Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01652/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01652-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Facebook, Inc.
Cross-Appellant
LinkedIn Corporation
Cross-Appellant
Software Rights Archive, LLC
Appellant
Twitter, Inc.
Cross-Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC,

Appellant

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORPORATION, 

TWITTER, INC.,

Cross-Appellants

______________________ 

2015-1649, 2015-1650, 2015-1651

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2013-00479, IPR2013-00480. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC,

Appellant

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORPORATION, 

TWITTER, INC.,

Cross-Appellants

______________________ 

2015-1652, 2015-1653

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/09/2016
2 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 

IPR2013-00481.

______________________ 

Decided: September 9, 2016 

______________________ 

VICTOR G. HARDY, DiNovo, Price, Ellwanger & Hardy 

LLP, Austin, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by MINGHUI YANG; MARTIN MOSS ZOLTICK, SOUMYA 

PANDA, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C., Washington, DC.

HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued 

for cross-appellant Facebook Inc. Also represented by 

LOWELL D. MEAD, CARRIE J. RICHEY, MARK R. WEINSTEIN. 

DAVID SILBERT, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for cross-appellants LinkedIn Corporation, 

Twitter, Inc. Also represented by SHARIF E. JACOB, PHILIP 

J. TASSIN.

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM. 

Opinion dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge

CHEN. 

PER CURIAM. 

Software Rights Archive, LLC (“Software Rights”) appeals inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions of the Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board (“board”) of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) holding that claims 

18 and 45 of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494 (the “’494 patent”) 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 3

and claims 12 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,571 (the 

“’571 patent”) are unpatentable over the prior art.1 See 

Facebook, Inc. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC, IPR No. 

2013-00479, 2015 WL 470598, at *7–13, *16–17 (PTAB 

Feb. 2, 2015) (“Board Decision I”); Facebook, Inc. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC, IPR No. 2013-00481, 2015 WL 

429750, at *12–16, *18–20 (PTAB Jan. 29, 2015) (“Board 

Decision II”). Facebook, Inc., LinkedIn Corporation, and 

Twitter, Inc. (collectively “Facebook”) cross-appeal, challenging the board’s determinations that claims 1, 5, 15,

and 16 of the ’494 patent are not anticipated, see Facebook, Inc. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC, IPR No. 2013-

00480, 2015 WL 456539, at *8–13 (PTAB Jan. 30, 2015) 

(“Board Decision III”), and that claim 21 of the ’571 patent is not obvious over the prior art, see Board Decision 

II, 2015 WL 429750, at *16–18. For the reasons discussed 

below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

BACKGROUND

The ’494 and ’571 patents are continuations-in-part of 

U.S. Patent No. 5,544,352 (the “’352 patent”). We recently 

affirmed the board’s determination that claims 26, 28–30, 

32, 34, and 39 of the ’352 patent are unpatentable as 

obvious. See Facebook, Inc. v. Software Rights Archive, 

LLC, IPR No. 2013-00478, 2015 WL 470597 (PTAB Feb. 2, 

2015), aff’d without opinion, 640 F. App’x 995 (Fed. Cir. 

2016).

 

1 Software Rights also advances a cursory argument that the board erred in concluding that certain 

claims that depend from claims 18 and 45 of the ’494 

patent (i.e., claims 19, 20, 48, 49, 51, and 54) are unpatentable as obvious. It does not, however, identify any 

specific limitations in those dependent claims that would 

render them non-obvious if the board’s determination that 

claims 18 and 45 are unpatentable as obvious is affirmed. 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/09/2016
4 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

The ’494 and ’571 patents, which relate to computerized research on a database, are both entitled “Method 

and Apparatus for Indexing, Searching and Displaying 

Data.” Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) I 5057; J.A. II 5058.2 The 

patents purport to improve upon traditional Boolean 

search methods by analyzing non-semantic relationships 

between documents. See J.A. I 5057–59; J.A. II 5058–60. 

They describe a process for organizing and searching for 

data using a technique called “proximity indexing.” ’494 

patent, col. 3 l. 28; ’571 patent, col. 3 l. 33. Proximity 

indexing is used to search for data, including textual 

objects, by “generat[ing] a quick-reference of the relations, 

patterns, and similarity found among the data in the 

database.” ’494 patent, col. 3 ll. 30–31; ’571 patent, col. 3 

ll. 34–36. The claimed inventions are designed to provide 

a “user friendly computerized research tool” which “emulates human methods of research.” ’494 patent, col. 3 ll. 

11–14; ’571 patent, col. 3 ll. 15–18.

I. The ’494 Patent

The ’494 patent describes using non-semantic relationships to search for objects in a database. J.A. I 5057–

58. A citation relationship between two documents is 

non-semantic because it is not based on words (or “terms”) 

common to both documents, but is instead based on one 

document’s reference to the other document. See J.A. I 

5058, 5063. Two documents have a direct citation relationship when one document cites to the other document. 

See J.A. I 5063. Two documents can also have an indirect 

citation relationship, such as when they both cite to a 

 

2 The appendix related to the ’494 patent and the 

appendix related to the ’571 patent contain many of the 

same documents. For the sake of convenience, the appendix related to the ’494 patent will be referred to as “J.A. I” 

and the appendix related to the ’571 patent will be referred to as “J.A. II.”

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 5

third document (bibliographic coupling (“bc”)) or when 

they are both cited by a third document (co-citation (“cc”)). 

J.A. I 5063–64.3 These relationships, as well as other 

relationships between documents, can be used to create 

clusters of similar documents, thereby enhancing search 

and retrieval. J.A. I 5058–64. 

The ’494 patent explains that data in the database to 

be searched may be represented as a “node.” ’494 patent, 

col. 12 ll. 34–41. A node can be “an object in a database, a 

portion of an object in a database, a document, a section of 

a document[] [or] a World Wide Web page.” Id. col. 12 ll. 

36–39 (diagram numbering omitted). The ’494 patent 

further states that a cluster link generator can be used to 

generate candidate cluster links between nodes. Id. col. 

21 ll. 54–67. It explains that “[c]andidate cluster links 

are the set of all possible cluster links between a search 

node and a target node.” Id. col. 21 l. 66–col. 22 l. 1 

(diagram numbering omitted). Actual cluster links, which 

are “a subset of the candidate cluster links . . . which meet 

a certain criteria,” can be “used to locate nodes for display.” Id. col. 22 ll. 1–4 (diagram numbering omitted).

Independent claim 1 of the ’494 patent recites: 

A method of analyzing a database with indirect 

relationships, using links and nodes, comprising 

the steps of:

selecting a node for analysis;

 

3 The board construed the term “direct relationships” to mean “relationships where one object cites to 

another object” and the term “indirect relationships” to 

mean “relationships where at least one intermediate 

object exists between two objects and where the intermediate object(s) connect the two objects through a chain of 

citations.” Board Decision I, 2015 WL 470598, at *5 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/09/2016
6 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

generating candidate cluster links for the selected 

node, wherein the step of generating comprises an 

analysis of one or more indirect relationships in 

the database;

deriving actual cluster links from the candidate 

cluster links;

identifying one or more nodes for display; and

displaying the identity of one or more nodes using 

the actual cluster links.

Id. col. 51 ll. 38–49. 

Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, provides that 

“the step of generating the candidate cluster links comprises the step of[] eliminating candidate cluster links, 

wherein the number of candidate cluster links are limited 

and the closest candidate cluster links are chosen over the 

remaining links.” Id. col. 51 l. 66–col. 52 l. 4. Claim 15 

recites: “The method of claim 14 further comprising the 

step of deriving the actual cluster links wherein the 

actual cluster links are a subset of the candidate cluster 

links.” Id. col. 52 ll. 65–67 (emphasis omitted). Similarly, 

claim 16 recites: “The method of claim 15 wherein the 

step of deriving comprises the step of choosing the top 

rated candidate cluster links.” Id. col. 53 ll. 1–3 (emphasis omitted).

Claims 18 and 45 of the ’494 patent describe search 

methods which use numerical representations of relationships between documents. Independent claim 18 recites:

A method of analyzing a database having objects 

and a first numerical representation of direct relationships in the database, comprising the steps of:

generating a second numerical representation using the first numerical representation, wherein 

the second numerical representation accounts for 

indirect relationships in the database;

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 6 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 7

storing the second numerical representation;

identifying at least one object in the database, 

wherein the stored numerical representation is 

used to identify objects; and

displaying one or more identified objects from the 

database.

Id. col. 53 ll. 28–40.

Claim 45 depends from claim 19, which in turn depends from claim 18. It recites:

The method of claim 19, wherein the direct relationships are hyperlink relationships between objects on the world wide web and the second 

numerical representation of direct and indirect relationships is a value that is generated by analyzing direct link weights in a set of paths between 

two indirectly related objects, and wherein the 

step of identifying uses at least the value to determine an object’s importance for ranking.

J.A. I 5092 (reexamination certificate) (emphasis omitted). 

The board held that claim 18 of the ’494 patent is unpatentable over three prior art publications by Dr. Edward A. Fox (collectively the “Fox Papers”). See Board 

Decision I, 2015 WL 470598, at *7–13. These publications 

were originally part of one document but were eventually 

split into three separate documents: (1) Edward A. Fox, 

Characterization of Two New Experimental Collections in 

Computer and Information Science Containing Textual 

and Bibliographic Concepts (Sept. 1983) (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University) (“Fox Collection”); (2) Edward A. 

Fox, Some Considerations for Implementing the SMART 

Information Retrieval System under UNIX (Sept. 1983) 

(Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University) (“Fox SMART”); 

and (3) Edward A. Fox, Extending the Boolean and Vector 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 7 Filed: 09/09/2016
8 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

Space Models of Information Retrieval with P-Norm 

Queries and Multiple Concept Types (Aug. 1983) (Ph.D. 

thesis, Cornell University) (“Fox Thesis”). The Fox Papers describe clustering documents based on concepts 

(which are referred to as “vectors” or “subvectors”) as well 

as terms. J.A. I 5629–40. In the Fox system, a query will 

not only “retrieve clusters containing documents whose 

terms match its terms,” but will also retrieve “documents

which have little in common with the query terms but are 

highly correlated through other components of the extended vectors.” J.A. I 5659. Fox Thesis explains that 

“bibliographic measures,” such as bc and cc, are “useful in 

both retrieval and clustering applications.” J.A. I 5635.

Although Software Rights argued that the Fox Papers 

do not teach claim 18’s limitation requiring “a database 

having objects and a first numerical representation of 

direct relationships in the database,” ’494 patent, col. 53 

ll. 27–29, the board rejected this contention. See Board 

Decision I, 2015 WL 470598, at *10–11. According to the 

board, “it would have been obvious to modify the databases of the Fox Papers to contain full text documents.” 

Id. at *10. In support, the board noted that the Fox 

Papers specifically state that “some [information retrieval] systems store the full text of the various documents.” 

Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

The board further concluded that the Fox Papers,

when combined with Edward A. Fox et al., Users, User 

Interfaces, and Objects: Envision, a Digital Library, 44 J. 

Am. Soc’y Info. Sci. 480 (1993) (“Fox Envision”), rendered 

claim 45 of the ’494 patent obvious. See Board Decision I, 

2015 WL 470598, at *16–17. According to the board, Fox 

Envision teaches analyzing web-based links, as claim 45 

requires, because it specifically describes “applying citation analysis to hypertext systems, including the World 

Wide Web.” Id. at *17.

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 8 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 9

The board determined, however, that the prior art 

failed to teach the limitation of claims 1, 5, 15, and 16 

that requires “deriving” actual cluster links from the set 

of candidate cluster links. See Board Decision III, 2015 

WL 456539, at *8–13. The board noted that “Fox SMART 

describes the clustering process as initializing a new tree 

as empty, adding documents to the tree, and recursively 

splitting overly large nodes of the tree.” Id. at *9. In the 

board’s view, however, because Fox SMART does not 

disclose “deleting clusters other than those that simply 

overlap, or duplicate, other clusters,” it does not teach 

“deriving a subset of the already generated candidate 

cluster links.” Id. at *10; see also id. at *13 (concluding 

that Fox Thesis does not anticipate claims 15 and 16

because it does not teach “deriving” a subset of actual 

cluster links).

II. The ’571 Patent

The ’571 patent is focused on search techniques for 

use in hypertext networks. Claim 12 describes “cluster 

analyzing” universal resource locators (“URLs”): 

A method for visually displaying data related to a 

web having identifiable web pages and Universal 

Resource Locators with pointers, comprising:

choosing an identifiable web page;

identifying Universal Resource Locators for the 

web pages, wherein the identified Universal Resource Locators either point to or point away from 

the chosen web page;

analyzing Universal Resource Locators, including 

the identified Universal Resource Locators, 

wherein Universal Resource Locators which have 

an indirect relationship to the chosen web page 

are located, wherein the step of analyzing further 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 9 Filed: 09/09/2016
10 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

comprises cluster analyzing the Universal Resource Locators for indirect relationships; and

displaying identities of web pages, wherein the located Universal Resource Locators are used to 

identify web pages.

’571 patent, col. 52 ll. 38–56. 

Claim 22 describes retrieving hyperjump data which 

“has an indirect reference to [a] chosen node.” J.A. II 

5090. It recites: 

A method for displaying information about a network that has hyperjump data, comprising:

choosing a node;

accessing the hyperjump data;

identifying hyperjump data from within the accessed hyperjump data that has a direct reference 

to the chosen node; 

determining hyperjump data from within the accessed hyperjump data that has an indirect reference to the chosen node by proximity indexing the 

identified hyperjump data; and

displaying one or more determined hyperjump data, wherein the nodes are nodes in the network 

that may be accessed, the hyperjump data includes hyperjump links between nodes in the 

network, and the step of displaying comprises:

generating a source map using one or more of the 

determined hyperjump data, wherein the source 

map represents hyperjump links that identify the 

chosen node as a destination of a link, and wherein the method further comprises activating a link 

represented on the source map, wherein a user 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 10 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 11

may hyperjump to a node represented as a node of 

the link. 

J.A. II 5090–91 (reexamination certificate). 

Claim 21 of the ’571 patent describes deriving actual 

cluster links from a set of candidate cluster links in a 

hypertext network: 

A method of displaying information about a network that has hyperjump data, comprising:

choosing a node;

accessing the hyperjump data;

identifying hyperjump data from within the accessed hyperjump data that has a direct reference 

to the chosen node;

determining hyperjump data from within the accessed hyperjump data that has an indirect reference to the chosen node using the identified 

hyperjump data, wherein the step of determining 

comprises non-semantically generating a set of 

candidate cluster links for nodes indirectly related 

to the chosen node using the hyperjump data, assigning weights to the candidate cluster links and 

deriving actual cluster links from the set of candidate cluster links based on the assigned weights;

and

displaying one or more determined hyperjump data.

J.A. II 5090 (reexamination certificate).

The board determined that claims 12 and 22 of the 

’571 patent are obvious over a combination of Fox Thesis, 

Fox SMART, and Fox Envision. See Board Decision II,

2015 WL 429750, at *12–16, *18–20. Specifically, the 

board concluded that Fox SMART and Fox Thesis taught 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 11 Filed: 09/09/2016
12 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

all of the elements of claims 12 and 22—other than the 

hypertext limitations—and that Fox Envision taught 

applying the teachings of Fox SMART and Fox Thesis to 

hypertext networks. See id. Furthermore, although 

Software Rights contended that the commercial success of 

Google’s PageRank algorithm provided objective evidence 

of non-obviousness, the board determined that Software 

Rights had failed to establish any nexus between the 

success of Google’s algorithm and the “features recited in 

the claims of the ’571 patent.” Id. at *15. 

The board concluded, however, that Facebook had not 

established that claim 21 of the ’571 patent is unpatentable as obvious. See id. at *16–18. In the board’s view, 

since Fox SMART’s clustering algorithm does not delete 

documents from the cluster tree, it does not teach “deriving” a subset of actual cluster links from the set of candidate cluster links. Id. at *18.

The parties then timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. 

§ 141(c). 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

We review the board’s legal conclusions de novo, but

review for substantial evidence any underlying factual 

determinations. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, 

Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 836–38 (2015); see also Nike, Inc. v. 

Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re 

Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 

229 (1938); see In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 

1289, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 12 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 13

II. Claim 18 of the ’494 Patent

Software Rights argues that the board erred in concluding that claim 18 of the ’494 patent is obvious in view 

of the Fox Papers. In support, it contends that claim 18 

operates on a full-text database containing documents 

with textual citations to each other, whereas the test

collections used by Fox contained only limited information—such as abstracts, authors, titles of articles, and 

bibliographic records—instead of the full text of documents. 

This argument fails. Even assuming arguendo that 

claim 18 requires a database containing full-text documents, the Fox Papers explicitly suggest the use of such a 

database. Fox Thesis states that some information retrieval “systems store the full text of the various documents . . . being manipulated,” and that this approach is 

advantageous because it allows users “to locate documents of interest” and “examine paragraphs, passages, 

sentences, or single word occurrences (in context).” J.A. I 

5482.4 It explains, moreover, that storing the full text of 

documents is a “straightforward generalization[] of document retrieval methods.” J.A. I 5482. Given that Fox 

Thesis specifically states that storing the full text of 

documents is both beneficial and “straightforward,” the 

board had ample support for its conclusion that “the Fox 

Papers suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the 

time of the invention the modification of the Fox databases to include full text documents.” Board Decision I, 

2015 WL 470598, at *11.

 

4 Fox SMART likewise suggests the use of full-text 

retrieval applications. It states that “vectors could be 

computed for smaller items than just documents” and 

that “[t]his would be of particular value in full text retrieval applications.” J.A. I 5443 (emphasis added).

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 13 Filed: 09/09/2016
14 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

III. Claim 45 of the ’494 Patent

The board also had ample support for its determination that claim 45 of the ’494 patent is obvious over a 

combination of the Fox Papers and Fox Envision. See id. 

at *15–17. Claim 45 recites that “the direct relationships 

are hyperlink relationships between objects on the world 

wide web.” J.A. I 5092 (emphasis omitted). Although 

Software Rights argues that “Fox Envision does not teach 

the idea that one should analyze hyperlinks as opposed to 

bibliographic citations to enhance search,” the board 

properly rejected this contention, concluding that Fox 

Envision explicitly teaches the application of citation 

analysis in hypertext systems. See Board Decision I, 2015 

WL 470598, at *17. 

Fox Envision, which was published ten years after 

Fox Thesis and Fox SMART, was designed to “reconceptualize the idea of digital libraries” in order to “envision

their next generation.” J.A. I 5844 (emphasis omitted). 

Its objective was “to harmonize and integrate concepts 

from a variety of interrelated fields,” including “hypertext[,] hypermedia[,] . . . [and] information storage and 

retrieval.” J.A. I 5844. Fox Envision explicitly teaches 

analyzing the links between objects in a hypertext system:

Links should be recorded, preserved, organized,

and generalized. As we integrate documents into 

very large collections covering an entire scientific 

domain or professional area, links among those

documents become increasingly important to help 

with search and browsing. Groupings of those 

links into paths, threads, tours, and webs are essential for organizing, personalizing, sharing, and

preserving the structural, interpretational, and 

evolutionary connections that develop. We are 

beginning to see the emergence of wide area hyperext systems (Yankelovich, 1990) like the 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 14 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 15

WorldWideWeb . . . that carry this concept forward into a distributed environment. Clearly, we 

must coordinate hypertext and hypermedia linking with the various approaches to search and retrieval (Fox et al., 1991b). One approach is the 

idea of information graphs (including hypergraphs), where objects of all types are interrelated 

by links or arcs that capture not only citation (reference) but also inheritance, inclusion, association, synchronization, sequencing, and other 

relationships.

J.A. I 5845.

As the board correctly determined, “[t]he approach 

taught in Fox Envision interrelates ‘objects of all types,’ 

including objects on the World Wide Web, so as to capture 

citation relationships.” Board Decision I, 2015 WL 

470598, at *17 (quoting J.A. I 5845). Indeed, Fox Envision explains that as the overall size of a document collection increases, the “links among . . . documents become 

increasingly important to help with search and browsing.” 

J.A. I 5845. It further explains that one approach to 

“coordinat[ing] hypertext and hypermedia linking” with 

known search and retrieval methods is to create “information graphs (including hypergraphs), where objects of 

all types are interrelated by links or arcs that capture . . . 

citation . . . relationships.” J.A. I 5845 (emphasis added); 

see also J.A. I 7084–88. Thus, as the board correctly 

concluded, Fox Envision teaches analyzing citation relationships in hypertext systems. See Board Decision I, 

2015 WL 470598, at *17.

Software Rights contends that because the Fox Papers 

predated the widespread use of the web and hyperlinks, 

their teachings are limited to bibliographic citations 

between paper documents. We are unpersuaded. In 

assessing obviousness, references are not read in isolation. See, e.g., In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 15 Filed: 09/09/2016
16 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the 

rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of 

references.”). Although the Fox Papers do not describe 

analyzing hyperlink relationships, they must be read in 

view of Fox Envision, which, as discussed above, provides 

express motivation to apply citation analysis to the links 

between objects found on the web. See, e.g., Applied 

Materials, 692 F.3d at 1298 (emphasizing that “[o]ne of 

ordinary skill in the art is not foreclosed from combining” 

relevant related references). As the board correctly 

determined, moreover, a skilled artisan would readily 

have combined the teachings of Fox Envision with those 

of Fox Thesis and Fox SMART given that Fox Envision is 

a follow-on work to Fox’s earlier publications. See Board 

Decision I, 2015 WL 470598, at *16; see also Board Decision II, 2015 WL 429750, at *12 (“Dr. Fox states it would 

have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to 

combine the techniques of [Fox] Envision, Fox Thesis, and 

Fox SMART because [Fox] Envision was built on, and was 

itself[] a follow-on work to Fox Thesis and Fox SMART.”). 

In short, Fox Thesis and Fox SMART teach the use of 

citation analysis in databases storing information related 

to paper documents, while Fox Envision extends that 

teaching to hypertext networks. We conclude, therefore, 

that substantial evidence supports the board’s determination that claim 45 of the ’494 patent is obvious over a 

combination of Fox Envision and the Fox Papers.5 See In 

 

5 For similar reasons, we affirm the board’s determination that claims 12 and 22 of the ’571 patent are 

obvious in view of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox 

Envision. See Board Decision II, 2015 WL 429750, at 

*10–16. As the board correctly determined, Fox Thesis 

and Fox SMART teach each of the elements of claims 12 

and 22, other than the hypertext limitations, and Fox 

Envision teaches applying citation analysis to hypertext 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 16 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 17

re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The 

presence or absence of a motivation to combine references 

in an obviousness determination is a pure question of 

fact.”); Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 

1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“What a reference teaches and 

whether it teaches toward or away from the claimed 

invention are questions of fact.” (citations and internal 

quotation marks omitted)). 

IV. Alleged Teaching Away

“A reference may be said to teach away when a person

of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be 

discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the 

 

networks. Id. Software Rights argues that claim 12 is 

not obvious because Fox Thesis describes the use of 

document identifiers, which it refers to as “dids,” see J.A. 

II 5738, 5766, rather than URLs. We do not agree. As 

noted previously, Fox Thesis teaches using citation data, 

including bibliographic relationships, to improve search 

and retrieval. See J.A. II 5694–5725. Although Fox 

Thesis does not discuss the use of URLs, it must be read 

in view of Fox Envision, which explicitly teaches using 

citation analysis in hypertext systems. See J.A. II 5845. 

Given that Fox Envision is a follow-on work to Fox Thesis, 

a skilled artisan “would have combined the retrieval 

systems taught in Fox Thesis . . . with documents stored 

as web pages and linked by hypertext and hypermedia 

linking taught in [Fox] Envision.” Board Decision II, 2015 

WL 429750, at *12. As this court has previously recognized, moreover, taking well-known methods and applying them via the Internet is insufficient, standing alone, 

to render claims non-obvious. See, e.g., Muniauction, Inc. 

v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

(concluding that “the incorporation of web browser functionality” did not establish non-obviousness).

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 17 Filed: 09/09/2016
18 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 

F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). According to Software 

Rights, the board erred in finding its claims obvious 

because the Fox Papers teach away from using indirect 

relationships, such as bc and cc, to enhance search and 

retrieval. In support, it argues that “when all of the Fox 

Papers’ teachings are fairly considered, they overwhelmingly demonstrate that use of bc and cc harms search 

results for the vast majority of queries.” 

We disagree. One of the central teachings of the Fox 

Papers is that using indirect citation relationships, such 

as bc and cc, can improve search results. For example, 

Fox Thesis, after describing the results of one experiment, 

concludes that using a combination of bc and cc for clustering “seemed rather good” and that the “simpler” combination of bc and cc produced better clusters than a 

“mixture” of more subvectors. J.A. I 5693. Describing 

another experiment, Fox Thesis states that “[o]verall, the 

best behavior seemed to come when [bc] and [cc] were 

combined with equal weighting.” J.A. I 5745. Discussing 

yet another experiment, Fox Thesis concludes that “[o]f 

all the subvectors, terms are best, though co-citations are 

not much worse. . . . Using regression or guessed at 

coefficients, the [term vector] and [cc] combination yields 

a 5–6% improvement over the performance when terms 

alone are used.” J.A. I 5723. Fox SMART echoes the 

conclusions reached in Fox Thesis. It states that “[t]he 

extended vector model was introduced whereby various 

types of bibliographic data were utilized to supplement 

the standard term vectors” and explains that “[o]ne 

motivation for [this] model was the success of clustering 

studies considering bibliographic data instead of or in 

addition to terms.” J.A. I 5406 (emphasis added). 

Although the Fox Papers indicate that certain subvectors will perform worse than others under differing conditions and with the use of particular data sets, see, e.g.,

J.A. I 5733–34, those references unequivocally convey 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 18 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 19

that analysis of indirect citation relationships—such as bc 

and cc—can improve search and retrieval. See, e.g., Dome 

Patent L.P. v. Lee, 799 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 

(concluding that there was no teaching away even where 

a prior art reference “disclose[d] potential disadvantages 

associated” with a claimed compound). Accordingly, 

substantial evidence supports the board’s determination 

that the Fox Papers do not teach away from using indirect 

relationships to improve search and retrieval. See In re 

Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasizing that the board’s determination as to whether a particular reference teaches away from a claimed invention 

must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence).

We reject, moreover, Software Rights’ assertion that 

the board failed to give proper consideration to objective 

indicia of non-obviousness. “Commercial success is relevant to obviousness only if there is a nexus . . . between 

the sales and the merits of the claimed invention.” Applied Materials, 692 F.3d at 1299 (citations and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Although Software Rights 

argues that the success of Google’s search engine using 

the PageRank algorithm provides objective evidence of 

non-obviousness, it fails to provide any credible evidence 

that Google’s search engine practices any inventive elements recited in its claims. See Board Decision I, 2015 

WL 470598, at *13 (noting that Software Rights “failed to 

provide the source code of PageRank, or any other detailed information beyond publicly-available, generalized 

hearsay statements about Google’s search”). As we have 

previously made clear, “[w]here the offered secondary 

consideration actually results from something other than 

what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no 

nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” In re HuaiHung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 

Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369–

70 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If commercial success is due to an 

element in the prior art, no nexus exists.”). 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 19 Filed: 09/09/2016
20 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

V. The Deriving Actual Cluster Links Limitation

We conclude, however, that the board erred when it 

determined that Facebook failed to establish that claims 1 

and 5 of the ’494 patent are unpatentable over Fox 

SMART. See Board Decision III, 2015 WL 456539, at *8–

11. In determining that Fox SMART does not teach 

deriving actual cluster links from the set of candidate 

cluster links, the board failed to consider fully Fox 

SMART’s procedure for splitting overly large clusters. See 

J.A. I 10272–81; see also Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Rea, 

721 F.3d 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (emphasizing that 

the board is obliged to “read[] the prior art for all that it 

teaches”).

As an initial matter, we note that the specification of 

the ’494 patent describes the step of deriving actual 

cluster links as “simple” or routine. ’494 patent, col. 24 l.

2. It explains that “[o]nce the candidate cluster link set 

has been generated, deriving the actual cluster links is a 

simple matter of selecting or choosing the . . . top rated 

candidate links, and eliminating the rest.” Id. col. 24 ll. 

1–4 (diagram numbering omitted). Nothing in the specification suggests that deriving actual cluster links from the 

set of candidate cluster links is a novel or inventive aspect 

of the claimed invention.

Even more fundamentally, Fox SMART provides explicit instructions both on: (1) how to generate a set of 

candidate cluster links using indirect relationships such 

as bc and cc; and (2) how to derive a subset of actual 

cluster links from that candidate cluster link set. See J.A. 

I 10270–81. As discussed previously, a key teaching of 

Fox SMART is that search and retrieval can be improved 

by clustering documents based upon indirect bibliographic 

relationships such as bc and cc. J.A. I 10255–82. The Fox 

SMART algorithm analyzes direct relationships between 

documents and then identifies and assigns weights to 

indirect relationships between documents. See J.A. I 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 20 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 21

10257–60. Both the direct and indirect relationships can 

be represented as vectors in a table or matrix. See J.A. I 

10257–60, 10274.

In the Fox SMART system, clustering proceeds by determining the “overall similarity between documents” 

which is calculated “based on available subvectors,” J.A. I 

10274, such as bc and cc, see J.A. I 10257–60. If a cluster 

exceeds a preset size limit, see J.A. I 10273, an algorithm 

splits the cluster and re-groups its constituent documents 

into smaller clusters, J.A. I 10275–79. Splitting overly 

large clusters is accomplished by creating a “complete 

similarity matrix” that compares the “pairwise combined 

similarity values” for each potential pair of documents in 

the original cluster. J.A. I 10277; see also J.A. I 10257–

60, 10271–76. Because the similarity values calculated 

during cluster-splitting provide a set of possible cluster 

links between each document and every other document 

in the original cluster, they qualify as “candidate cluster 

links.” See Board Decision III, 2015 WL 456539, at *5

(explaining that “candidate cluster links” are the “set of 

possible cluster links between a search node and a target 

node” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); 

see also ’494 patent, col. 13 ll. 25–26 (defining a “cluster 

link” as “a relationship between two nodes”).

Fox SMART then describes the process for deriving a 

subset of actual cluster links from the set of candidate 

links. Fox SMART’s cluster-splitting procedure identifies

“highly correlated pairs” of documents from the original 

cluster by “comparing the similarity of a pair of children 

to the average off diagonal similarity value and seeing if 

it is a sufficient number of standard deviations away from 

the mean.” J.A. I 10278. Next, Fox SMART forms new, 

smaller clusters which contain “highly correlated pairs,” 

J.A. I 10278, and which also pass other tests for similarity 

and overlap, J.A. I 10277–79. Simply put, when splitting 

an oversized cluster, Fox SMART first generates candidate cluster links between all of the documents in the 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 21 Filed: 09/09/2016
22 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

original cluster and then derives a subset of those links—

the actual cluster links—in order to create new, smaller 

clusters.

Indeed, Fox SMART and the preferred embodiment of 

the ’494 patent perform the relatively straightforward 

step of deriving actual cluster links from the set of candidate links in exactly the same way. The preferred embodiment, like Fox SMART, generates a set of candidate 

cluster links based on direct and indirect relationships 

and then represents those candidate cluster links as 

vectors in a matrix. Compare ’494 patent, col. 21 ll. 60–64 

(“[T]he cluster link generator . . . generates a set of cluster 

links based upon both the direct links and on the indirect 

paths. The cluster links may be represented by a table or 

a series of vectors.” (diagram numbering omitted)), with

J.A. I 10275–80 (describing Fox SMART’s procedure for 

creating a complete similarity matrix that compares the 

similarity values for each possible pair of documents in a 

cluster). Next, the preferred embodiment, like Fox 

SMART, selects a subset of the candidate cluster links to 

become actual cluster links. Compare ’494 patent, col. 21 

l. 66–col. 22 l. 4 (“Candidate cluster links are the set of all 

possible cluster links between a search node and a target 

node. . . . [T]he actual cluster links which meet a certain 

criteria are used to locate nodes for display.” (diagram 

numbering omitted)), with J.A. I 10277–80 (describing 

Fox SMART’s splitting procedure which generates candidate cluster links between pairs of documents in an 

oversized cluster and then selects a subset of those links, 

based on the strength of their similarity, to become the 

actual cluster links in new, smaller clusters). The board 

erred, therefore, in concluding that Fox SMART does not 

teach deriving actual cluster links from the set of candidate links as required by claims 1 and 5. See Board 

Decision III, 2015 WL 456539, at *8–11. 

The dissent contends that Fox SMART does not teach 

deriving actual cluster links because its cluster-splitting 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 22 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 23

algorithm does not eliminate candidate cluster links, but 

instead “simply redistributes the candidate cluster links 

among two or more clusters.” Dissent at 4. This argument fails. When it splits oversize clusters, the Fox 

system calculates pairwise similarity values between each 

document and every other document in the original cluster. See J.A. I 10275–79. The algorithm thus calculates 

the similarity value between document one and document 

two, document one and document three, document one 

and document four, etc., until it has obtained similarity 

values for every pair of documents in the original, oversized cluster. See J.A. I 10277–79. These similarity 

values are the candidate cluster links. The Fox system 

then chooses the best candidate cluster links to become 

actual cluster links. If, for example, document one is 

much more similar to document two than it is to document three, then documents one and two will likely be 

placed together in one cluster while document three will 

likely be placed in a different cluster. See J.A. I 10278 

(explaining that when an oversize cluster is split, the new,

smaller clusters will contain “highly correlated pairs” of 

documents). The candidate cluster link between documents one and three will be eliminated when document 

one is placed in a separate cluster from document three. 

There is no merit, therefore, to the dissent’s assertion that 

Fox SMART does not teach eliminating candidate cluster 

links.

On appeal, Software Rights contends that Facebook 

waived the right to argue that Fox SMART’s clustersplitting procedure teaches the deriving actual cluster 

links limitation by failing to properly present that argument to the board. We disagree. Facebook’s original IPR 

petition identified Fox SMART’s cluster-splitting procedure as teaching the “deriving” step. See J.A. I 2022–23. 

In his declaration submitted with Facebook’s IPR petition, 

moreover, Fox specifically stated that the process of 

“recursively splitting overly large nodes” in both Fox 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 23 Filed: 09/09/2016
24 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

SMART and Fox Thesis teaches the deriving actual 

cluster links limitation. J.A. I 10851 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, when Fox was 

cross-examined by counsel for Software Rights, he explained in detail how the cluster-splitting procedure 

satisfies the deriving actual cluster links limitation. See 

J.A. I 20758–59; see also J.A. I 20695, 20770, 20772–75. 

We reject, therefore, Software Rights’ contention that 

Facebook waived the right to rely on Fox SMART’s cluster-splitting procedure to meet the requirement of deriving a subset of actual cluster links.

We also reject Software Rights’ argument that Fox 

SMART does not teach claim 1’s limitation reciting “displaying the identity of one or more nodes using the actual

cluster links,” ’494 patent, col. 51 ll. 47–48. Fox SMART 

specifically states that “clustered search allows retrieval 

of groups in response to query submission,” J.A. I 10270, 

and that “most of the documents in a retrieved cluster are 

presented to the user,” J.A. I 10282. Because Fox SMART 

retrieves and displays whole clusters of documents, it 

necessarily “us[es] the actual cluster links” that form 

those clusters when displaying documents or “nodes” as 

required by claim 1.6 

We are likewise unpersuaded by Software Rights’ argument that Fox SMART does not anticipate because it 

teaches retrieving all documents and ranking multiple 

clusters of documents for display. As the board correctly 

determined, ranking documents from multiple clusters is 

not the same as deriving a subset of those documents. See 

Board Decision III, 2015 WL 456539, at *10 (explaining 

that “a set of ranked documents provides an indication of 

an order of presentation, but is not a subset”). Signifi-

 

6 The ’494 patent explains that a “node” can be a 

document, a concept, or a web page. See ’494 patent, col. 

12 ll. 36–38.

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 24 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 25

cantly, however, claim 1 does not require deriving or 

displaying a subset of documents. Instead, it requires 

deriving a subset of cluster links. See ’494 patent, col. 51 

ll. 44–45 (reciting “deriving actual cluster links from the 

candidate cluster links”). Likewise, claim 5 does not 

require eliminating documents, but instead only requires 

eliminating candidate cluster links. See id. col. 52 ll. 1–4 

(reciting “eliminating candidate cluster links, wherein the 

number of candidate cluster links are limited and the 

closest candidate cluster links are chosen over the remaining links”). As discussed above, Fox SMART’s cluster-splitting procedure teaches deriving a subset of actual 

cluster links from the set of candidate links when it 

describes the procedure for splitting overly large clusters. 

Software Rights points to nothing in claims 1 and 5 that 

additionally requires deriving a subset of documents for 

display. We conclude, therefore, that the board erred in 

confirming the patentability of claims 1 and 5 over Fox 

SMART. See Board Decision III, 2015 WL 456539, at *8–

11.

VI. Claims 15 and 16 of the ’494 Patent

For similar reasons, we conclude that the board erred 

in confirming the patentability of claims 15 and 16 of the 

’494 patent over Fox Thesis. See id. at *13. The only 

limitation in claims 15 and 16 that the board found missing from Fox Thesis was the step of deriving a subset of 

actual cluster links from the set of candidate cluster links. 

Id. Because the process for splitting overly large clusters 

in Fox Thesis is essentially the same as that described in 

Fox SMART, the board erred in concluding that Fox 

Thesis fails to teach the step of deriving actual cluster 

links from the set of candidate cluster links. 

Fox Thesis and Fox SMART arose from the same thesis project and were originally part of one document. See

Board Decision I, 2015 WL 470598, at *9. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the clustering process described in Fox 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 25 Filed: 09/09/2016
26 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

Thesis tracks that described in Fox SMART. Indeed, Fox 

SMART specifically refers to Fox Thesis when it describes 

its clustering algorithm. See J.A. I 10271. Like Fox 

SMART, Fox Thesis describes a procedure in which overly 

large clusters are split and new clusters are formed based 

on high pairwise similarity values. See J.A. I 10607, 

10613–14; see also J.A. I 10619 (explaining that a cluster 

will be split when “the splitting limit of 20 [documents] is 

reached”). As Fox Thesis explains, its algorithm will 

continually split and reform clusters so that “the tree 

stays relatively balanced and all documents are the same 

distance from the root.” J.A. I 10613. In Fox Thesis, each 

new, smaller cluster contains a derived set of actual 

cluster links. See J.A. I 10614–21 (providing an example 

of the procedure for splitting an overly large cluster and 

forming smaller clusters of closely linked documents).

Software Rights contends that Fox Thesis does not 

teach clustering with bc and cc because it does not require

the use of bc and cc when forming clusters. This argument is unavailing. As discussed previously, Fox Thesis 

and Fox SMART are both replete with statements encouraging the use of indirect relationships, such as bc and 

cc, to cluster documents and search databases. See, e.g., 

J.A. I 10584–89, 10633–38 (Fox Thesis); J.A. I 10255–82 

(Fox SMART). The fact that they do not in all cases 

mandate the use of indirect relationships during the 

clustering process does not mean that they do not teach 

the use of bc and cc for clustering. See Hewlett–Packard 

Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 

2003) (explaining that “a prior art product that sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless teaches that aspect of the invention”); see also 

Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1376 

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (concluding that a prior art reference 

anticipated notwithstanding the fact that it disclosed a 

claimed compound in a list with other suitable “skin 

benefit ingredients”). 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 26 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 27

Software Rights attempts to salvage the board’s decision upholding the patentability of claims 1, 5, 15, and 16 

by seeking affirmance on grounds not raised before the 

board. As a general rule, however, arguments not raised 

before the board are waived on appeal. See Redline 

Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 450 

(Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 

(1973) (per curiam) (emphasizing that “the focal point for 

judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in 

the reviewing court”); In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002) (explaining that “review of an administrative 

decision must be made on the grounds relied on by the 

agency”).

VII. Claim 21 of the ’571 Patent

Finally, we conclude that the board erred when it determined that claim 21 of the ’571 patent is patentable 

over a combination of Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox 

Envision. See Board Decision II, 2015 WL 429750, at 

*16–18. The board found that the prior art failed to teach 

a specific feature of claim 21, the limitation requiring 

“deriving actual cluster links from the set of candidate 

cluster links.” J.A. II 5090 (emphasis omitted); see Board

Decision II, 2015 WL 429750, at *17–18. As discussed 

above, however, the cluster-splitting procedure disclosed 

in both Fox SMART and Fox Thesis teaches deriving 

actual cluster links from a set of candidate cluster links. 

Furthermore, the actual cluster links in Fox SMART are 

selected “based on the assigned weights,” as claim 21 

requires, J.A. II 5090 (emphasis omitted), because the 

final clusters are defined by pairs of documents that have 

been assigned high similarity values. See J.A. II 5961–62.

Software Rights argues that the Fox Papers do not 

teach “determining . . . hyperjump data that has an 

indirect reference to the chosen node,” J.A. II 5090, because “[t]he clusters produced from Fox’s clustering 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 27 Filed: 09/09/2016
28 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

process contain documents that do not have any indirect 

relationships between them.” This argument fails. Fox 

Thesis and Fox SMART teach clustering using bc and cc, 

even if some clusters contain documents that are assigned 

to that cluster based upon relationships other than bc and 

cc. See, e.g., Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 

804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (explaining that the fact that the 

prior art discloses a “multitude of effective combinations” 

does not mean that any particular combination is not 

obvious). We therefore reverse the board’s decision concluding that Facebook failed to establish that claim 21 of 

the ’571 patent is obvious over the prior art.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Software Rights’ remaining arguments but do not find them persuasive. Accordingly, 

we affirm the determinations of the Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board that claims 18–20, 45, 48–49, 51, and 54 of 

the ’494 patent and claims 12 and 22 of the ’571 patent 

are unpatentable on the ground of obviousness, but reverse its determinations that claims 1, 5, 15, and 16 of the 

’494 patent and claim 21 of the ’571 patent are patentable 

over the prior art.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND REVERSED-IN-PART

COSTS

The cross-appellants shall have their costs.

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 28 Filed: 09/09/2016
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC,

Appellant

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORPORATION, 

TWITTER, INC.,

Cross-Appellants

______________________ 

2015-1649, 2015-1650, 2015-1651

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2013-00479, IPR2013-00480. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC,

Appellant

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORPORATION, 

TWITTER, INC.,

Cross-Appellants

______________________ 

2015-1652, 2015-1653

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 29 Filed: 09/09/2016
2 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 

IPR2013-00481.

______________________ 

CHEN, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part. 

I join the court’s opinion with the exception of parts V, 

VI, and VII, which all relate to the cross-appeals filed by 

Facebook, Inc., LinkedIn Corporation, and Twitter, Inc. 

(collectively “Cross-Appellants”). In those parts of the 

opinion, the majority reverses the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions, which found that claims 1 and 5 of 

U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494 were not anticipated by Fox 

SMART; claims 15 and 16 of the ’494 patent were not 

anticipated by Fox Thesis; and claim 21 of U.S. Patent 

No. 6,233,571 would not have been obvious in view of Fox 

SMART, Fox Thesis, and Fox Envision. I would hold that 

the Board’s findings that the prior art references failed to 

disclose “deriving actual cluster links from the candidate 

cluster links”1 were supported by substantial evidence. I 

 

1 Claims 1 and 5 of the ’494 patent explicitly include the limitation “deriving actual cluster links from the 

candidate cluster links.” ’494 patent, 51:44–45. The 

parties do not dispute that claims 15 and 16 of the ’494 

patent and claim 21 of the ’571 patent include this same 

limitation, albeit using slightly different words. See id. at

52:65–67 (“The method of claim 14 further comprising the 

step of deriving the actual cluster links wherein the 

actual cluster links are a subset of the candidate cluster 

links.”); ’571 patent (Reexamination Certificate), 2:53–54

(“deriving actual cluster links from the set of candidate 

cluster links based on the assigned weights”). 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 30 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 3

would therefore affirm the Board’s Final Written Decisions in full.

In support of its unpatentability holding, the majority 

identifies the cluster-splitting process disclosed in Fox 

SMART and Fox Thesis as disclosing the “deriving” 

limitation. The majority describes the steps in this process as involving (1) the creation of a “similarity matrix” 

representing the calculated similarity between individual 

pairs of documents in a cluster; (2) the identification of 

“highly correlated pairs” of documents within the cluster 

based on the calculated similarity values found in the 

similarity matrix; and (3) the formation of new, smaller 

clusters containing those “highly correlated pairs” of 

documents. Op. at 21–22 (citations omitted). The majority equates these new, smaller clusters with the “actual 

cluster links” described in the claims and contends that 

they are derived from “candidate cluster links” in the form 

of the calculated similarity values. Id. at 22. 

The Board found to the contrary. It first construed 

“actual cluster links” to mean “a subset of the candidate 

cluster links, which meet certain criteria.” Board Decision III, 2015 WL 456539, at *5. It then reasoned that 

under the construction—which Cross-Appellants did not 

challenge on appeal—derivation of actual cluster links 

required deletion of at least some candidate cluster links. 

Id. at *9–10. The Board reviewed the Fox references and 

found that the only cluster links deleted in the clustersplitting process are “those that simply overlap, or duplicate, other clusters,” which means that, in fact, no candidate cluster links are deleted at all. Id. at *10. As a 

result, Fox SMART and Fox Thesis failed to disclose the 

“deriving” step.

I believe the Board’s conclusion is based on a reasonable reading of those references. The ’494 patent’s description of deriving candidate cluster links is clear:

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 31 Filed: 09/09/2016
4 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

Once the candidate cluster link set has been generated, deriving the actual cluster links is a simple matter of selecting or choosing the T top rated 

candidate links, and eliminating the rest. 

’494 patent, 24:1–4 (emphasis added) (diagram numbering 

omitted); see also Op. at 20. That description is consistent 

with the Board’s construction of “actual cluster links.” 

The cluster-splitting process disclosed in Fox SMART and 

Fox Thesis, in contrast, uses a qualitatively different 

approach. As the Board found, that process does not 

involve eliminating any candidate cluster links. Instead, 

cluster-splitting simply redistributes the candidate cluster links among two or more clusters. Such redistribution 

cannot result in a “subset of the candidate cluster links” 

as required by the claims.

Further, the majority, in my view, conflates two different aspects of information retrieval to reach its conclusion: creating a database and searching a database. 

The Fox references use cluster-splitting in database 

creation. Fox describes adding documents to a database 

as akin to placing leaves on a tree. J.A. I 10272 (“The 

clustering algorithm produces a hierarchy where all N

documents in a collection end up as leaves of a multilevel 

tree.”). One by one each document is placed on the particular branch of the tree (i.e., the “cluster”) containing 

other documents with which it is most similar. Id. When 

a branch is assigned more documents than it can bear, 

that branch splits in two. Id. It is at this step that the 

cluster-splitting process occurs. Documents continue to 

be added to the tree—and branches/clusters are split as 

necessary—until no documents remain. J.A. I 10275 

(“Adding documents . . . simply involves finding the 

proper place to insert, attaching the incoming entry 

appropriately, and recursively splitting overly large nodes 

from that point up the tree as needed.”).

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 32 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 5

In contrast to creating the database, the claims at issue are directed to analyzing (i.e., searching) an already 

populated database. Claims 1 and 5 of the ’494 patent are 

exemplary. They expressly claim a “method of analyzing 

a database.” ’494 patent, 51:38. The claimed method

begins with the selection of a document (i.e., a “node”) for 

analysis and results in the display of other, similar documents as determined by the “actual cluster links.” Id. at 

51:38–49. During oral argument, counsel for CrossAppellants LinkedIn and Twitter compared the claimed 

methods to a Lexis search for “more cases that are like 

this case.”2 Oral Argument Tr., No. 2015-1652, 19:13–

20:30.

Fox SMART confirms that, while the process used to

search a database is similar to the process used to create 

the database, the processes are different. J.A. I 10281

(“Searching a clustered tree is very much like finding the 

correct place to add a new document . . . . However, 

searching has a different objective; instead of finding the 

single twig where insertion should follow[,] one would like 

to retrieve and rank documents so that all relevant documents, regardless of what cluster they appear in, are 

 

2 Though claims 15 and 16 of the ’494 patent are directed to “method[s] of representing the relationships 

between nodes,” ’494 patent, 52:51–52, Cross-Appellants

make no argument that this difference impacts the unpatentability analysis. Cross-Appellants’ Br. 75 (“For the 

same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, the 

Board’s decision [with respect to claims 15 and 16] was 

erroneous and should be reversed.”). And, like claims 1 

and 5 of the ’494 patent, claim 21 of the ’571 patent involves a method that begins with the selection of a node 

for analysis and results in the display of data as determined by “actual cluster links.” ’571 patent (Reexamination Certificate), 2:38–55.

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 33 Filed: 09/09/2016
6 SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 

retrieved as soon as possible.”). Neither Fox SMART nor 

Fox Thesis suggests that the cluster-splitting process 

used in database creation is part of search. CrossAppellants’ reliance on Fox’s cluster-splitting in support 

of their unpatentability arguments is therefore misplaced. 

Moreover, the search process described in Fox SMART 

and Fox Thesis necessarily follows database creation. See

J.A. I 10270 (“Clustering is simply a process for creating 

groupings, and clustered search allows retrieval of groups 

in response to query submission.”). By the time a user 

searches the database, the document tree is already full. 

It is thus the links within this fully formed tree that must 

serve as the claimed “candidate cluster links,” a proposition that counsel for Cross-Appellants LinkedIn and 

Twitter admitted at oral argument results in a “dead 

end.” Oral Argument Tr., No. 2015-1652, 22:34–22:42. 

This is because Fox SMART makes clear that a search 

returns all documents in the database. As the Board 

explained, “Fox SMART states that ‘one would like to 

retrieve and rank documents so that all relevant documents, regardless of what cluster they appear in, are 

retrieved as soon as possible.’” Board Decision III, 2015 

WL 456539, at *10 (emphasis added) (quoting J.A. I 

10281). No documents are deleted or otherwise removed 

before presentation to the user. As such, the Board was 

correct to find that Fox SMART’s search process cannot 

satisfy the unchallenged construction of “actual cluster 

links.” Id. at *10 (“We are not persuaded that Fox 

SMART’s description of ranking documents discloses 

deriving a subset because a set of ranked documents 

provides an indication of an order of presentation, but is 

not a subset. . . . Because Petitioner does not point to 

disclosure of deriving a subset, Petitioner has not shown 

by a preponderance of the evidence display using links of 

that subset.”). I therefore would find that substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s decision that the Fox 

references do not disclose a key limitation of claims 1, 5, 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 34 Filed: 09/09/2016
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC. 7

15, and 16 of the ’494 patent and claim 21 of the ’571 

patent and, as a result, do not render those claims unpatentable. 

Case: 15-1652 Document: 84-2 Page: 35 Filed: 09/09/2016