theory is that the fox mark system returns a search result a cluster produced from cautiously ok that when you get a search results not just some documents you can have a cluster as a search result and a whole cluster at that and the idea is that if the cluster defines what the search result is in the similarity in links and subject or is used to create that cluster also they're being used to display one or more nodes or  ok and what we have is in this is pretty complex stuff but i would i think that it's just crystal clear on page fifty three what we see here is a description of the search procedure fox mark and this is what they specifically rely on and i'm going to read the search procedure is different than the tree created procedure ok i don't like that i don't want to read ahead of you so procedure and the cluster procedure shown in figure three twenty one they rely on twenty points cluster splitting procedure and the tree creation fifteen to twenty one so what the search procedure and here's the critical sentence ok searching a cluster tree is very much like finding a correct place to add to the document see figure seventeen intended description so it's saying the search procedure is like the tree for a procedure however it describes a very retreat as soon as possible so what is explicitly states here is all relevant documents are going to be presented to the user irrespective of the color cluster membership so the whole theory the rest of the idea that a cluster the search result that's secondly i want to point out and direct myself the very since they relied upon for this idea that clusters whole clusters are displayed search results if you put the page to page fifty four and go to the bottom paragraph what we'll see is this sentence here is the bottom paragraph second to last sentence it says first or further most of the documents in the retrieved custer are presented to the user fairly quickly so what they do is they crop out the word most system is a user supplied perry the begins in a natural language form we're talking about is a natural language query on page thirty eight now i'm going to move the page forty one and i cluster is not being displayed the reveal of the whole house of cards comes down the search actually relies on a method does not consider b c or c c it is basically a semantical based search and so i think that these facts are very important in both the obvious context and the has a patient context that's actually before him court is these things aren't being used to search and you see he says it's obvious because once you understand it be seen ceasing to be used in similarity we can use that the cluster however doesn't address the question this point is about searching often with this stuff not just clustered in other words providing search results on that and what's often we shown here is no one here had the idea of using these things to actually provide search respect to this play elements by the way and one thing i want to address one thing she said she read a quote where she said it shows a benefit in direct relationships versus direct relationship the two thirty nine thru forty five thesis and the one thing she pointed to the says it showed that indirect relationships would provide a benefit over direct relationships is false is that what that that actually was referring to  we have it straight absolutely right or my response to that would simply be the document speaks for itself the document talks about the fact that using indirect relationships yields a benefit if you look directly to the citation that i gave it related documents are clustered together in an information retrieval system is in order to retrieve those documents in response to a query and the only reason and just some see what it means to retrieve documents or at least a list of documents in response to a query as to display that information to the person making the query well familiar with how searching works and in any type of electronic library you enter a period you get search results that are that are displayed to you that's simply how it works it's quite elemental and the court doesn't need to take my word for it because it's dr fox says in fox smart clustered search allows retrieval of groups in response to queries submission and that is and and i apologize i also have a mixed bag of record citations but this is in the sixteen for nine case and it's the site to that is j one zero two seven zero so with that background in mind let me turn to what counsel said about that displa staff and the first thing to say about the displaced is the board did find that the displaced in claim one was not satisfied it found that soley because the display stepped recites it sa using the actual cluster of links and the board said well we previously found that there were no actual cluster links that are derived from the candidates and therefore you don't meet this step either the board did not independently talk about the display  as now itself is not being present and it is clearly taught that you're going to what you have the cluster and you use the cluster you're going to display using the cluster of links and i think of that the quotation that council itself used demonstrates that it says further most of the documents in a retrieve cluster are presented to the user fairly quickly though those with negligible documented queries similarity will be bypass much later but that saying is if i type in a query that the system will return most of the documents in the cluster to me what he's saying is the system will do something slightly more advanced which is if some of the documents within the clu seem based on some additional processing to be unrelated to my query what he says negligible query document similarity those will be shown to me intil at least later in the process so it's trying to pick the most helpful so a query is entered the system looks at the cluster that close the most closely matches the query in order to do that it's using the cluster links that have been created and it then does some additional pro graph you have no doubts circles or blocks or whatever you want to call them and edges which are lines between them that are relationships between them the cluster links that the nodes aren't that in this case are the actual real world examples you might have a cluster of documents you know french poetry documents relating to french poetry and the system the system doesn't think french poetry but the system performs it program analysis and concludes that these documents are closely enough related to each other that i'm going to call that a cluster and so and how does it decide whether or not they're closely related it looks at a number of things  are overlapping language do they cite each other do they both repeatedly cite the same thing that which is in direct citation that's an indication that they're related etc so the the process that's described in in fox mark and in fact both in the tree formation process and in the cluster splitting process which is just kind of an editor process that continually happens to maintain the health of the cluster tree is identical to what's disclosed as the preferred embodiment of the patent it calculates a bunch of relation it's got a bunch of documents it calculates relationships that it wants to it in order to figure out how to cluster them together it compares those for the strength of those with similarity relationships and it picks the strongest ones and the strongest ones it says i'm going to cluster these together and make one cluster from the cluster of these together and make another cluster and i  consider that and i want to at least explain how the board eroded we're going to stray and thinking about that process so the tree formation process if you distinguish it from cluster splitting works by there's an existing treaty a new document is put into the library and the system again says ok what a cluster and i'm going to put this in and so in that case what the system does is again for particular document which would be a selected node for analysis it calculates a similarity value between that document and every single other document in the system and then it performs further processing in order to determine which cluster to have that document to so the well but in the dark meat is in the database when it's analyzed i mean i i don't know that it is the fox necessarily wouldn't would make that distinction at all or a recognize it is significant you could start with however you start you could start with the tree the more normal use case if you're maintaining electronic libraries you already have something and new things are coming into the collection cosily and but you could start with a bunch of documents and say i want to form clusters out of them it's that it's the same process that the process is you calculate the similarity value between the dr and the other documents and it's not i do want to say that the document is in the database by the time you're doing that it gets added and then it's there and then you've got to figure out where in the tree you want to insert it but that's where the true formation process begins well i guess the way that i was describing it the truth in that particular example the trees constantly being added to the database and so those get ingested by lexus i'm simply using lexus a as an example but those are adjusted by lexus and then the system process does some processing and says what cluster or clusters i'm going to put this in and so it then calculates a similarity value between that new case that it's analyzing and all the other cases i don't know specifically whether lexus does all their cases but unwieldy there were something like over eight thousand pages submitted only of briefing expert declarations and and deposition transcripts eight to nine thousand pages and then of pages of the exhibits on top of that and the board certainly got most of it right but where they went astray on this particular issue was they said well we're looking at the fully formed tre already existing fully formed tree as we're going to say that's the candidate those are the candidate wings and then they kind of said well there's nothing that happens after that that a loony things from the tree that would get to the actually and so therefore we you haven't demonstrated or fox didn't teach the deriving step of the claims where that analysis one astray is that they should have gone and this is the argument that we may they should have gone one step back in the workflow for the candidates the candidate links are the system looks that takes in just a new document looks at all the other documents and come cute similarity of values based on some factors b c c c potentially other ones to try to figure out how related is this how similar is this document to these other documents those are the can and it's clear for the purpose of clustering it saying i want to figure out what group to put this document in i'm first going to figure out how similar is it to all these other documents those are the candidates and then it says ok i'm going to put this in the french poetry cluster and so it's and says that that's where i'm going to put it those become the actual links so the say that the fully formed tree are the candidates yes that document you calculate the similarity you compare the similarity of that that you've calculated among the various documents and you pick the stronger ones in order to cluster and i guess the you know the last thing i'd say about this again is i do believe in thinking about the cross appeal it's important to stick to take a step back and look at the the soul element this element that's was found to be lacking and again one would read the patterns the egger patterns and believe that there are plenty of things that mr eggers thought were inventive and novel and innovative of about those patterns he turns out not to have been correct but he presumably thought they were  specifically the idea of using indirect citation relationships to calculate similarity and to improve search this particular idea that's that the deriving stack that the board found not to be taught is before something that one would ever read the pattern specifications and think was supposed to be inventive or novel idea or step in fact the specifications say almost the exact opposite they say almost nothing about the driving staff believe we may have and this is something i need to go back to the petition to to to check we may have said something along the lines of we think this is here explicitly to the extent it's not it would be obvious but i believe that the ground of the petition was one the two i would say i mean i think for all for all the reasons i said i believe that it this is death find some candidates pick the strongest candidates and use those as the actual was is  tie in the in the fox papers both in the cluster splitting and reform ation process and also in which the board i think everyone agrees did not engage with and also in the tree formation process which the board did consider but in our view got wrong thank you description of ranking documents discloses driving a subset because a set of rank documents provides an indication of the order of presentation which is not a subset it goes on to say subset of less than the whole database the entire database the entire tree everything is openly provided as a search result in rank water based upon talking to query similarity there is no attempt to use the the specific subset in the database that display it and in the statement here fox part indicates documents from multiple clusters are ranked is a direct refutation that the search results are are single clusters what's being and because there's not a subset of nodes ultimately being located forwards play but rather all nodes are being displayed there's no there's not an actual clustering link this subjected the criterion used to locate nodes none of the things they point to and they could not address this they have not the death by any criterion that would define the subset of notes for display and since notes aren't being located for display they're all being presented you don't have an actual clus that these clusters are going to be presented that way there's only four possible responses in other words they fundamentally misinterpreted this idea that you're going to compare the clusters have the highest cluster to doc query similarities going to be  fortunes of this the board's decision supported us and then again i believe the feds have not provided any substantial evidence that shows it ended wreck relationships comprise benefit over direct relationships consequently those very strong the powerful the just on the displaying staff the portion of the record that council read says we are not persuaded that fox morris description of ranking documents disclose fluster lameness from candidate links so in other words they said the actual links need to be a subset of the candidate links and they found that that wasn't taught incorrectly but that they found that that wasn't taught in the fox papers the point they're making about the display is there is no subset of actual links that's used to create a display it's forgive the ponder phrasing but it's a derivative of their conclusion on th step this was the point we made once the court concludes and we believe it should conclude that the deriving stepped deriving actuals from candidates was taught then the displaced that is also taught but again i don't think i don't think the court needs to look further than dr fox's statement that clustered searching allows retrieval of groups of documents in response to cleary a query it's quite basic when documents are cluster together in a related documents are clustered together in an information retrieval system a query returns can return a group the cluster of documents and so we don't believe that the deriving steps for the display step which are both within the context of these patterns and even outside that context quite routine elemental steps that are there in the claim but are simply being recite