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

Filing 512

Declaration re 511 Opposition, of Howard Chen in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Daubert Motion, and Fourth Motion in Limine to Exclude Lyle Ungar's New Theory of Invalidity and Opinions Regarding Claim Construction by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13)(Noona, Stephen)

EXHIBIT 2

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-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