petition for inter partes reviewfishpostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/ipr2015-00257.pdf ·...

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re patent Yu et al:

U.S. Patent No. 8,135,706

Issued: March 13, 2012

Title: OPERATIONALIZING SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION

Petition for Inter Partes Review

Attorney Docket No.: 387824-000001.706

Customer No.: 26379

Real Parties in Interest: Searchmetrics, Inc and Searchmetrics GmbH

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

Mail Stop Patent Board Patent Trial and Appeal Board P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100,

Searchmetrics, Inc (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions the Patent Trial and Appeal

Board to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-16 and 20-21 of United States

Patent No. 8,135,706 (the “’706 patent”).

U.S. Patent No. 8,135,706- Petition For Inter Partes Review

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 1

A. Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................... 1

B. Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1

C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .......................... 1

II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 2

III. RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................................. 2

IV. THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF ..................................... 2

A. Summary of Reasons ............................................................................ 2

B. The ’706 Patent .................................................................................... 3

1. Overview .................................................................................... 3

2. Prosecution History .................................................................... 4

3. Share of Voice ............................................................................ 5

C. Identification of Challenges ................................................................. 8

1. Challenged Claims ..................................................................... 9

2. Statutory Grounds for Challenges .............................................. 9

3. Claim Construction .................................................................. 10

4. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................ 12

D. Identification of How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable ......... 13

1. Challenge #1: 1-7, 11-13, 15-16, and 20-21are unpatentable over Moran in view of Graham under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................. 13

2. Challenge #2: Claims 8-9 and 14 are obvious over Moran in view of Graham and SEO Tools Guide ............................... 49

U.S. Patent No. 8,135,706 - Petition For Inter Partes Review

ii

3. Challenge #3: Claim 10 is obvious over Moran in view of Graham and Stern ..................................................................... 55

V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 57

VI. PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................. 58


iii

EXHIBIT LIST

SM-1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,135,706

SM-1002 Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,135,706

SM-1003 “Search Engine Marketing, Inc.: Driving Search Traffic

to Your Company’s Web Site” Book by Mike Moran and Bill Hunt

(“Moran”)

SM-1004 U.S. Patent No. 8,041,596 to Graham et al. (“Graham”)

SM-1005 SEO Tools Guide – Technical User Manual, AOL (“SEO

Tools Guide”)

SM-1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,983,282 to Stern et al. (“Stern”)

SM-1007 Expert Declaration of Ivan Zatkovich (“Zatkovich

Decl.”)

SM-1008 Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1990)

SM-1009 Google.com, Google Advanced Search (Jun. 23, 2006)

SM-1010 Google.com, Google Web Channels Search (Oct. 8,

2002)

SM-1011 Google.com, Google Blog Search (Nov. 1, 2005)

SM-1012 Google.com, Google Advanced Search (Dec. 14, 2000)

SM-1013 Webposition.com, Key Features (Dec. 1, 1998)


iv

SM-1014 Webposition.com, WebPosition Gold Features (Apr. 21,

1999)

SM-1015 Adwords Blogspot, “Discovery your share of voice with

Impression Share reporting” (Jul. 5, 2007)

SM-1016 Radian6.com, Radian Technology (Feb. 16, 2007)

SM-1017 Postrank.com, PostRank FAQ (Sep. 12, 2008)

SM-1018 MarketingTechBlog.com, History of Web and Social

Analytics (2011)

SM-1019 Mashable.com, “Webtrends Launches Analytics for

Facebook Marketers” (Feb. 25, 2010)

SM-1020 Brightedge.com, “BrightEdge Announces US Patent for

Operationalizing SEO” (April 12, 2012)

U.S. Patent No. 8,135,706- Petition For Inter Partes Review

1

I. MANDATORY NOTICES

A. Real Party-in-Interest

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Searchmetrics, Inc. and Searchmetrics

GmbH are the real parties-in-interest for this petition (collectively the “Real

Parties–in-Interest”).

B. Related Matters

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), the ’706 patent is presently the subject of

a patent infringement lawsuit brought by the assignee, BrightEdge Technologies,

Inc. (“BrightEdge”), which may affect or be affected by a decision in this

proceeding: BrightEdge Technologies, Inc. v. Searchmetrics GmbH and

Searchmetrics, Inc., N.D. Cal Case No. 3:14-cv-01009-WHO.

On September 18, 2014, Petitioners filed a petition for inter partes review of

U.S. Patent No. 8,478,746 to Yu et al. (the “’746 patent”). The ’746 patent is a

continuation of the ’706 patent, and because the ’706 patent has common claim

terms as the ’746 patent, any decision or findings made in regards to the inter

partes review of the ’746 patent may affect this petition.

C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioner provides the

following designation of counsel. Lead counsel is Timothy W. Lohse (Reg. No.

35,255) and backup counsel is Harpreet Singh (Reg. No. 71,842), both at the email

address: [email protected]. The postal and hand delivery address


2

for both is DLA Piper LLP (US), 2000 University Avenue, East Palo Alto,

California, 94303, the telephone number for Mr. Lohse is (650) 833-2055, the

telephone number for Mr. Singh is (650) 833-2191, and the fax number for both

Mr. Lohse and Mr. Singh is (650) 687-1191.

II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’706

patent is available for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred or

estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the claims of the ’706

patent on the grounds identified herein.

III. RELIEF REQUESTED

Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and

analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 1-16 and 20-21 of the

’706 patent, and cancel claims 1-16 and 20-21 as invalid for the reasons set forth

below.

IV. THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF

A. Summary of Reasons

The ’706 patent relates to search engine optimization and managing

references to an entity on a network, including determining shares of voice. See

SM-1001 at Abstract. But as shown below, this “shares of voice” feature, as well

as others claimed in the ’706 patent, were well known in the art long before the

’706 patent was filed.


3

B. The ’706 Patent

1. Overview

The ’706 patent, entitled “Operationalizing Search Engine Optimization,”

issued on March 13, 2012 from an application filed on August 12, 2010 by named

inventors Jimmy Yu, Sammy Yu, Lemuel S. Park and Rolland Yip.

The ’706 patent is directed to search engine optimization in which references

(links or web pages) to an entity (individuals, corporations, brands, product models

or other entities) are managed across channels (organic search, paid search, blogs,

social media and many other channels). SM-1001 at Abstract, 1:8-22, 2:1-13 and

2:53-3:10.

The specification summarizes the alleged benefits of the claimed system and

method as follows:

Systems and methods are provided herein for determining shares of

voice, both for the entity and other entities, with respect to selected

search terms across channels and over time. Systems and methods

are also provided herein for determining causes in changes of

performance based on analyses of the shares of voice. Further,

through analysis of the shares of voice the systems and methods can

manage high impact search terms and opportunities. The system is

also able to determine return on investment for targeting and

managing high impact search terms as well as initiatives over time

and across channels. In addition, the system is configured to

determine and ensure compliance to optimization standards.


4

SM-1001 at 2:53-64 (emphasis added). Figure 3 of the ’706 patent, reproduced

below, illustrates a method for identifying changes in an entity’s performance.

Figure 3 illustrates most of the steps recited in independent claims 1 and 11.

SM-1001 at FIG. 3, 7:28-8:59.

2. Prosecution History

The ’706 patent matured from Patent Application No. 12/855,668, which

was filed on August 12, 2010. In the only Office Action mailed on January 11,

2012, the Examiner rejected claims 12-23 as being directed to non-statutory


5

subject matter under 35 USC 101, rejected claims 1 and 3-11 as being anticipated

by U.S. 2010/0121707 to Goeldi (“Goeldi”), and rejected claims 12-23 as being

unpatentable over Goeldi in view of several prior art references. The Examiner

indicated that claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. SM-

1002 (January 11, 2012 Office Action) at 2.

The examiner initiated an interview held on January 17, 2012, discussed the

claim rejections, and received authority to amend independent claims 1 and 12

(issued as claim 11) to incorporate the limitations of claim 2 into those independent

claims. SM-1002 at Examiner Initiated Interview Summary attached to Notice of

Allowance. The case was then allowed with the amended independent claims.

3. Share of Voice

The ’706 patent claims a concept called “share of voice” or “shares of

voice,” which is determined in independent claims 1 and 11 by “multiplying the

rank positions by products of estimated click rates and volumes of traffic” for a

keyword (search term). SM-1001 at 14:24-26, 15:27-29. The language “share[s] of

voice” is used seven times in the Abstract of the ’706 patent, and independent

claims 1 and 11 of the ’706 patent all include multiple steps on either determining

or correlating “shares of voice.” SM-1001 at Abstract, 14:18-38, 15:7-38.

Further, the original assignee of the ’706 patent, BrightEdge Technologies,

Inc. (“BrightEdge”), described the key feature of the ’706 patent as its “unique


6

method for measuring share of voice in search engine rankings.” SM-1020 at 1.

BrightEdge further described the share of voice feature as follows:

Share of voice is an innovation from BrightEdge that helps companies

understand how their search ranking stack up against the competition.

This unique and now patented capability allows companies to

discover the entire competitive landscape for a group of keywords,

what percentage of the keywords in the group they rank for, and the

number of keywords for which they rank. This patented capability

helps companies discover new competitors and create winning

competitive SEO strategies.

SM-1020 at 1.

But share of voice is a concept that was known in the art well prior to the

filing date of the ’706 patent. As an example, U.S. Patent No. 8,041,596 to Graham

et al. (“Graham”), filed on September 7, 2007 and based on a provisional

application filed on September 8, 2006 (almost four years prior to the filing date of

the ’706 patent), discloses the same method cited in the claims of the ’706 patent:


7

Graham at 1:55-65. Graham discloses that this formula is used for “estimating

search engine market share for a plurality of web sites.” Graham at 1:37-65. The

formula combines a total volume of searches for a given keyword, a click-through

rate for the search results position at which the entity reference is found for the

keyword, and a market share for a search engine in order to calculate the market

share (share of voice) for a given web site. The formula further sums the

contribution of each keyword to calculate the “total contribution C of all keywords

to the market share of a given website” Graham at 6:65-7:1.

In fact, Graham discloses five different equations for determining market

share (share of voice), at least four of which disclose the ’706 patent’s description

of determining share of voice. Zakovich Decl. at ¶ 89; SM-1001 at 7:12-27.

Specifically, Equation 1 (Graham at 6:44-62) discloses calculating “search engine


8

market share contribution c …for a single keyword ranking r (where each ranking

is a search engine result for a single keyword k in a set position p at search engine

s)”; Equation 2 (shown above and disclosed by Graham at 6:65-7:1) discloses

calculating “[t]he total contribution (C) of all keywords to the market share of a

given website…by summing the market share contribution c for each keyword

ranking r…”; Equation 3 (Graham at 9:51-65) discloses calculating “the total

contribution of all rankings on keywords in the search domain to the search engine

market share for the websites”; Equation 4 (Graham at 12:12-31) calculates a

“Total Contribution for a Weighted Keyword List”; and Equation 5 (Graham at

13:8-32) discloses calculating “individual keyword contributions…for sites having

one or more search engine rankings for any of the keywords.”

C. Identification of Challenges

Petitioner requests inter partes review of the ’706 patent in view of the

following references:

SM-1003 “Search Engine Marketing, Inc.: Driving Search Traffic

to Your Company’s Web Site” Book by Mike Moran and Bill Hunt

(“Moran”)

SM-1004 U.S. Patent No. 8,041,596 to Graham et al. (“Graham”)

SM-1005 SEO Tools Guide – Technical User Manual, AOL (“SEO

Tools Guide”)


9

SM-1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,983,282 to Stern et al. (“Stern”)

1. Challenged Claims

Petitioner requests that claims 1-16 and 20-21 of the ’706 patent be found

unpatentable.

2. Statutory Grounds for Challenges

Challenge #1: Claims 1-7, 11-13, 15-16, and 20-21 are unpatentable over

Moran in view of Graham under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’706 patent’s earliest

filing date is August 12, 2010. Moran (included as Exhibit SM-1003 and referred

to as “Moran”) was published in 2006, making it prior art to the ’706 patent under

35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA). SM-1001 at cover page and Moran at copyright

page (page viii). Graham (included as Exhibit SM-1004 and referred to as

“Graham”) was filed on September 7, 2007 and issued on October 18, 2011,

making it prior art to the ’706 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA). Graham

at cover page.

Challenge #2: Claims 8-9 and 14 are unpatentable over Moran in view

of Graham and SEO Tools Guide under 35 U.S.C.§ 103. The SEO Tools Guide

(included as Exhibit SM-1005 and referred to as “SEO Tools Guide”) was

published in August 2006, making it prior art to the ’706 patent under 35 U.S.C. §

102(b) (pre-AIA). SEO Tools Guide at cover page and copyright page.


10

Challenge #3: Claim 10 is unpatentable over Moran in view of Graham

and Stern under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Stern (included as Exhibit SM-1006 and

referred to as “Stern”) was filed on March 30, 2001 and issued on January 3, 2006,

making it prior art to the ’706 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA). Stern at

cover page.

3. Claim Construction

Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) and 42.204(b)(3), a claim subject to inter

partes review receives the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the

specification of the patent in which it appears.” 42 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms

are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as they would be understood by

one of ordinary skill in the art, unless the inventor, as a lexicographer, has set forth

a special meaning for a term. Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d

1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family

Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

In the ’706 patent, the inventor(s) did not act as a lexicographer and did not

provide a special meaning for any of the claim terms. Accordingly, using the

broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the terms should be given their

ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the

art and consistent with the disclosure. Several key terms are discussed below:


11

Entity : “an individual, corporation, brand, product or model that is

referenced anywhere on a network, such as the Internet.” In the ’706

patent, there is language in the specification that parallels this

construction. SM-1001 at 3:2-4. This construction thus is consistent

with and supported by the patent specification. Furthermore, one

skilled in the art interprets the term as above. Zatkovich Decl. at ¶

120.

Reference: “a link or a reference to a web page or other media.” In the

’706 patent, the specification discloses language that parallels this

construction. SM-1001 at 3:4-7. This construction thus is consistent

with and supported by the patent specification. Furthermore, one

skilled in the art interprets the term as above. Zatkovich Decl. at ¶

121.

Channel: “a marketing mechanism, such as an organic search, a paid

search, a blog, social media, video sharing, mobile content and

advertisements, or display advertisements.” In the ’706 patent, the

specification discloses language that parallels this construction. SM-

1001 at 1:18-22. This construction thus is consistent with and

supported by the patent specification. Furthermore, one skilled in the

art interprets the term as above. Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 122.


12

Correlating: “showing a causal relationship between two values.” In

the ’706 patent, the specification discusses that correlating share of

voice for search terms across several channels may be used to isolate

potential causes for the change in performance. SM-1001 at Fig. 3

(Step 330), 7:54-59. Additionally, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate

Dictionary (1990) defines correlate as “to show correlation or a causal

relationship between.” Thus, this construction is consistent with and

supported by both the patent specification and extrinsic evidence,

including Webster’s Dictionary. Furthermore, one skilled in the art

interprets the term as above. Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 123.

The proposed claim constructions are presented using the broadest

reasonable interpretation standard applied for purposes of inter partes review.

Petitioner reserves the right to advocate a different claim interpretation in any other

forum in accordance with the claim construction standards applied in such forum.

4. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

Petitioners propose that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the ’706

patent was filed would have a Computer Science or Electrical Engineering degree

and at least two years working in the field of search engine optimization.

Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 116.


13

D. Identification of How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable

1. Challenge #1: 1-7, 11-13, 15-16, and 20-21are unpatentable over Moran in view of Graham under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The earliest filing date of the ’706 patent is August 12, 2010. Moran was

published in 2006, making it prior art to the ’706 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)

(pre-AIA). SM-1001 at cover page and Moran at copyright page (page viii).

Graham was filed on September 7, 2007 and issued on October 18, 2011, making it

prior art to the ’706 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA). Graham at cover

page.

Moran is a book entitled “Search Engine Marketing, Inc.: Driving Search

Traffic to Your Company’s Web Site” that was published by IBM Press in 2006.

Moran was written by Mr. Moran and Mr. Hunt, who both have significant search

engine marketing expertise. Moran at cover page and copyright page (xxix). Moran

acknowledges that search marketing “demands a curious mix of business, writing,

and technical skills.” Moran at Preface (xxi). The book discusses the basics of

search engines and search engine marketing and has a chapter on search engine

optimization (“Optimize Your Content”). Moran at Chapter 12, 296-337.

Moran discloses every feature of the independent claims with the exception

of the explicitly defined formula for share of voice found in independent claims 1

and 11. A brief comparison of FIG. 2 of the ’706 patent to Moran shows that the

method for determining “share of voice” is disclosed by Moran. Zatkovich Decl. at


14

¶ 130.

i. Step 200 in Figure 2

As described in the ’706 patent and illustrated in FIG. 2, the method begins

by determining search terms, which may come from a keyword database, be

inputted by a user, or may be “surfaced by crawling search results of previously

searched terms.” SM-1001 at 6:24-6:33 and FIG. 2, Step 200; Zatkovich Decl. at ¶

131.

Moran extensively discusses determining search terms. Moran at 148-52;

see also id. at 269-93 (disclosing how to identify keywords, including explaining

how users can brainstorm to identify their own keywords, how they can examine

competitors’ sites for keywords, and how they can use three major keyword

databases to find keywords, including Wordtracker, Yahoo! Keyword Selector

Tool, and the Google Adwords Keywords Tool); Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 131.

ii. Step 210 in Figure 2

Next, in Step 210 of FIG. 2, “internal data” related to the search terms is

retrieved, including previously derived information such as “a total number of

conversions associated with the search terms as well as the total value of those

conversions,” and “information identifying which channels were associated with

the values and conversions.” SM-1001 at 6:34-6:41 and Fig. 2, Step 210;



15

Moran tells the reader to “See What Traffic You Are Getting,” and describes

the process of determining how many visits result from a particular reference

pointing to the entity in a search engine channel. Moran at Chapter 7, 161. Moran

also discusses analyzing conversions. Moran at 169-70; Table 15-9; see also id. at

473 (“you can show how many referrals you are getting, the number of

conversions (and the conversion rate), and the value in business terms of those

conversions, just the way we did in Chapter 7. And you can track search

conversions at any level of detail: a keyword, a group of keywords, an entire

search marketing campaign, or even your overall search marketing program.”);


iii. Step 220 in Figure 2

In the following Step of Figure 2, Step 220, “third party data related to the

search terms” may be retrieved, such as “information about network activity such

as traffic or visits related to the search terms,” and “information about the channels

in which the traffic or visits occurred.” In this step “cost per click (CPC) values for

the search terms [and] search frequency for the keywords” may be retrieved. SM-

1001 at 6:43-6:54 and Fig. 2, Step 220; Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 133.

Moran also describes retrieving third party data, including the processes

identified above. Moran at 155-56, Table 7-5; see also id. at Table 7-2 (identifying

a number of monthly queries, or searches, for selected terms), 159-60 (identifying


16

search engine rankings for an entity for selected keywords, including rankings for

competitors for the selected keywords); Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 133.

iv. Step 230 in Figure 2

In Step 230, a search for references to the entity is performed using the

search terms, across one or more network channels, and taking multiple samples

allows a measure of the “volatility of a site’s performance in the organic channel”

to be measured. SM-1001 at 6:55-65; Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 134.

Moran likewise describes the volatility of search-result positions in the

following terms: “Obviously, if you do see a drop-off in organic search rankings or

referrals for a particular landing page, you need to look at that page immediately.

And you will see fluctuations in rankings, possibly because your competitors

have improved their pages or their offerings. You might see changes because the

search engines change their ranking algorithms. Following an ongoing process of

checking your organic search landing pages will allow you to maintain and

improve your content.” Moran at Chapter 15, 460 (emphasis added); Zatkovich

Decl. at ¶ 134.

v. Step 240 in Figure 2

Next, in Step 240 of Fig. 2, the method may apply a multiplier to the data

values to “determine aggregate share values.” SM-1001 at 7:17-7:283 and Fig. 2,

Step 240; Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 135.


17

Moran discusses this concept; for example, in Chapter 7 in explaining the

concept of “keyword demand”: “The number of searches for any particular query

is referred to as keyword demand. So, although search referrals tell you how many

of those searchers clicked through to your site, keyword demand tells you how

many searchers used that keyword in total.” Moran at Chapter 7, 162 (emphasis

added); Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 135. Thus, keyword demand is a form of aggregate

share value, and the proportion of the clicks that are on a reference to a particular

entity are that entity’s “share of voice” for that particular keyword in that particular

channel. Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 135.

In Table 7-10, Moran shows an example of a simple calculation, using a

multiplier, to derive keyword demand—aggregate share value—for various

keywords. Moran goes into more detail on the subject of calculating keyword

demand in Chapter 11. For example, Moran describes that “you can multiply

Yahoo!’s keyword demand numbers by 2.2 to estimate demand across all search

engines. The reason this works is that Yahoo! syndicates its paid results to search

engines that execute approximately 45 percent of all search queries. If you multiply

45 percent by 2.2, you will get 99 percent, so multiplying Yahoo!'s demand by 2.2

approximates 100 percent of all searches.” Moran at 285; Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 136.


18

vi. Step 250 of Figure 2

Next, in Step 250 of Fig. 2, the method may combine the “aggregate share

values for all the entities referenced in the search” and a “share of voice for each

calculated … by dividing each entity's aggregate share value to [sic] the total of all

the aggregate share values.” SM-1001 at 7:29-7:32; Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 137.

Moran discusses the concept of calculating share of voice, in particular in

relation to missed opportunities and how a marketer may increase an entity’s share

of voice. For example, in Chapter 7 Moran explains how to calculate “keyword

demand” (aggregate share value) for different keywords, and then explains that a

marketer may calculate his share of the traffic being derived from the keywords:

“Because every searcher that uses your targeted keyword is an opportunity to bring

a visitor to your site, merely subtracting your search referrals from the total

number of searches yields the number of searches where no one came to your site.

You can also calculate your share of the search traffic by dividing the number

of your referrals by the keyword demand. Table 7-11 shows how simple it is to

calculate missed opportunities for Snap Electronics.” Moran at Chapter 7, 285 163

(emphasis added); Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 137. In addition, Table 7-11 shows a

“Share of Search Traffic” column for each keyword. Moran at Chapter 7, 163.

Moran also goes into detail of the complexities of calculating share of voice

for search engine channels, which requires an understanding of how the references


19

higher in the search results get more clicks than the references lower in the results,

and that a single search results page may be clicked on multiple times. For

example: “So, by looking at the table, we can take some educated guesses as to

how search ranking can affect the number of clicks to your site. If you rank in the

top three, you might get clicks for 8 percent to 30 percent of the queries for a

particular keyword. If your page ranks four through ten, perhaps you will get a

click for 0.5 percent to 7 percent of searches.” Moran at Chapter 7, 165; Zatkovich

Decl. at ¶ 138.

In Table 7-13, Moran shows a “Traffic Potential Model” which calculates

the number of search referrals (visits) for particular keywords if the marketer can

increase the share of voice, thus increasing clickthrough rates. In Table 15-7,

provided below, Moran shows a table recording referrals (traffic) to the entity for

specific keywords. Amongst other factors, the table includes a Click Rate:


20

Thus, Moran clearly describes share of voice calculations. In addition, a

constant theme within Moran is the idea that a marketer must examine the

performance of competitors. For example, “Even if you do not change your URLs,

you still want to check inbound links to your organic search landing pages once per

month—search experts often refer to these links as back links. If you are actively

working on link-building campaigns, you should see progress every month. You

also want to note any pages for which links are decreasing—they might be

candidates for link-building campaigns. But you can track more than the sheer

number of links to your site. You can analyze the links to your search landing

pages compared to those to direct competitors for that same keyword.” Moran

at 461 (emphasis added); Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 140.


21

For purposes of illustration, Moran discloses a fictitious company, Snap

Electronics, that has four search marketing campaigns with 25 keywords each and

targets Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL and Ask Jeeves. Moran at 463. Chapter 15

of Moran uses this fictitious company and its search marketing campaigns to

discuss the need to set up search marketing and then to track that search marketing

success in various ways. Moran at 449-77. Moran also discusses how to measure

search marketing successes. Moran at Chapter 7, 145-71.

Graham is a patent that discloses methods for “estimating search engine

market share for individual and groups of websites.” Graham at Abstract, 1:37-65.

Graham also discloses several formulas for determining market share (share of

voice), including the same formula found in independent claims 1 and 11 of the

’706 patent:


22

Graham at 1:37-65, 6:44-63.

The formula above for determining market share includes the following

variables: (1) the relative volume of searches for a given keyword (VK); (2) the

average click-through rate for a ranking or position (CTRP); and (3) a market share

percentage for a search engine (MSS). Id.; Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 127. These

variables are used to determine “the market share contribution c for each keyword

ranking r for which the website had a search engine result.” Graham at 6:65-7:1.

Graham discloses that this determination is done by multiplying the relative

volume of searches (VK) for a keyword K by an average click-through rate (CTR)

for a given position (P) for that keyword, and further multiplying by a market share

(MS) for a search engine (S). Graham at 1:37-65; Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 127. These

individual contributions may then be summed to calculate the overall market share.

Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 127; Graham at 1:37-65.

The formula disclosed in Graham is actually broader because the market

share of the website can be for a particular search engine only (where MSS is

omitted), or instead can be the market share of the website across multiple search

engines. Graham at 6:25-29 (“Step 108 is performed if search engine results for

more than one search engine were recorded in step 104. If search engine results for

only one search engine were recorded in step 104, then step 108 is skipped and

method 100 proceeds directly to step 110.”); Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 128.


23

Graham also discloses other features of the ’706 patent, including comparing

changes in market share (share of voice): “The various embodiments of FIG. 1 to 8

and the various alternative embodiments mentioned above may be performed

periodically and trends may be identified over time. Reporting of search engine

market share results may include a time based analysis of changes in the market

share of websites.” Graham at 13:48-52.

The following claim chart demonstrates, on a limitation-by-limitation basis,

how claims 1-7, 11-13, 15-16, and 20-21 of the ’706 patent are unpatentable over

Moran in view of Graham under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA).

’706 Patent Claims Moran and Graham Disclosures Claim 1 [1PRE] 1. A method for managing references to an entity on a network, comprising:

Moran generally discloses managing a search marketing campaign. Moran at 145-46 (“Target your first campaign …. Assess your current situation …. Calculate your opportunity ….”). References or referrals to the entity are accumulated and tracked by metrics facilities to indicate how many visits an entity receives, how many visits an entity receives from a specific organic search engine, and how many visitors used specific search queries and the organic search engine that the visitor used. Moran at 161. Moran discloses concepts of search ranking and optimizing a web page by identifying practical methods to improve a score or ranking of a web page so that it is higher in the search results and tracking search marketing success. Moran at Search Ranking Factors, section at 300, Chapter 15 at 449-477.

[1A] determining shares of voice for an entity and other entities across a plurality of channels

Moran discloses scoring a web page for a particular search term (keyword) to identify a rank (rank position) with a search engine, such as Google, Yahoo!, or Microsoft, which includes generation of organic search results. Moran at 469; Table 15-7. A web page link to a


24

’706 Patent Claims Moran and Graham Disclosures with respect to a plurality of search terms, wherein determining shares of voice includes determining rank positions for the search terms with respect to the entity and the other entities and multiplying the rank positions by products of estimated click rates and volumes of traffic on the network for the entity and the other entities;

company, or referral, can be scored (ranked) for a particular keyword, and also for a particular search engine, as shown in Table 15-7 below. Rankings for multiple keywords and multiple search engines can also be obtained and presented, as shown in Table 15-7. Search terms, or keyword phrases, are used to identify search results for a search engine that produces search results for purposes of generating a report. Moran at 465 (Table 15-3), 469, Table 15-7.

Moran discloses that, for an entity (such as the fictitious company Snap), a rank/score for a plurality of keyword phrases (search terms) are determined for an aggregate score. Moran at 464-65, Table 15-3.

Moran further discloses that “[a] more complete approach avoided here for brevity, would be to analyze each of the major search engines and all major camera competitors.”


25

’706 Patent Claims Moran and Graham Disclosures Moran at 168. Additionally, Moran discloses a projected-rankings matrix that is based on keyword position rankings for an organic search engine, such as Google. Moran at 167-68. The projected-rankings matrix, which includes information from search engine Google, is based on information displayed in Table 7-13, which includes share of voice. Moran at 167 (“The next step requires a cold look at what your potential improvement in rank can be for each keyword”). Table 7-15 likewise uses information from Google, including information shown in Table 7-13. Graham discloses formulas for estimating search engine market share for websites, including obtaining the product of a volume of searches for a given keyword, the average click-through rate for a given position, and a market share for a search engine:

Graham at 1:37-65.

[1B] correlating shares of voice for the entity and the other entities with respect the search

Moran discloses correlating shares of voice for an entity for multiple search terms (keyword phrases) to determine an estimated change in monthly search referrals. Moran at 167; Table 7-13; Table 7-15. A projected ranking for a


26

’706 Patent Claims Moran and Graham Disclosures terms to determine a relative change in share of voice for the entity with respect to the other entities;

particular keyword and projected monthly search referrals for a particular keyword are calculated and displayed. Moran at Table 7-15. The current monthly visits to an entity are shown relative to the projected monthly search referrals.

Moran further discloses that “[a] more complete approach avoided here for brevity, would be to analyze each of the major search engines and all major camera competitors.” Moran at 168. Additionally, Moran discloses that a missed opportunity matrix may be generated for an entity, such as the fictitious Snap Electronics. Moran at 163 and Table 7-11.


27

’706 Patent Claims Moran and Graham Disclosures In Table 7-11, a share of search traffic value has been determined and displayed for each keyword phase. Moranat 163 and Table 7-11. The share of search traffic also shows a change in the share of voice (search traffic) relative to other entities since the value is a percentage of the search traffic. Moran at 163, Table 7-11.

[1C] correlating shares of voice for the entity across the plurality of channels to determine relative changes in share of voice for the entity within each of the channels; and

Moran discloses correlating shares of voice for an entity for a channel (search engine) for multiple search terms. Moran at 167; Table 7-13; Table 7-15. In Tables 7-13 and 7-15, for example, monthly keyword demand and projected monthly search referrals (share of voice) for multiple search terms are provided from organic search engine Google. Moran at 167-68 (“When you develop your projected-rankings matrix, you are realistically assessing where your pages can rank – in this case for Google.”). Moran further discloses that “[a] more complete approach avoided here for brevity, would be to analyze each of the major search engines and all major camera competitors.” Moran at 168. For example, Moran discloses a competitor-rankings matrix for ranking keyword phrases and comparing competitors’ rankings for each of the keyword phrases. Moran at 160; Table 7-7. Additionally, Moran discloses that, for a number of channels, such as Google (GG), Yahoo (YH) and Microsoft (MS), a ranking and referrals for different keywords may be determined and displayed. Moran at 469, Table 15-7.


28

’706 Patent Claims Moran and Graham Disclosures

In Table 7-11, a share of search traffic value has been determined and displayed for each keyword phase for a channel. Moran at 163, Table 7-11. The share of search traffic also shows a change in the share of voice (search traffic) relative to other entities since the value is a percentage of the search traffic. Moran at 163, Table 7-11. The same share of search traffic may be determined for the multiple search engines as shown in Table 15-7 because that table contains the information to determine the relative change of share of voice.

[1D] displaying the relative change in share of voice for the entity with respect to the other entities and the relative changes in share of voice for the entity within each of the channels.

Moran discloses displaying a relative change in share of voice for an entity with respect to the other entities and the relative changes in share of voice for the entity within each of the channels. Moran discloses that, for a number of channels, such as Google (GG), Yahoo (YH) and Microsoft (MS), a ranking, referrals, and share of voice for different keywords may be determined and displayed. Moran at 469, Table 15-7.


29


In Table 7-11, a share of search traffic value has been determined and displayed for each keyword phase for a channel. Moran at 163, Table 7-11. The share of search traffic also shows a change in the share of voice (search traffic) relative to other entities since the value is a percentage of the search traffic. Moran at 163, Table 7-11. The same share of search traffic may be determined for the multiple search engines as shown in Table 15-7 because that table contains the information to determine the relative change of share of voice.

Claim 2 2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining shares of voice includes retrieving search results associated with different geographic locations.

Moran discloses search results associated with different geographic locations (geographic targeting). Moran at 427; Moran at 78 (“The newest way to target more granular audiences is through a technique called local search—displaying your ad to visitors from a particular city or region. Prior to the advent of local search, businesses with natural geographic boundaries had no way to effectively use paid placement.”); Moran at 487 (“Some search engines are already experimenting with local search and geographic targeting—they ask for place names in the query or they guess where searchers live and they try to show results from companies nearby.”).


30

’706 Patent Claims Moran and Graham Disclosures Claim 3 3. The method of claim 1, wherein calculating shares of voice includes determining volatility of search results for the search terms.

Moran discloses wherein the shares of voice are based on a volatility of search results for the search terms because the clickthrough rates are multiplied by a factor. Moran at 164 (“What we need to know is how many clicks there are per search. And honestly, no one knows, except the folks running the search engines themselves, and they consider the information to be proprietary. Anecdotal evidence indicates that between 1.8 and 2.8 results are clicked for each search—if we take the more conservative 1.8 number and multiply it by 29 searchers, we get 52 clicks for every 100 searches.”). Additionally, Moran discloses that “you will see fluctuations in rankings, possibly because your competitors have improved their pages or their offerings.” Moran at 460. Further, Moran discloses competitor rank checking and that a company needs to identify where competitors rank so it can be useful metric to track and “When Snap decided to look at competitor rankings, only digital cameras and easy digital camera were selected because those keywords were critical to Snap’s branding goals.” Moran at 464-465. Moran also discloses how a competitor can affect the ranking of an entity. Moran at 470. The fluctuations in rankings and the competitors’ effect on rankings is a volatility of the search results for search terms.

Claim 4 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising correlating shares of voice with historical changes in search signals.

Moran discloses correlating the shares of voice with historical changes in search signals for the reference to the entity. Moran discloses a process for discovering “missed opportunities” by considering the inverse of share of voice: “Because every searcher that uses your targeted keyword is an opportunity to bring a visitor to your site, merely subtracting your search referrals from the total number of searches yields the number of searches where


31

’706 Patent Claims Moran and Graham Disclosures no one came to your site. You can also calculate your share of the search traffic by dividing the number of your referrals by the keyword demand. Table 7-11 shows how simple it is to calculate missed opportunities for Snap Electronics.” Moran at 163, Table-7-11. The total number of lost opportunities may be converted to visits to the site by improving a search rank: (“Although those searchers that failed to come to Snap's site are literally missed opportunities, it is not realistic to expect that any one site could collect all the clicks for any query. The question then becomes how to estimate the reasonable number of clicks that can be achieved after a successful first search marketing campaign.”) Moran at 163-169. Moran correlates these share-of-voice lost opportunities with techniques that may be used to reduce the number of lost opportunities by modifying search signals: “We note that none of the other manufacturers use that phrase on their pages, possibly because large corporations do not want to appear boastful. Snap does not like to toot its own horn either, but many third-party digital camera reviews actually call the SnapShot the "best digital camera"—Snap can quote these reviews on its site without appearing boastful, and the search engines will find the words on Snap's pages. Armed with this information, it might be reasonable to project that Snap can break through at least to the top 30 for this query where the other manufacturers did not.” Moran at 168. Share of voice can be increased through the use of search marketing techniques: “Projected added search referrals. As we calculated earlier, the estimate for the extra traffic to Snap's site due to successful search marketing consists of referrals from both organic and paid search. Snap's total comes to 30,722 more visits … As you calculate the opportunity for your own first campaign, you might be wondering how big the opportunity can be if you go all out with a site-wide search marketing program, consisting of many individual campaigns.” Moran at 170.


32

’706 Patent Claims Moran and Graham Disclosures Moran discloses numerous search-marketing techniques for changing search signals in order to increase share of voice; Chapter 12, for instance, discusses page-optimization techniques for modifying search signals (Moran at 295-338) such as keyword prominence, keyword density, and keyword frequency (Moran at 305) and the use of keywords within Web-page content (Moran at 308-10) Chapter 13 (Moran at 339-84) explains working with links in order to provide critical search signals to search engines. Moran also discloses other search signals when it states that “Search engines pay special attention to the words you use in your title tag,” and that “Another important metatag stores the description of the page. As with the title, search engines expect that the words in your description summarize your page, and some search engines give words found in your description special importance.” Moran at 50.

Claim 5 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the channels include at least one of display advertisements, organic searches, page searches, linked advertisement networks, banner advertisements, contextual advertisements, e-mail, blogs, social networks, social news, affiliate marketing, mobile advertisements, media advertisements, video advertisements, discussion forums, news sites, rich media,

Moran discloses a projected-rankings matrix that is based on keyword position rankings for an organic search engine, such as Google. Moran at 167-68. The projected-rankings matrix, which includes information from search engine Google, is based on information displayed in Table 7-13, which includes share of voice. Moran at 167 (“The next step requires a cold look at what your potential improvement in rank can be for each keyword”). Table 7-15 likewise uses information from Google, including information shown in Table 7-13.


33

’706 Patent Claims Moran and Graham Disclosures social bookmarks, paid searches and in-game advertisements. Claim 6 [6A] 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the search terms are determined by a process including: determining a grouping for actions related to the entity, the grouping including a plurality of terms;

Moran discloses determining a grouping for actions related to the entity, the grouping including a plurality of search terms. Moran discloses grouping keywords from the beginning of the keyword research process. “The next step is to organize your nouns into categories, as shown in Table 11-1.” Moran at 279. Table 11-1, reproduced below, shows each keyword assigned to a category (camera, PC, car, and chair).

“Organize your keywords. Paid placement engines enable you to group your keywords to make them easier to manage and to measure. We show you how to think about organizing yours.” Moran at 421 Moran discusses the importance of grouping keywords. “Organize Your Keywords - Even if you are a habitually sloppy type, you need to think about how to organize your paid placement keywords. How you group your keywords will simplify the management of your paid search program and enable you to measure performance you could never track any other way.” Moran at 424. Moran also discusses how keyword groupings can be used for search engine optimization purposes. “And you can track search conversions at any level of detail: a keyword, a group of keywords, an entire search


34

’706 Patent Claims Moran and Graham Disclosures marketing campaign, or even your overall search marketing program.” Moran at 473. Moran discloses creating keyword groups or lists for specific campaigns, such as the “digital camera” campaign: “The easiest way to start your brainstorming is for everyone to make a list of all of the names you can use for the product, service, or other subject of this campaign. Focus first on nouns. Let's see what one Snap Electronics team member listed for its digital camera campaign: camera, digital camera, SnapShot, Snap digital camera, X5, X6, X7, SLR X800, and SLR X900. Each team put together a slightly different list that had more than 30 unique names on it by the end of the exercise.” Moran at 279.

[6B] searching the network for the terms associated with the grouping; and

Moran discloses searching the network for the terms associated with the grouping. Moran discloses different methods to search the network using particular search terms to find references to both a Web site and a competitor’s Web sites. Moran at 157 (“In Chapter 15, we take a look at several fee-based rank checkers, but here we introduce the best free tool, shown in Figure 7-3, Keyword Tracker from Digital Point Solutions (www.digitalpoint.com/tools/keywords). Keyword Tracker checks rankings only in Google, Yahoo! Search, and MSN Search, whereas fee-based checkers handle many different search engines, but it can still save you some time.”).


35


[6C] analyzing results of the searches to determine the rank positions for the entity within the results.

Moran discloses analyzing results of the searches to determine the rank positions for the entity within the results. Moran discloses different methods to search the network for particular search terms, to find references to both the Web site and competitor’s Web sites, for the purposes of determining rank positions within the search results. Moran at 157 (“Whether you do it by hand or use a rank-checking tool, the basics are the same. You record the organic search rank (paid does not count) of your site's page for the targeted search query. You start counting from the #1 organic result on the first page—that is the top result on page one (which may be underneath paid results in some search engines. For search engines that show ten results on a page, the last result on page one is obviously #10, with the first one on the second page #11, and so on from there.”).


36


Claim 7 is dependent upon claim 6, and further claims “wherein analyzing

the results of the searches includes crawling the results of the search.” Moran

discloses various tools for crawling a website. Moran at 459-60 (“Watchfire …

offers a specialized spider that crawls even the largest site and can find all sorts of

searchability problems, even enabling you to customize the rules it uses for

checking. It can roll everything up into a set of scorecards that you can use

throughout your organization. For those on a budget, WebCEO … crawls your site

and reports on your content for less than $300 …. Some auditing programs, such as

WebCEO … and Site Content Analyzer … can automatically crawl a set of pages

on your site and generate reports, taking some of the drudgery away, but you will

still need to stare down each report to see how you are doing.”).

Moran also discloses obtaining search results using keywords on search

engines for obtaining rankings information for web sites. Moran at 469; Table 15-

7; see also id. at 321 (“Snap Electronics chose their ‘digital cameras’ hub page as

the right landing page for the ‘digital camera’ search keyword, so they decided to

perform a content analysis on their page (which ranked #45 in Google) against the

three top-ranked pages in the Google results.”). A report can be run against web

pages located within search results in order to analyze the web pages, as shown in


37

Table 12-3 and described at page 321, by using “content analyzers.” Moran at 319-

21; Table 12-3.

To the extent that Moran in view of Graham does not disclose crawling

references in search results, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that

you could combine the crawling features of Moran with features for obtaining

search engine search results, such that the results of the search engine could then

be crawled, because these features were known elements in the area of search

engine optimization, as evidenced by Moran. Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 148. One skilled

in the art would understand that it would be desirable to crawl not only websites,

but to crawl websites found from reviewing search results obtained from a search

engine. Id. at ¶ 148.

Motivation for this combination exists because it would be nothing more

than combining known prior art elements, obtaining search results and crawling

websites, according to known methods, such as improving a search engine

optimization process by enabling the crawling of references found in search

results, to yield predictable results of a search engine optimization system that

crawls results from search results obtained from a search engine. Zatkovich Decl.

at ¶ 149. Thus, claim 7 is obvious over Moran and Graham in view of one skilled

in the art.

Claim 11 11. A system for See [1PRE] of claim 1 above.


38

optimizing online references to an entity, the system comprising: a processor configured to execute computer instructions to cause the system to perform operations, the operations comprising: searching at least one channel on a network for references to the entity and other entities using a plurality of search terms to generate search results;

Moran discloses using search terms to identify search results for a search engine that produces results, such as Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft, that includes references that can be identified and used for purposes of generating a report. Moran at 469; Table 15-7.

scoring the references associated with each of the plurality of search terms to generate scores for the references within the search results with respect to the entity and the other entities;

Moran discloses scoring a web page for a particular search term (keyword) to identify a rank (rank position) with a search engine, such as Google, Yahoo!, or Microsoft, which includes generation of organic search results. Moran at 469; Table 15-7. A web page link to a company, or referral, can be scored (ranked) for a particular keyword, and also for a particular search engine, as shown in Table 15-7 below. Rankings for multiple keywords and multiple search engines can also be obtained and presented, as shown in Table 15-7. Search terms, or keyword phrases, are used to identify search results for a search engine that produces search results for purposes of generating a report. Moran at 465 (Table 15-3), 469, Table 15-7.


39

correlating conversions by one or more visits to the entity with the search terms that directed the visits to the entity to determine a conversion rate;

Moran includes a chapter about conversions. Moran at 0150-0173 (Chapter 6, pp. 121-144). In that chapter, Moran discloses using metrics to track the total number of visitors visiting a web site. Moran at 0168 (p. 139). A count of the total number of visitors is a “fundamental” metric in web measurements and can track the total number of visits or page views to a web site for a particular period of time. Moran at 0168 (p. 139). Moran discloses that the total number of conversions are tracked and counted. Moran at 0499-0503 (pp. 470-474). Some methods of tracking conversions disclosed in Moran may include URL tracking parameters, programmed tracking parameters, affiliate codes, cookies, and microsites. Moran at 0500-0501 (pp. 471-72).

As shown in Table 15-9, Moran discloses the ability to track the number of conversions, the number of referrals, and the conversion rate based on comparing the number of referrals to the number of conversions. Moran at 0502 (p. 473), 0502 (Table 15-9). Conversions can be tracked “at any level of detail: a keyword, a group of keywords,


40

an entire search marketing campaign, or even your overall search marketing program.” Moran at 0502 (p. 473), 0502 (Table 15-9). Thus, as shown in Table 15-9, the number of conversions and the number of referrals (references) are associated with each other and a conversion rate is determined for each month for the fictitious company, Snap Electronics in the example in Table 15-9.

determining shares of voice for the entity and the other entities across a plurality of channels with respect to the plurality of search terms, wherein determining shares of voice includes determining rank positions for the search terms with respect to the entity and the other entities and multiplying the rank positions by products of estimated click rates and volumes of traffic on the network for the entity and the other entities;

See limitation [1A] of claim 1 above.

correlating shares of voice for the entity and the other entities with respect the search terms to determine a relative change in share of voice for the entity with respect to the other entities based on the scores for the

See limitation [1B] of claim 1 above.


41

references; and correlating shares of voice for the entity across the plurality of channels to determine relative changes in share of voice for the entity within each of the channels based on the scores for the references.

See limitation [1C] of claim 1 above.

Claim 12 12. The system of claim 11, wherein searching at least one channel includes searching at least one of: display advertisements, organic searches, page searches, linked advertisement networks, banner advertisements, contextual advertisements, e-mail, blogs, social networks, social news, affiliate marketing, mobile advertisements, media advertisements, video advertisements, discussion forums, news sites, rich media, social bookmarks, paid searches and in-game advertisements.

See claim 5 above.

Claim 13


42

13. The system of claim 11, wherein using a plurality of search terms to generate search results includes using a plurality of keywords.

Moran discloses using search terms (keyword phrases) to identify search results for a search engine that produces organic results, such as Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft, for purposes of generating a report. Moran at 0494 (p. 465), 0494 (Table 15-3), 0498 (p. 469), 0498 (Table 15-7). The search terms (keyword phrases) include a plurality of keywords, as shown in Table 15-3 below.

Claim 15 15. The system of claim 11, wherein scoring the references associated with each of the plurality of search terms includes determining a keyword rank.

Moran discloses scoring a web page for a particular keyword to identify a rank with a search engine, which includes generation of organic search results. Moran at 469; Table 15-7. A web page link to a company, or referral, can be scored for a particular keyword, and also for a particular search engine, as shown in Table 15-7. Rankings for a search engine, such as Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, can be tied to a specific company. Moran at 469. For example, Moran discloses that Table 15-7 tracks rankings of a fictitious company, Snap Electronics, for certain keywords. Moran at Table 15-7. In addition to generating scores for referrals to a particular company, Moran discloses using ranking by keyword to compare against competitors. Moran at 160; Table 7-7.

Claim 16 16. The system of claim 11, further comprising scoring the references associated

Moran discloses that search rank checking may include competitor rankings which are the scoring of references unassociated with the entity. Moran at 0189 (Table 7-7), 0189 (p. 160), 0494-0495 (pp. 464-465). Moran discloses


43

with each of the plurality of search terms to generate scores for the references within the search results with respect to competitive listings;

that the competitor rankings only for certain terms may be selected for review. Moran at 0189 (Table 7-7), 0189 (p. 160), 0494-0495 (pp. 464-465).

comparing the scores of the references within the search results with respect to the identify with the scores for the references within the search results with respect to competitive listings; and

Moran discloses comparing the scores of the references tothe entity with the scores for the references unassociated with the entity with respect to competitive listings. For example, Moran discloses an example of a competitor rankings matrix generated for Snap Electronics, shown in Table 7-7 and reproduced below.

As shown in Table 7-7, the rankings for the same keyword phrases for Snap Electronics and several different competitors are presented. The table provides a comparison of the keyword rankings for Snap Electronics and its competitors. Moran at 160, Table 7-7.

displaying the search terms, the competitive listings, and the scores for the references within the search results with respect to the competitive listings.

Moran discloses displaying the search terms, the competitive listings, and the scores for the references unassociated with the entity with respect to the competitive listings. For example, Moran discloses the competitor rankings matrix generated for Snap Electronics in Table 7-7, reproduced below.


44

Table 7-7 displays the search terms, the competitive listings and the scores of the references that are unassociated with the entity. Moran at 160, Table 7-7

Claim 20 20. The system of claim 11, further comprising performing a compliance analysis for the entity.

Moran discloses performing compliance analysis for the entity. “Defining standards. Wherever possible, have the extended team modify your existing standards. For example, you probably already have content tagging standards—make sure those standards include what makes a good title for search marketing purposes. Modifying an existing standard allows you to police compliance using whatever procedure already exists; if your central team creates a new standard, however, you need to set up your own compliance process.” Moran at 185. “Every page within the scope of your search marketing program must be checked regularly for compliance with your content standards and for inclusion in search indexes. Organic search landing pages for each keyword in your campaigns must be checked even more closely.” Moran at 457. “A content reporter can detect all of these problems and more. At least monthly, you should evaluate each page on your site that falls within your search marketing program's scope, checking each page for compliance with your content standards. Your content reporter should analyze each page automatically and generate two


45

reports: An error log that lists each page individually by

URL, showing what problems were found A content scorecard that aggregates the statistics

by business area.” Moran at 458.

“Your best approach is to make the compliance work as simple as possible—automating everything you can.” Moran at 221.

Claim 21 21. The system of claim 20, wherein the compliance analysis includes defining rules for the entity, defining constructs for the entity, determining owners for the constructs, and applying the rules to the constructs to determine compliance of the constructs with the rules, wherein applying the rules is performed in a distributed network in the cloud.

Moran discloses wherein the compliance analysis includes defining rules for the entity, defining constructs for the entity, determining owners for the constructs, and applying the rules to the constructs to determine compliance of the constructs with the rules, wherein applying the rules is performed in a distributed network in the cloud. “Now understand, merely enhancing existing standards and processes might not be enough—you might need to create new standards and develop new procedures to enforce compliance—but existing standards are the place to start. It is always easier to change an existing standard than to create a new one, and existing standards already have a compliance process in place.” Moran at 454. “Assess your site’s content. Every page within the scope of your search marketing program must be checked regularly for compliance with your content standards and for inclusion in search indexes. Organic search landing pages for each keyword in your campaigns must be checked even more closely.” (Emphasis in original). Moran at 457. “A content reporter can detect all of these problems and more. At least monthly, you should evaluate each page on your site that falls within your search marketing program's scope, checking each page for compliance with your content standards. Your content reporter should


46

analyze each page automatically and generate two reports:

An error log that lists each page individually by URL, showing what problems were found

A content scorecard that aggregates the statistics by business area.” Moran at 458.

All these tasks may be performed “in a distributed network in the cloud.” Moran discloses the use of Web-based “content reporters.” Moran at 459 (“Watchfire (www.watchfire.com) offers a specialized spider that crawls even the largest site and can find all sorts of searchability problems, even enabling you to customize the rules it uses for checking. It can roll everything up into a set of scorecards that you can use throughout your organization. For those on a budget, WebCEO (www.webceo.com) crawls your site and reports on your content for less than $300.” Moran also discloses Webbased “auditing programs.” Moran at 460 (“Some auditing programs, such as WebCEO (www.webceo.com, less than $300) and Site Content Analyzer (www.sitecontentanalyzer.com, less than $100) can automatically crawl a set of pages on your site and generate reports, taking some of the drudgery away, but you will still need to stare down each report to see how you are doing.”)

As shown above, Moran discloses every limitation of claims 1-7, 11-13, 15-

16, and 20-21 with the exception of the formula for determining share of voice

found in independent claims 1 and 11 of the ’706 patent. But Graham discloses this

formula for determining share of voice.

Independent claims 1 and 11 of the ’706 patent claims the following for

determining shares of voice for an entity and other entities across a plurality of

channels:


47

“determining rank positions for the search terms with respect to the

entity and the other entities and multiplying the rank positions by

products of estimated click rates and volumes of traffic on the

network for the entity and the other entities; …”

’706 patent at 14:20-27, 15:22-29. Graham discloses determining a rank position

for a keyword, including expressing rank position for a particular search term (e.g.,

in Equation 2 as P), and determining a rank position for multiple search terms.

Graham at 1:37-52. Graham further discloses multiplying rank positions by

products of estimated click rates (CTRP) and volumes of traffic (VK), as seen in

Equation 2. Graham at 6:65-7:28. The method disclosed in Graham may be used

with respect to multiple entities such that a website’s market share may be

compared with that of competitors. Graham at 1:37-65; see also id. at 11:51-57

(“In method 700, search engine market share is calculated using site correlation by

first identifying a primary site. Method 700 begins in step 702, in which the

primary site is identified. In most cases the primary site will be the user’s own site

or a related competitor’s site.”) (emphasis added).

One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that you could combine the

search engine optimization features of Moran, including features for determining

market share of an entity or website, with the formula disclosed in Graham.

Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 144. Graham discloses search engine optimization techniques,

and specifically discloses “several methods for estimating search engine market


48

share for individual and groups of websites.” Graham at Abstract. The formula for

estimating the search engine market share of a website was a known element in the

area of search engines and search engine optimization, as evidenced by Graham,

and one skilled in the art would understand that it would be desirable to use the

specific formulas disclosed in Graham with the search engine optimization

techniques, including techniques for determining share of voice, disclosed in

Moran. Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 144.

Motivation to make this combination exists because it would be nothing

more than combining known prior art elements, the search engine optimization

techniques, including determining share of voice, disclosed in Moran with the

formula for determining share of voice disclosed in Graham, according to known

methods, such as improving a search engine optimization system and process by

providing a market share for a website based on a specific formula for share of

voice, to yield predictable results of a search engine optimization system and

process that provides a market share of a search engine for a website. Zatkovich

Decl. at ¶ 145.

Because it would have been obvious to modify the disclosure of Moran to

include the features disclosed in Graham, claims 1-7, 11-13, 15-16, and 20-21 are

obvious over Moran in view of Graham.


49

2. Challenge #2: Claims 8-9 and 14 are obvious over Moran in view of Graham and SEO Tools Guide.

Claim 8 depends from independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6 and 7.

Each of the limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6 and 7 are

disclosed by Moran in view of Graham, as detailed in the chart above. Claim 14

depends from independent claim 11 and dependent claim 13. Each of the

limitations of independent claim 11 and dependent claim 13 are disclosed by

Moran in view of Graham, as detailed in the chart above. Claim 8 recites the

additional claim element of “performing a keyword frequency analysis on the

pages crawled during the crawling step,” and claim 14 recites the additional claim

element of “conducting a keyword frequency analysis to identify at least some of

the plurality of keywords.”

Moran discloses using content analyzers for performing keyword frequency

analysis, including keyword frequency analysis of web pages identified by

performing a search and crawling references located within the search results.

Moran at 305; Table 12-3 (tracking the “Keyword Frequency”, “Total Words”,

“Keyword Density”, and “Keyword Prominence” for a landing page of a website);

Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 153. Such content analyzers can be used to compare web

pages from a web site with web pages from competing websites, including

websites listed on search-engine search results pages. See, e.g., Moran at 321

(“Snap Electronics chose their ‘digital cameras’ hub page as the right landing page


50

for the ‘digital camera’ search keyword, so they decided to perform a content

analysis on their page (which ranked #45 in Google) against the three top-ranked

pages in the Google results.”); Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 153. Moran discloses running

reports against identified web pages and identifying keywords: “After running the

report against the four pages, Snap examined the title tag, as shown in Table 12-3.

Snap’s title was “Snap Electronics digital cameras for you,” resulting in one

occurrence of the keyword digital cameras in the middle of the six words, for 50

percent prominence and two words out of six for a 33 percent keyword density.”

Moran at 321.

The SEO Tools Guide also has a chapter that discusses keyword selector

tools that are used to analyze keyword and keyword phrases. SEO Tools Guide at

3-1 to 3-14. One of the tools discussed in the chapter is a Google Keyword Tool

that “generates potential keywords and reports their Google statistics, including

search performance and seasonal trends.” SEO Tools Guide at 3-1. The Google

Keyword Tool has a site related keyword search feature that allows a user to find

keywords or keyword phrases associated with a web page. SEO Tools Guide at 3-5

and Figure 3-5.


51

As shown in Figure 3-5 reproduced above, the user enter a webpage URL

into the user interface and clicks on the Get Keywords button to produce a set of

keywords (such as top Chicago restaurants, etc.) based on crawling the webpage.

SEO Tools Guide at 3-5 to 3-6 and Fig. 3-5.


52

Furthermore, as shown in Figure 3-6 (reproduced above), the Google

Keyword Tool can display the found keywords with a keyword popularity that may

include both an advertiser competition and a search volume. SEO Tools Guide at

3-6 to 3-7 and Fig. 3-6. The user interface shows the advertiser competition and the

search volume for each keyword so that the keyword popularity is the keyword

frequency analysis.

To the extent that Moran does not disclose the elements of claims 8 and 14,

one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that you could include the

keyword finding feature from SEO Tools Guide in the methods disclosed in Moran

because the keyword finding feature from SEO Tools Guide was a known element

in the area of search engines as evidenced by SEO Tools Guide. Zatkovich Decl. at


53

¶ 156. While the keyword finding of SEO Tools Guide is used for user entered web

pages (SEO Tools Guide at 3-5 to 3-6 and Figure 3-5), one skilled in the art would

understand that it would be desirable to use the keyword finder feature of SEO

Tools Guide in search engine optimization for previously returned search results to

improve the keywords used in the search engine optimization process of Moran.


Furthermore, the motivation for this combination is that it would be

combining known prior art elements, the search engine optimization in Moran and

the keyword finding feature of SEO Tools Guide, according to known methods,

such as improving a search engine optimization process by using additional

keywords, to yield predictable results of a search engine optimization system that

provides better results due to found keywords based on keyword frequency

analysis (e.g. to provide the user with more keywords to perform the search engine

optimization). Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 157.

Claim 9, which depends from claim 8, recites the additional claim element

of “grouping keywords identified during the crawling step with the terms of the

grouping.” SM-1001 at 15:1-3. As disclosed above, Moran in view of Graham and

SEO Tools Guide discloses claims 8 and 14 of the ’706 patent.

Moran further discloses grouping keywords (as shown in claim limitations

[6A] through [6C] of the claim chart above) and discloses crawling a website or


54

reference to obtain keywords (as shown in the description for claim 7 above). One

of ordinary skill in the art would understand that you could group keywords based

on content obtained from crawling a web page. Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 159. The page

crawling features of Moran could be combined with the grouping features also

disclosed in Moran in order to group keywords that are identified by crawling

references found within search results. Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 160. The page

crawling and grouping features disclosed in Moran were a known element in the

area of crawling web sites, as evidenced by Moran, and one skilled in the art would

understand that it would be desirable to group keywords obtained from crawling a

reference found within search results in order to, for example, identify new

keywords being used by competitors. Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 160.

Motivation for this combination exists because it would be combining

known prior art elements, crawling a web page and grouping keyword features of

Moran, according to known methods, such as improving a search engine

optimization process by crawling a web page to identify additional keywords that

can be grouped together with other keywords, to yield predictable results of a

search engine optimization system that enables identification of new keywords that

could be used, for example, on a competitor’s website. Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 161.


include such features as described in SEO Tools Guide, claims 8-9, and 14 are thus


55

obvious over Moran in view of Graham, SEO Tools Guide, and one of ordinary

skill in the art.

3. Challenge #3: Claim 10 is obvious over Moran in view of Graham and Stern.

Claim 10 depends from independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6 and 7.

Each of the limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6 and 7 are

disclosed by Moran in view of Graham, as detailed in the chart above. Claim 10

recites the additional claim element of “wherein crawling the results of the search

includes identifying page types of references within the search results.”

Stern is a patent that discloses a method for searching the Internet in order to

“retriev[e] Web pages to collect people and organization information …” Stern at

Abstract. Stern further discloses, “[a]ccording to types of contents found on a

subject Web page,” using the retrieved Web pages for “extraction of people and

organization information …” Id. Stern discloses a non-exhaustive list of types of

Web page categories that can be searched and retrieved, including organization site

pages (management team, biographical, press release, contact information,

product/services, and job opening pages), medical and health care institution pages,

government organization pages, as well as many, many other types of Web pages.

Id. at 11:53-12:50.

Stern further discloses a “[c]rawler” that “uses several techniques” to find

the “type of every Web page.” Stern at 12:51-53. Some techniques disclosed in


56

Stern, including: using a “list of keywords … to identify a potential page type (e.g.,

if the referring text contains the word ‘contact’ then the page is probably a contact

info page … etc.)”; examining the title of the page, if there is any; and

“examin[ing] directly the contents of the pages.” Id. at 12:54-62.One of ordinary

skill in the art would understand that you could include the page crawling and

categorization features of Stern with the methods disclosed in Moran because the

page crawling and page categorization features disclosed in Stern were a known

element in the area of crawling web sites, as evidenced by Stern. Zatkovich Decl.

at ¶ 166.

One skilled in the art would understand that it would be desirable to combine

the page crawling and categorization features of Stern with the search engine

optimization techniques of Moran in order to, for example, determine keywords

appearing within certain page types or provide additional information as to the

content of a competitor’s website. Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 166. Indeed, Stern discloses

various search engines that were in common use at the time of the filing of the

application that resulted in the Stern patent. See Stern at 3:37-43 (“Examples of

some well-known search engines today are Yahoo, Excite, Lycos, Northern Light,

Alta Vista, Google, etc. Examples of inventions that attempt to extract structured

data from the Web are disclosed in sections 5, 6, and 7 of the related U.S.


57

Provisions Application No. 60/221,750 filed on Jul. 31, 2000 for a ‘Computer

Database Method and Apparatus.’”).

Furthermore, the motivation for this combination is that it would be

combining known prior art elements, the search engine optimization in Moran and

the page crawling and categorization features of Stern, according to known

methods, such as improving a search engine optimization process by determining

the page type on which keywords may appear, to yield predictable results of a

search engine optimization system that provides better and more information due

to feedback as to the page type of a website (e.g. to identify keywords that are used

on certain pages of a competitor’s website). Zatkovich Decl. at ¶ 167.


include such a feature as described in Stern, claim 10 is thus obvious over Moran

in view of Graham and Stern.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has established a reasonable

likelihood of prevailing on the unpatentability with respect to at least one claim of

the ’706 patent. Therefore, Petitioner asks that the Patent Office order an inter

partes review trial and proceed to cancel these claims.


58

VI. PAYMENT OF FEES

The undersigned authorizes payment for any additional fees that might be

due in connection with this Petition, or any credit for overpayment, to Deposit

Account No. 07-1896 referencing Attorney Docket No. 387284-1.706.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 11, 2014

Timothy W. Lohse Registration No. 35,255 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214 Telephone: 650.833.2055 Facsimile: 650.833.2001


59

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and

42.105(b) on the Patent Owner by Express Mail of a copy of this Petition for Inter

Partes Review and supporting material at the following correspondence address of

record for the ’706 Patent:

Maschoff Brennan 1389 Center Drive, Suite 300

Park City UT 84098

Dated: November 11, 2014

/Timothy W. Lohse/ Timothy W. Lohse Registration No. 35,255 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215 Telephone: 650.833.2055 Facsimile: 650.687.1183

petition for inter partes reviewfishpostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/ipr2015-00257.pdf ·...

Documents