935.1

Ryan at 2:31-37: "By updating the database with the selections of many

4

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)
found to be relevant to the query by other users;
and

Disclosure in Ryan
different users, the database can be updated to prioritize those web listings that
have been selected the most with respect to a given keyword, and hereby
presenting first the most popular web page listings in a subsequent search
using the same keyword search entry."
Ryan at 9:17-30: "Depending on the relevance of the site, the user may spend
time reading, downloading, exploring further pages, embedded links and so
forth, or if the site appears irrelevant/uninteresting, the user may return
directly back to the search results after a short period. The time difference
between the two selections is recorded as the difference between two date/time
data 132 from subsequent selections from the list of web page searches (in this
embodiment one can only measure the time spent at one web page if another
selection is made after visiting that web page--this then provides another surfer
trace 132 which allow a time difference to be calculated). This surfer trace
data on the popularity of web pages is used to the subsequent searches, as
described further hereinafter."
Ryan at 9:39-44: "As described above, human brain power is captured by
recording which web pages the user goes to after each keyword search.
According to the present invention, collecting the surfer trace data is achieved
by sending, in the list of web pages generated by the search to the user, hidden
links that will automatically send information back to the search engine (or a
subsidiary server)."
Ryan at 10:7-41: “Thus, the search results page according to the present
invention is therefore differently formatted from conventional search engines'
results pages. The difference is in action rather than content. Visually, the page
looks the same to the user as standard search results from other search engines.
An example illustrates this point: In a conventional search the results page for
a search of the keyword "Weather" may read: 1. www.weather.com Today's
weather forecast. Today is expected to be fine ad sunny everywhere. The

01980.51928/4829935.1

5

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan
HTTP link associated with the "www.weather.com" label is
"http:l/www.weather.com". This means that if the user selects this link, they
will navigate to this page directly. In contrast, according to the present
invention, the tagged result page for the search made suing the keyword
"Weather" may read 1. www.weather com Today's weather forecast. Today is
expected to be fine and sunny everywhere. The HTTP link associated with the
"www.weather.com" label is link.asp?n=1." If the user selects this link,
therefore, in a process is invisible to the user, the user is first directed to the
link asp page on the site corresponding to the web server using the search
engine 10 according to the present invention, and pass parameter n with value
1. Server side code (application code that runs on the web server) uses this
parameter to identify Me URL and description of the user's chosen site, This
information is then stored in a database Table along wit other surfer trace data.
The server side code then executes a redirect operation to the user's required
URL. The user then sees their required page appear. The source of search
results is independent to this activity. The destination page of the user is
independent of this activity. The process is one of recording a user keyword
and destination into a database. This method of tracking can only record the
initial web-page visited after a keyword search. If the user continues to return
to the search results list then subsequent web-page visits can be recorded.”
Ryan at 10:54-58: “As previously mentioned, the surfer trace data that can be
collected includes keyword 124, URL 126, user ID 128, IP address 130, datetime 132, brief web page description 134, and is identified as such since it
provides a trace or record of how searchers (surfers) use the search engine.”
Ryan at 12:16-60: “Keyword URL Link Table (172)
The contents of keyword URL lilt table 172 of FIG. 4 are shown in more detail
in Table 3 shown below. This table is of particular significance with respect to
the present invention because it contain information about the inks between
information supplies (URL addresses or web pages) and information requests

01980.51928/4829935.1

6

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan
(Keywords). This data is recorded in further data sets which describes the
relationship between the Key-words and occurrences as defined by the
following three parameters. the cumulative number of significant visits (hits)
to each URL addresses corresponding to each key-word (herein referred to as
X or weighting factor X). This is a measure of the popularity of the URL for
each keyword and is determine from the surfer traces. the previous cumulative
number of significant visits measured at an earlier predetermined instant;
(herein referred to as Y or weighting factor Y) a date time factor relating to the
instant of the creation or input of each said web-page(herein referred to as Z or
weighting factor Z). Z is the data time in which a web-page developer
submitted a web-page to the search engine. Not all combinations of keywords and URL addresses will have data for X, Y and Z.

”
Ryan at 16:31-43: “As mentioned above, the simplest method of recording a

01980.51928/4829935.1

7

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan
link ("useful visit"or "hit") between a keyword and a URL would be to count
each keyword, URL paring in a surfer trace as a "hit". A more meaningful and
sophisticated method is only to count a location selection as a valid if the user
meets certain criteria. This criterion could be the user exceeding a specified
time at a location. If this criterion was not met, the selection would not be
increase the cumulative value of X in Table 3. It is also possible to increment
the value of X based on the time spent at the web page. The longer the time
spent the more this increments the value of X. X does not have to be a whole
number.”
Figure 3B:

01980.51928/4829935.1

8

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:

01980.51928/4829935.1

9

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

Herz at 6:13-18, 10:44-47, 19:9-14; 23:45-24:13.
Lashkari at 59-60, 18.
Tapestry at 63.
GroupLens at 1, 2, 5-10.
Culliss at Abstract; 4:37-41.
Bowman at Abstract, claim 28[c], 2:32-34.
Rose at 6:59-7:10.
[c] a content-based filter system for combining the
information from the feedback system with the
information from the scanning system and for
filtering the combined information for relevance
to at least one of the query and the first user.

Ryan at 1:59-66: “These results are in the form of a list, ranked according to
criteria specific to the search engine. These criteria may range from the
number of occurrences of the key-words anywhere within the searched text, to
methods giving a weighting to key-words used in particular positions (as
previously mentioned). When multiple key-words have been used, sites are
also ranked according to the number of different key-words applicable.”
Ryan at 13:8-18: “In his example the global popularity (using the general
profile type ) for the Rugby and Basketball URL addresses are 520 and 4000
respectively and 52 and 20 respectively for the New Zealand profile type.
When the general profile type setting is used (ranked based on X1), the
Basketball site would be ranked at the top. When the New Zealand setting is
chosen (ranked based on X:2) the rugby site would be highest. This would be a
reflection of the preferences of the New Zealanders. This is a very simple
method of storing the preference of different groups of people.”

01980.51928/4829935.1

10

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan
Ryan at 20:30-45: “The numbers (X, Y and Z) in Table 3, which correspond to
keyword URL link table 172 in FIG. 5 contain all the information required to
give the following types of searches 58: Popular-list search ranked hit-list of
the most popular URLs for that keyword based on the number X Hot off the
press search ranked hit-list of newest URLs for the keyword based on the
date/time (Z) High-flyers search ranked hit-list of best emerging URLs based
the difference between X and Y Random search hit-list that is a random
sample of URLs that have any of the numbers X, Y or Z Date created search
this is hit-list based on the date time Z and the user-specified date of interest
(not just the newest).”
Ryan at 21:14-26: “FIG. 6 illustrates the process for determining a list of
popular web pages associated with the entry of a keyword 270 in step 272. If
this search is selected and a keyword is entered, step 274 follows and produces
a list of web pages based on the values of X taken from Table 3 (172, FIG. 5)
for the keyword 270 entered. These web pages are identified by a unique webpage(URL) number from Table 3. Thereafter, in step 276 the list of web-page
numbers found from step 274 is combined with the URL address and webpage description from Table 2 (188 FIG. 5). In step 278 the resulting list of
web pages is then tagged, depending on the results of step 246 in FIG. 5 as
described previously, and sent to the user for them to make their selections.”
Ryan at 23:38-49: "Upon entry of a keyword in step 402, that keyword is used
to select from a combination of web page selections associated with that
keyword. A shown, for example, in step 404, an equally weighted combination
of conventional, popular, highflier, new and past search results is used to
obtain a list of web page numbers. Thereafter, in step 406 the list of web-page
numbers found from step 404 is combined with the URL address and webpage description from Table 2 (188 FIG. 5). In step 408 the resulting list of
web pages is then tagged, depending on the results of step 246 in FIG. 5 as
described previously, and sent to the user for them to make their selections."

01980.51928/4829935.1

11

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

Fig. 6:

To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 18:39-43.

01980.51928/4829935.1

12

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

Lashkari at 15-16, 60.
Tapestry at 61, 63.
Balabanovic at 69, 66.
GroupLens at 2, 3.
Culliss at 14:34-36, 13:35-42.
Bowman at 9:28-53; claim 29.
Rose at Abstract.
5. The search system of claim 1 wherein the
filtered information is an advertisement.

Ryan at 4:57-59: "Another novel feature of the present invention, which
indirectly inures to the benefit of the end user, directly benefits the advertiser,
because it allows for content to be targeted in real time based upon various
criteria. As will be described more fully hereinafter, a content providing
algorithm is initially selected which will determine how content is selected in
step 34. Step 36 follows, and based upon inputs from users and content
providers, which content to show is determined. Thereafter, the advertisements
are displayed for the user to see, simultaneously with the display of either
keywords and/or web pages."
Ryan at 7:8-13: “Content Provider's list: This is a list (associated with each
key-word) of content providers which must typically [that] pay to illustrate
content with the key-word. The price paid is dependent on the number of other
content providers, the amount they spend and the number of times the key
word is searched for.”

01980.51928/4829935.1

13

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan
Ryan at 22:49-55: "This is a list of content, such as advertisements, associated
with the key-word, which the user cannot control. The ones that have paid the
most will be at the top of the list, as described further hereinafter, in
accordance with the preferred embodiment of the invention. Of course, other
systems for identifying the order of paying content providers can also be
implemented."
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element,
this reference in combination with the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art renders this claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 61:4-18.
Culliss at 9:58-62.
Bowman at 5:4, 9:2-3, claim 7.

6. The search system of claim 1 further
comprising an information delivery system for
delivering the filtered information to the first
user.

Ryan at 21:14-26: “FIG. 6 illustrates the process for determining a list of
popular web pages associated with the entry of a keyword 270 in step 272. If
this search is selected and a keyword is entered, step 274 follows and produces
a list of web pages based on the values of X taken from Table 3 (172, FIG. 5)
for the keyword 270 entered. These web pages are identified by a unique webpage(URL) number from Table 3. Thereafter, in step 276 the list of web-page
numbers found from step 274 is combined with the URL address and webpage description from Table 2 (188 FIG. 5). In step 278 the resulting list of
web pages is then tagged, depending on the results of step 246 in FIG. 5 as
described previously, and sent to the user for them to make their selections.”
Ryan at 23:47-49: "In step 408 the resulting list of web pages is then tagged,
depending on the results of step 246 in FIG. 5 as described previously, and
sent to the user for them to make their selections."

01980.51928/4829935.1

14

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

Fig. 6:

To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 6:13-18, Fig. 10 at 1106.

01980.51928/4829935.1

15

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

GroupLens at 10, 11.
Culliss at 4:25-31.
Bowman at 9:56-58.
Rose at Abstract.
21. The search system of claim 1 wherein the
content-based filter system filters by extracting
features from the information.

Ryan at 16:4-9: "[W]eb crawlers may also add URL addresses and
descriptions (the description is either the first few lines of the web-page or in
the HTML coded "title"). This is not an essential element of the system but it
could be a method to obtain URL's and descriptions. With this search system
web crawlers are more likely to be used to verify the information rather than
find new information."
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element, this reference in
combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art renders this
claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 6:18-29.
Lashkari at 15-16, 60.
Tapestry at 67.
Balabanovic at 69.
GroupLens at 3.
Culliss at 14:34-36.

01980.51928/4829935.1

16

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

Bowman at 9:50-53; claim 29.
Rose at 2:35-38.
22. The search system of claim 21 wherein the
extracted features comprise content data
indicative of the relevance to the at least one of
the query and the user.

See chart for Claim 1(c) and Claim 21.

26. A method for obtaining information relevant
to a first user comprising:

See chart for Claim 1.

searching for information relevant to a query
associated with a first user in a plurality of
users;

See chart for Claim 1(a)

receiving information found to be relevant to the
query by other users;

See chart for Claim 1(b).

combining the information found to be relevant to
the query by other users with the searched
information; and

See chart for Claim 1(b).

content-based filtering the combined information
for relevance to at least one of the query and the
first user.

See chart for Claim 1(c).

28. The method of claim 26 further comprising
the step of delivering the filtered information to
the first user.

See chart for Claim 6, supra.

38. The method of claim 26 wherein the
searching step comprises scanning a network in
response to a demand search for the information
relevant to the query associated with the first

See chart for Claim 1(a), supra.

01980.51928/4829935.1

17

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664
(“the '664 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

user.

01980.51928/4829935.1

18

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420
(“the ‘420 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

10. [preamble] A search engine system
comprising:

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(a), supra.

[a] a system for scanning a network to make a
demand search for informons relevant to a query
from an individual user;

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(a), supra.

[b] a content-based filter system for receiving the
informons from the scanning system and for
filtering the informons on the basis of applicable
content profile data for relevance to the query;
and

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(c), supra.

[c] a feedback system for receiving collaborative
feedback data from system users relative to
informons considered by such users;

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(b), supra.

[d] the filter system combining pertaining
feedback data from the feedback system with
the content profile data in filtering each
informon for relevance to the query.

See chart for ‘664 Patent, Claim 1(c), supra.

14. The system of claim 10 wherein the
collaborative feedback data comprises passive
feedback data.

Ryan at 9:22-30: “The time difference between the two selections is recorded
as the difference between two date/time data 132 from subsequent selections
from the list of web page searches (in this embodiment one can only measure
the time spent at one web page if another selection is made after visiting that
web page--this then provides another surfer trace 132 which allow a time
difference to be calculated). This surfer trace data on the popularity of web
pages is used to the subsequent searches, as described further hereinafter.”
Ryan at 9:41-48: "According to the present invention, collecting the surfer
trace data is achieved by sending, in the list of web pages generated by the
search to the user, hidden links that will automatically send information back

01980.51928/4829935.1

19

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420
(“the ‘420 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan
to the search engine (or a subsidiary server). While the user only sees that his
intended link is displayed, the hidden link notifies the search engine of the
transfer, which process can be executed with a Java applet."
To the extent this reference does not teach this claim element,
this reference in combination with the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art renders this claim element obvious. See, e.g.:
Herz at 10:44-47.
Tapestry at 62.
GroupLens at 6, 10.
Loeb at 41.
Culliss at Abstract; 4:32-34.
Bowman at 2:31-35; 7:31-33; 9:2-3.
Culliss at Abstract; 4:32-34.
Ryan at 9:22-30, 9:41-48.

15. The system of claim 14 wherein the passive
feedback data is obtained by passively
monitoring the actual response to a proposed
informon.

01980.51928/4829935.1

Ryan at 9:22-30: “The time difference between the two selections is recorded
as the difference between two date/time data 132 from subsequent selections
from the list of web page searches (in this embodiment one can only measure
the time spent at one web page if another selection is made after visiting that
web page--this then provides another surfer trace 132 which allow a time
difference to be calculated). This surfer trace data on the popularity of web
pages is used to the subsequent searches, as described further hereinafter.”

20

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420
(“the ‘420 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

Ryan at 9:41-48: "According to the present invention, collecting the surfer
trace data is achieved by sending, in the list of web pages generated by the
search to the user, hidden links that will automatically send information back
to the search engine (or a subsidiary server). While the user only sees that his
intended link is displayed, the hidden link notifies the search engine of the
transfer, which process can be executed with a Java applet.”
Ryan at 9:62-65: "In one specific embodiment, the user must visit a particular
web site for greater than a predetermined period of time, such as one minute or
fifteen minutes, depending on what is an appropriate time to have looked at
the site."
See also chart for claim 14, supra.
25. A method for operating a search engine
system comprising:

See chart for Claim 10(a).

scanning a network to make a demand search for
See chart for Claim 10(a).
informons relevant to a query from an individual
user;
receiving the informons in a content-based filter
system from the scanning system and filtering
the informons on the basis of applicable content
profile data for relevance to the query;

See chart for Claim 10(b).

receiving collaborative feedback data from system
users relative to informons considered by such
users; and

See chart for Claim 10(c).

combining pertaining feedback data with the
content profile data in filtering each informon
for relevance to the query.

See chart for Claim 10(d).

01980.51928/4829935.1

21

Claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420
(“the ‘420 Patent”)

Disclosure in Ryan

27. The method of claim 25 wherein the
collaborative feedback data provides passive
feedback data.

See chart for Claim 14.

28. The method of claim 27 wherein the passive
feedback data is obtained by passively
monitoring the actual response to a proposed
informon.

See chart for Claim 15.

01980.51928/4829935.1

22