PTAB

IPR2016-00797

Google Inc v. Improved Search LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Cross-Language Search Method and System
  • Brief Description: The ’101 patent describes methods and systems for electronic cross-language search. The purported invention is a pre-translation step of "dialectal standardization," where uncommon dialectal variants in a user's query (e.g., British "lorry" vs. American "truck") are converted to a more common word before the query is translated into a second language for searching.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Fluhr ’97 and Fluhr ’98 - Claims 1-2, 4-5, 22, 24, 27-28 are obvious over Fluhr ’97 in view of Fluhr ’98.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fluhr ’97 (a 1997 technical report describing the SPIRIT system) and Fluhr ’98 (a 1998 book chapter further describing the SPIRIT system).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the core inventive concept of the ’101 patent, "dialectal standardization," was a well-known process called "normalization" in the prior art. The Fluhr references describe the SPIRIT cross-language search system, which explicitly performed normalization on query terms before translation to resolve both spelling differences (e.g., "harbour" to "harbor") and synonymy (e.g., French "logiciel" and "software" to "logiciel"). Petitioner asserted this is identical to the function of the claimed "dialectal controller." The remaining limitations of independent claims 1 and 22, which recite a standard cross-language search process, were also allegedly disclosed by the SPIRIT system described in Fluhr.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Fluhr ’97 and Fluhr ’98 because they were written by the same lead author, address the same problem of cross-language information retrieval, and describe different aspects of the same underlying system (SPIRIT). A POSITA seeking to understand the complete SPIRIT system would have consulted both documents.
    • Expectation of Success: As both references describe the same system, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining their teachings to understand its full, predictable operation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Fluhr ’97, Fluhr ’98, and Yamabana - Claims 6, 7, 23, and 25 are obvious over Fluhr ’97 and Fluhr ’98 in view of Yamabana.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fluhr ’97, Fluhr ’98, and Yamabana (a 1998 book chapter on post-search translation).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds functionality to the base system disclosed by Fluhr. The challenged dependent claims add limitations related to translating search results back into the user's first language, including allowing the user to selectively translate all or portions of the results. Petitioner contended that Yamabana, published in the same book as Fluhr ’98, taught this exact functionality. Yamabana described a modular post-search machine translation system designed to help users screen results, which could be integrated with existing search systems.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Yamabana with the Fluhr system to add a known, useful feature—post-search translation—to improve the user experience. This combination represented the application of a known technique (Yamabana's translation module) to an existing system (Fluhr's SPIRIT system) to achieve a predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Yamabana explicitly described its translation system as a modular "front-end" that was portable and could be combined with any arbitrary retrieval system, ensuring a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Bian, Fluhr ’97, and Fluhr ’98 - Claims 12-13, 15-16, and 26 are obvious over Bian in view of Fluhr ’97 and Fluhr ’98.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bian (a 1998 conference paper describing a cross-language retrieval system), Fluhr ’97, and Fluhr ’98.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets the system claims, primarily independent claim 12, which recites various means-plus-function limitations for system components. Petitioner argued that Bian disclosed a comprehensive cross-language search system that included every structural component of claim 12: a user interface for query input, query translation, use of public search engines, and translation of results for display. The only element missing from Bian was the pre-translation "dialectal standardization." Petitioner argued this missing element was supplied by the normalization function of the SPIRIT system disclosed in the Fluhr references.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Fluhr's normalization teachings into Bian's system to improve the query translation step, a common goal in the field. Petitioner noted that Bian cited papers from the same symposium as Fluhr ’97 and one of Fluhr '98's co-authors, directly leading a POSITA from Bian to the teachings of Fluhr.
    • Expectation of Success: Incorporating a known query normalization technique into a known system architecture would have yielded the predictable result of improved translation accuracy.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 17 based on the combination of Bian, Fluhr ’97, Fluhr ’98, and Yamabana, arguing for substituting Yamabana's selective translation feature into the combined Bian/Fluhr system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "dialectal standardization": Petitioner argued this term is not one of art and proposed the construction "replacing one term with another term in the same language that has the same or similar meaning." This construction was critical to equate the claim term with the "normalization" of synonyms and spelling variants disclosed in the prior art.
  • Means-Plus-Function Terms (Claim 12): Petitioner contended that terms such as "dialectal controller for...", "first translator for...", and "second translator for..." were generic, failed to recite sufficiently definite structure, and should be construed as means-plus-function limitations under §112. For the purposes of the petition, Petitioner proposed construing these terms as any hardware and/or software that performs the recited function, arguing that the specification provided no specific structure for these elements, which would render the claim indefinite in other proceedings. For the "search engine" limitation, Petitioner construed the corresponding structure as the specific public search engines listed in the patent's specification (e.g., Infoseek, Lycos).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-7, 12-13, 15-17, and 22-28 of the ’101 patent as unpatentable.