PTAB

IPR2019-01287

Inc Foursquare Labs v. Mimzi LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Social-Network-Informed Contextual Voice-Based Searching
  • Brief Description: The ’981 patent discloses systems and methods for using transcribed user speech and associated location metadata to search a social network database. The system then ranks and presents the search results to the user on a mobile device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Evermann - Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-18 are obvious over Evermann

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Evermann (Application # 2008/0154612).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Evermann discloses a system for mobile, voice-mediated search that teaches virtually every element of the independent claims. Evermann’s system receives a spoken utterance from a user’s mobile device, generates a text transcript, uses location metadata to query content providers (e.g., Google, ESPN), and presents ranked results back to the user. Petitioner contended that Evermann’s disclosure of querying general-purpose internet content providers inherently provides access to social network information and records available at the time, such as from Yelp or Facebook.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference. Petitioner argued that to the extent Evermann does not explicitly detail social network features like records, specific ranking factors, or information types, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to apply these known features. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate well-understood social networking concepts to improve the contextual querying in Evermann’s system, providing more relevant, up-to-date, and trustworthy results.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in applying common social networking features to Evermann’s system, as it would be a routine application of known techniques to improve a known system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Evermann and Yoo - Claims 1-18 are obvious over Evermann in view of Yoo

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Evermann (Application # 2008/0154612) and Yoo (Application # 2009/0281988).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Evermann provides the foundational voice-activated, location-aware mobile search system. Yoo was cited to explicitly supply any social networking features not fully detailed in Evermann. Yoo teaches a mobile querying platform that ranks results based on social networking factors, such as recommendations from users with close social links to the inquiring user. Yoo explicitly discloses ranking based on the credibility and popularity of recommendations, determined by factors like the number of recommending users and their "degree-of-closeness" to the searcher.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Evermann’s system with Yoo’s teachings to enhance mobile-contextual querying. Yoo is directed to the same field of mobile search and addresses the problem of providing more relevant results by leveraging social networks. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Yoo's specific methods for ranking by credibility and popularity to improve the relevancy and personalization of results in Evermann's broader voice-search architecture.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination would involve applying Yoo's known social ranking algorithms to Evermann's system, which would have been a predictable and straightforward integration with an expectation of improved results.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Ramer and Hayashi - Claims 1-19 are obvious over Ramer in view of Hayashi

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ramer (Application # 2007/0061302) and Hayashi (Application # 2007/0255831).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ramer teaches a comprehensive wireless search platform for mobile devices that accepts voice commands, uses the user's location, and queries multiple data sources, including internet databases and subscriber characteristic databases. Ramer discloses ranking results based on factors like user demographics, relevancy, and popularity. Hayashi was presented to teach the specific application of social network features to enhance mobile, voice-activated searches. Hayashi discloses using "social networking information"—such as user reviews, ratings, friend behavior, calendar information, and physical proximity—to provide rich, dynamic query results for mobile users, specifically in the context of restaurant searches.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Ramer's robust voice-search platform with Hayashi's advanced social networking features to enrich the mobile user experience and improve result relevancy. Ramer already suggests using demographic and rating data, and Hayashi provides a more detailed framework for incorporating a wider array of social data. This combination would provide more dynamic and personalized results, which was a known goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in integrating Hayashi's social data processing into Ramer's system, as both references operate in the mobile search context and aim to improve contextual awareness.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Social Network": Petitioner argued that the applicant defined "social-network" in the patent's abstract as a "Centralized Community Search database." Based on this, Petitioner contended that a POSITA would understand the term, as applied to a "database," to mean an information storage system for data regarding one or more groups of people that is accessible for search via a central service or platform. This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that the general-purpose content providers disclosed in the prior art qualify as social network databases.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’981 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.