PTAB

IPR2019-00238

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Veveo, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2019-00238
  • Patent #: 7,779,011
  • Filed: November 12, 2018
  • Petitioner(s): Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
  • Patent Owner(s): Veveo, Inc.
  • Challenged Claims: 1-24

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DYNAMICALLY PROCESSING AMBIGUOUS, REDUCED TEXT SEARCH QUERIES AND HIGHLIGHTING RESULTS THEREOF
  • Brief Description: The ’011 patent discloses a method and system for processing search queries entered on a device with an overloaded keypad, such as a multi-tap phone keypad where one key corresponds to multiple characters. The system incrementally retrieves and displays search results, highlighting characters within the results that match the ambiguous user input.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Zigmond, Smith, and Payne - Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-18, and 21-24 are obvious over Zigmond in view of Smith and further in view of Payne.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zigmond (Application # 2005/0256846), Smith (Patent 6,529,903), and Payne (Patent 6,370,518).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zigmond taught the core of an incremental search system that maps data items to predefined "bins" based on alphanumeric prefix strings (e.g., a "TA" bin for items starting with "TA"). However, Zigmond’s system used alphanumeric indexes. Smith was argued to supply the teachings for overloaded keypads by disclosing the use of a numeric index that maps items to ambiguous numeric keystrokes, and further taught how to convert an alphanumeric index into such a numeric index. Payne was asserted to teach the claimed highlighting feature, where characters in search results are bolded as a user incrementally enters numeric keys, providing essential visual feedback.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Zigmond and Smith to make Zigmond's incremental search system more efficient for the overloaded keypad devices it already contemplated, representing a simple substitution of a numeric index for an alphanumeric one to improve performance. A POSITA would further add Payne’s highlighting to the combined Zigmond/Smith system to provide beneficial visual feedback to the user, which was a known technique for improving search interface usability.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining known indexing, search, and display techniques to improve efficiency and usability was a well-understood design choice that would yield predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Zigmond, Smith, Payne, and Sanders - Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, and 20 are obvious over Zigmond in view of Smith and Payne and further in view of Sanders.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zigmond (Application # 2005/0256846), Smith (Patent 6,529,903), Payne (Patent 6,370,518), and Sanders (Patent 7,885,963).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address specific dependent claims related to result ordering. Petitioner asserted that Sanders taught various advanced criteria for ordering and filtering search results beyond the simple alphabetical ordering disclosed in Zigmond and Payne. The petition argued Sanders disclosed ranking by temporal relevance, popularity, and personal preferences. Further, Sanders was argued to teach ordering results to show exact term matches before abbreviation (stemmed) matches, which met the limitations of the challenged dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Sanders's advanced ranking and filtering techniques into the base Zigmond/Smith/Payne system. This would provide users with more powerful and desirable options for sorting search results, representing a predictable improvement to the base system.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because implementing known ranking methods, such as those in Sanders, into an existing search system was a common and straightforward task for a POSITA, especially since all cited references were directed to incremental search systems.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • The petition advanced specific constructions for key terms, arguing they were critical for its obviousness contentions and consistent with a prior Final Written Decision (FWD) against a related patent.
  • "directly mapped": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "each alphanumeric character of a search query prefix substring associated with an item is matched with its corresponding numeric key equivalent on an overloaded keypad." This construction, derived from a PTAB decision on the related '696 patent, was central to mapping Smith's numeric indexing method onto Zigmond's system.
  • "letters and numbers": The petition argued this phrase should be construed as "alphanumeric characters." This construction was deemed consistent with the specification and necessary because not all indexed items contain both letters and numbers.
  • "caused said items to be associated...": This phrase was proposed to mean determining the characters that "match a string of unresolved keystrokes directly mapped to the subset." The petition argued this construction supported its invalidity arguments under multiple interpretations of when the "determining" step occurs.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • A central technical contention involved the timing and nature of the "determining" step recited in limitation 1[b]. The petition argued that this step—determining which characters "caused" an item to be in a result set—is inherently taught by the prior art combination, regardless of interpretation.
  • Petitioner contended that if this "determining" step is performed during the initial indexing, then the creation of the numeric index in the combined Zigmond/Smith system satisfies the limitation because the grouping of items itself is the determination.
  • Alternatively, if the "determining" step is performed after a query is entered, then Payne’s system inherently performs this function by identifying which characters to highlight in the results in response to the user's keystrokes. This dual-pronged argument was designed to show the claim limitation was obvious under any plausible technical reading.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-24 of the ’011 patent as unpatentable.