Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 1 of 23
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 1 of 23
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 2 of 23
`
`1
`
`
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC. and
`E-NUMERATE, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-859 C
`
`Judge Ryan T. Holte
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. DAVID MARTIN IN SUPPORT
`OF DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 3 of 23
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`C.
`D.
`
`Previous Opinions ................................................................................................................3
`A.
`Disputed Claim Term #1: “markup language” ........................................................4
`B.
`Disputed
`Claim
`Term
`#13A:
`“automatically
`transforming/transformation . . . ” ...........................................................................5
`Disputed Claim Terms 10A-10J: “tag-related terms” ..............................................6
`Summary of Impact of Court’s Construction on Previous
`Opinions ...................................................................................................................7
`Terms from the ’383 Patent .................................................................................................7
`“code for identifying a first markup document including first
`A.
`numerical values and first tags reflecting … associated with
`the second unit of measure” (claim 1 of the ’383 Patent) ........................................7
`“code for causing automatic transformation of at least a
`portion of the first or second numerical values… have a
`common unit of measure” (claim 1 of the ’383 Patent) .........................................12
`“code for processing at least a part of the first markup
`document and at least a part of the second markup document,
`resulting in a single markup document” (claim 1 of the ’383
`Patent) ....................................................................................................................19
`Signature ............................................................................................................................21
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 4 of 23
`
`3
`
`
`
`I, David Martin, declare and state as follows:
`
`1. I am over the age of twenty-one, competent to make this declaration and have personal
`
`knowledge of the matters stated herein. I make this declaration in support of Defendant United
`
`States’ (“U.S.” or “Government”) preliminary claim constructions.
`
`2. This declaration supplements my previous declaration of December 3, 2021,
`
`“DECLARATION OF DR. DAVID MARTIN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED
`
`PRELIMINARY CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS”. I incorporate by reference paragraphs 2-40 of
`
`that declaration as if fully set herein. Those paragraphs include my personal background, my
`
`understanding of legal standards, background of the technology and patents, and the level of skill
`
`in the art. This declaration also supplements my previous declaration of February 11, 2022,
`
`“SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. DAVID MARTIN IN SUPPORT OF
`
`DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS”.
`
`3. I have reviewed the Court’s March 22, 2023 Claim Construction Opinion and Order (ECF
`
`109) (“Markman Order”) and discuss how it relates to my previous opinions and opinions with
`
`respect to terms within claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,262,383 (the “’383 Patent”) below.
`
`I.
`
`Previous Opinions
`
`4. Several of the terms for which I previously opined were indefinite from the perspective of
`
`a POSITA incorporate terms which the Court has now construed. However, the Court’s
`
`construction does not impact my ultimate conclusion as to the indefiniteness of those terms, as I
`
`explain below.
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 5 of 23
`
`4
`
`
`
`A. Disputed Claim Term #1: “markup language”
`
`5. The Court construed “markup language” as “Plain and ordinary meaning. Insofar as a
`
`definition is needed: A nonprogramming computer language using tags to define elements within
`
`a document. Examples of markup languages that existed as of 21 May 1999 include Hypertext
`
`Markup Language (HTML), Extensible Markup Language (XML), and Standard Generalized
`
`Markup Language (SGML). Extensible Reporting Business Language (XBRL) is an example after
`
`31 July 2000” in the context of Claim 1 of ‘355 Patent. Markman Order at *25. The Court also
`
`applied this construction in the context of construing the “tags” term across many claims of the
`
`asserted patents. Id. at 48.
`
`6. I previously opined that the term “markup language” as used in Claim 12 of the ‘816 Patent
`
`was indefinite. 12.3.2021 Declaration of Dr. David Martin at ¶¶ 47-52. However, there, “markup
`
`language” appears in the context of “the markup language” and my argument was based on the
`
`ambiguous antecedent basis for “the markup language” from base Claim 10 of the ‘816 Patent
`
`from which Claim 12 depends. Id. Independent Claim 10 recites a “first markup document” and a
`
`“second markup document;” therefore the term “the markup language” of Claim 12 could refer to
`
`the markup language of the first markup document or the second markup document or of both. Id.
`
`I did not opine on the construction of “markup language” outside of the antecedent basis issues of
`
`‘816 Patent Claims 10 and 12. Id.
`
`7. Given the rationale for my opinion, it remains my opinion that this term, in the context of
`
`Claim 12 is indefinite, even if we apply the Court’s construction of “markup language” in the
`
`context of Claim 12. Relatedly, the parties briefed this term as “the markup language” and my
`
`arguments should be directed to that term.
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 6 of 23
`
`5
`
`
`
`B. Disputed Claim Term #13A: “automatically transforming/transformation . . . ”
`
`8. The Court construed “automatically transforming/transforms the numerical values of at
`
`least one of the first markup document and the second markup document, so that the numerical
`
`values of the first markup document and the second markup document have a common format” as
`
`“[a]utomatically converting/converts the numerical values, contained in at least one of two markup
`
`documents, using one or more attributes (such as unit, magnitude, modifier, scale, measure, and
`
`adjustment) and one or more conversion factors to one common format of numerical values.”
`
`Markman Order at *76. This term appears, inter alia, in Claim 26 of the ‘816 Patent.
`
`9. In my previous declaration, I opined that the term “means for automatically transforming
`
`the numerical values of at least one of the first markup document and the second markup document,
`
`so that the numerical values of the first markup document and the second markup document have
`
`a common format” in Claim 26 of the ‘816 Patent was indefinite. 12.3.2021 Declaration of Dr.
`
`David Martin at ¶¶ 64-82. I identified the function as “automatically transforming the numerical
`
`values of at least one of the first markup document and the second markup document, so that the
`
`numerical values of the first markup document and the second markup document have a common
`
`format.” Id. at ¶ 68. I then explained that the specification does not disclose sufficient structure in
`
`the form of an algorithm for performing this function. Id. at ¶ 64-82.
`
`10. Even if we were to apply the Court’s construction of Disputed Claim Term 13A into the
`
`term “means for automatically transforming the numerical values of at least one of the first markup
`
`document and the second markup document, so that the numerical values of the first markup
`
`document and the second markup document have a common format” in Claim 26 of the ‘816
`
`Patent, my aforementioned analysis would remain the same. The Court’s construction is not
`
`directly on-point with respect to the structure issues I addressed, including whether an alleged
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 7 of 23
`
`6
`
`
`
`algorithm relies on conversion factors that are stable and known in advance (Id. at ¶ 72), how an
`
`algorithm recognizes which numerical values are to be transformed (Id. at ¶ 75-78), or how an
`
`algorithm recognizes any need to transform in a “broad set of similar circumstances” (Id. at ¶80-
`
`81). Accordingly, the specification does not disclose sufficient structure in the form of an
`
`algorithm for performing the function of “automatically converting the numerical values,
`
`contained in at least one of two markup documents, using one or more attributes (such as unit,
`
`magnitude, modifier, scale, measure, and adjustment) and one or more conversion factors to one
`
`common format of numerical values.” Hence this term is still indefinite under this construction.
`
`C. Disputed Claim Terms 10A-10J: “tag-related terms”
`
`11. The Court construed various terms with some variations of “tag” across Terms 10A – 10J.
`
`One of the key disputes between the parties was whether such a tag comprised one or more
`
`attributes as opposed to more than one attribute. For each of these terms, the Court’s construction
`
`requires more than one attribute.
`
`12. I did not previously provide a construction for these terms as part of my declarations.
`
`Nonetheless, my previous opinions as to the indefinite nature of the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6,
`
`terms (those reciting “means for. …” or “code for”) as listed in my declarations of Dec. 3, 2021
`
`and Feb. 11, 2022 are not impacted by the Court’s constructions for these terms. In searching for
`
`sufficient structure in the form of an algorithm corresponding to the relevant function for these
`
`terms, I could not find such an algorithm using Defendant’s broader proposed construction.
`
`Therefore, even if I were to use the narrower construction proposed by Plaintiffs and adopted by
`
`the Court, there would be inadequate structure within the relevant specifications.
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 8 of 23
`
`7
`
`
`
`D. Summary of Impact of Court’s Construction on Previous Opinions
`
`13. In light of the foregoing, my opinions as to the terms that I have previously opined that a
`
`POSITA would find indefinite as listed in my previous declarations of Dec. 3, 2021 and Feb. 11,
`
`2022 are not impacted.
`
`14. Separately, I provided opinions as to a proposed construction for two groups of terms: (1)
`
`“rules” and (2) “multiple hierarchical relationships”-related terms. While the Court ultimately
`
`entered in different constructions for these, those rulings do not impact the terms I opined would
`
`be indefinite to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`II.
`
`Terms from the ’383 Patent
`
`A. “code for identifying a first markup document including first numerical values and
`
`first tags reflecting … associated with the second unit of measure” (claim 1 of the
`
`’383 Patent)
`
`15. The term “code for identifying a first markup document including first numerical values
`
`and first tags reflecting first characteristics of the first numerical values associated with a first unit
`
`of measure, and a second markup document including second numerical values and second tags
`
`reflecting second characteristics of the second numerical values associated with a second unit of
`
`measure, wherein the first tags and the second tags each include computer-readable semantic tags
`
`that describe a semantic meaning of a corresponding one of at least one of the first numerical
`
`values or the second numerical values, via a computer-readable tagging association therebetween,
`
`where the first characteristics of the first numerical values associated with the first unit of measure
`
`are different from the second characteristics of the second numerical values associated with the
`
`second unit of measure” appears in claim 1 of the ’383 Patent.
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 9 of 23
`
`8
`
`
`
`16. The full text of the claim reads (underlining added):
`
`1. A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer-
`readable medium comprising:
`code for identifying a first markup document including first numerical values
`and first tags reflecting first characteristics of the first numerical values
`associated with a first unit of measure, and a second markup document
`including second numerical values and second tags reflecting second
`characteristics of the second numerical values associated with a second unit
`of measure, wherein the first tags and the second tags each include
`computer-readable semantic tags that describe a semantic meaning of a
`corresponding one of at least one of the first numerical values or the second
`numerical values, via a computer-readable
`tagging association
`therebetween, where the first characteristics of the first numerical values
`associated with the first unit of measure are different from the second
`characteristics of the second numerical values associated with the second
`unit of measure;
`code for causing automatic transformation of at least a portion of the first or
`second numerical values of at least one of the first markup document or the
`second markup document, so that at least some of the first numerical values
`of the first markup document and at least some of the second numerical
`values of the second markup document have a common unit of measure;
`code for processing at least a part of the first markup document and at least a
`part of the second markup document, resulting in a single markup
`document; and
`code for causing a display of at least a portion of the single markup document.
`17. This term uses “code for” language. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that this claim term does not refer to known or conventional programs or code
`
`from the time of the invention. Instead, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`it describes black-box functionality and therefore I understand it should be construed under the §
`
`112, ¶ 6 framework.
`
`18. This term is nearly identical to the corresponding “means for identifying” term of claim 18
`
`of the ’383 Patent, for which e-Numerate has proposed “To be construed under § 112 par. 6.
`
`Function: identifying a first markup document including first numerical values and first tags
`
`reflecting first characteristics of the first numerical values associated with a first unit of measure,
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 10 of 23
`
`9
`
`
`
`and a second markup document including second numerical values and second tags reflecting
`
`second characteristics of the second numerical values associated with a second unit of measure,
`
`Structure: Reader See, e.g., Fig. 7A box 704, Fig. 8, step 802; col. 17, line 27 – col. 18, line 7; col.
`
`28, lines 1 – 31; col. 29, lines 3 – 11.”
`
`19. In my opinion, e-Numerate’s identified function is insufficient. The appropriate function
`
`for this term is “identifying a first markup document including first numerical values and first tags
`
`reflecting first characteristics of the first numerical values associated with a first unit of measure,
`
`and a second markup document including second numerical values and second tags reflecting
`
`second characteristics of the second numerical values associated with a second unit of measure,
`
`wherein the first tags and the second tags each include computer-readable semantic tags that
`
`describe a semantic meaning of a corresponding one of at least one of the first numerical values or
`
`the second numerical values, via a computer-readable tagging association therebetween, where the
`
`first characteristics of the first numerical values associated with the first unit of measure are
`
`different from the second characteristics of the second numerical values associated with the second
`
`unit of measure.”
`
`20. These two differing interpretations of the function of the full term can be summarized as
`
`follows:
`
`(1) “Identifying” the markup documents by determining only that they have
`the recited values and characteristic tags
`(2) “Identifying” the markup documents by determining that they have the
`recited values, characteristic tags, semantic tags, and requiring different
`characteristics of the values
`21. e-Numerate has identified interpretation (1) as the function of the corresponding claim 18
`
`term. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would use interpretation (2), which
`
`includes the additional (underlined) requirements of “semantic tags” and requiring that different
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 11 of 23
`
`10
`
`
`
`characteristics of the values be present. The term in question plainly states “code for identifying…”
`
`and lists many criteria describing what is to be identified. e-Numerate has not provided a basis for
`
`a person of ordinary skill to credit the “including” clauses imposing constraints on the two markup
`
`documents (namely, that they include numerical values and tags reflecting characteristics of the
`
`numerical values associated with a unit of measure) while omitting the “wherein” clauses that
`
`impose further constraints on the two markup documents (namely, that of the semantic tags and
`
`requiring different characteristics of the values). e-Numerate’s failure to capture this detail
`
`inappropriately simplifies the relevant function and correspondingly the relevant structure.
`
`22. e-Numerate identifies structure for the corresponding claim 18 term by identifying the
`
`markup documents via DTD conformance and subsequent error checking. As stated in ‘383 Patent,
`
`17:42-45: “First, the RDML reader 704 finds and receives an RDML document 102 in text form
`
`formatted according to the structure of the RDML DTD 702 (step 802).” A person of ordinary skill
`
`would understand that one way to “identify” whether a document is a “markup document” of a
`
`desired type is to parse it using a “validating parser” against a Document Type Definition (DTD)
`
`that sets out the permissible form of such documents. The specification describes DTDs beginning
`
`in column 19 at line 25, in the section entitled “IV.A.1. Document Type Definition”.
`
`23. While a DTD can specify certain rules about what pieces of text may appear in relation to
`
`other pieces of text that constitute an XML document, “explaining” or “describing” meaning is far
`
`beyond what can be specified in a DTD. Accordingly, a DTD cannot enforce a requirement that
`
`an attribute “explains the meaning of the numerical values” or “describes” the meaning of the
`
`tagged values.
`
`24. Regardless of whether interpretation (1) or (2) is used, this claim’s constraint on the
`
`“characteristics” of “values” is problematic. The “characteristics” are first mentioned in this term
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 12 of 23
`
`11
`
`
`
`as “[first/second] tags reflecting [first/second] characteristics of the [first/second] numerical values
`
`associated with a [first/second] unit of measure.” The Court has construed “[first/second] tags
`
`reflecting characteristics of the [first/second] numerical values” as “[first/second] set of markup
`
`language tags with more than one tag attribute that describes the meaning of the numerical values
`
`contained within the [first/second] tags.” The claim term ends by requiring “where the first
`
`characteristics of the first numerical values associated with the first unit of measure are different
`
`from the second characteristics of the second numerical values associated with the second unit of
`
`measure.” Thus, this term requires identifying what characteristics the two literally present tags
`
`“reflect” and ensuring that the characteristics are different. No algorithm is indicated in the
`
`specification that can accomplish this. Simply determining that two tag/attribute combinations are
`
`different does not determine whether the characteristics they “describe” are different, because there
`
`are numerous ways to describe the same underlying properties. For example, the tag/attributes
`
`<LENGTH value="1m"> and <DIMENSION measure="1" unit="meter"> are different, yet both
`
`may be used to describe a length of one meter.
`
`25. e-Numerate also cites to the following sentences in the specification at 17:45-46 and 18:1-
`
`7, which state “The RDML Reader 704 may be a class that runs in a separate thread and has
`
`methods for checking the RDML document 102 type (Time Series, Category, XY) and handling
`
`errors. The RDML Reader 704 then calls the XML parser 706 which parses the text (step 804).
`
`The RDML processor 708 receives the parsed text from the XML parser 706, error checks it and
`
`creates an object based on the data and structure in the received text. (step 806).” However, this
`
`reference to “handling errors” and “error checking” does not provide an algorithm for determining
`
`whether the documents contain an attribute that “explains the meaning of the numerical values”
`
`or “describes” the meaning of tagged values. Nor does the mention of “handling errors” and “error
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 13 of 23
`
`12
`
`
`
`checking” provide an algorithm for detecting whether two sets of “characteristics of values”
`
`associated with tags are different. The specification does not appear to even consider the lack of
`
`this property to be an error.
`
`26. In light of the foregoing, in my opinion, a person or ordinary skill in the art would
`
`determine that the patent does not disclose sufficient structure in the form of an algorithm for
`
`performing the term’s function and therefore this term is indefinite.
`
`B. “code for causing automatic transformation of at least a portion of the first or second
`
`numerical values… have a common unit of measure” (claim 1 of the ’383 Patent)
`
`27. The term “code for causing automatic transformation of at least a portion of the first or
`
`second numerical values of at least one of the first markup document or the second markup
`
`document, so that at least some of the first numerical values of the first markup document and at
`
`least some of the second numerical values of the second markup document have a common unit of
`
`measure” appears in claim 1 of the ’383 Patent.
`
`28. The full text of the claim reads (underlining added):
`
`1. A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer-
`readable medium comprising:
`code for identifying a first markup document including first numerical values
`and first tags reflecting first characteristics of the first numerical values
`associated with a first unit of measure, and a second markup document
`including second numerical values and second tags reflecting second
`characteristics of the second numerical values associated with a second unit
`of measure, wherein the first tags and the second tags each include
`computer-readable semantic tags that describe a semantic meaning of a
`corresponding one of at least one of the first numerical values or the second
`numerical values, via a computer-readable
`tagging association
`therebetween, where the first characteristics of the first numerical values
`associated with the first unit of measure are different from the second
`characteristics of the second numerical values associated with the second
`unit of measure;
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 14 of 23
`
`13
`
`
`
`code for causing automatic transformation of at least a portion of the first or
`second numerical values of at least one of the first markup document or the
`second markup document, so that at least some of the first numerical values
`of the first markup document and at least some of the second numerical
`values of the second markup document have a common unit of measure;
`code for processing at least a part of the first markup document and at least a
`part of the second markup document, resulting in a single markup
`document; and
`code for causing a display of at least a portion of the single markup document.
`29. The Court has construed Disputed Claim Term 13B, “automatic transformation of at least
`
`a portion of the first or second numerical values of at least one of the first markup document or the
`
`second markup document, so that at least some of the first numerical values of the first markup
`
`document and at least some of the second numerical values of the second markup document have
`
`a common unit of measure” to mean “[a]utomatic conversion of at least a portion of the numerical
`
`values, contained in at least one of two markup documents, using one or more attributes (such as
`
`unit, magnitude, modifier, scale, measure, and adjustment) and one or more conversion factors to
`
`one common unit of measure of numerical values.” Markman Order at 76-78. Disputed Claim
`
`Term 13B appears in Claim 1 of the ‘383 Patent within the “code for” term.
`
`30. This term I address here uses “code for” language. In my opinion, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand that this claim term does not refer to known or conventional
`
`programs or code from the time of the invention. Instead, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that it describes black-box functionality and therefore I understand it should be
`
`construed under the § 112, ¶ 6 framework.
`
`31. This term is nearly identical to the corresponding “means for automatically transforming”
`
`term of claim 18 of the ’383 Patent, for which e-Numerate has proposed “To be construed under
`
`§ 112 par. 6. Function: automatically transforming at least a portion of the first or second numerical
`
`values of at least one of the first markup document or the second markup document. Structure: X-
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 15 of 23
`
`14
`
`
`
`value transformer employing conversion factors. Fig. 7A block 710; Figure 8 block 808; Figure
`
`10, blocks 1012 and 1014; Figure 11; col. 18, lines 8 – 30; col. 22, lines 17 – 29; col. 29, line 13 –
`
`col. 31, line 29; col. 24, line 9 – col. 26, line 10.”
`
`32. The relevant function for this term is “causing automatic transformation of at least a portion
`
`of the first or second numerical values of at least one of the first markup document or the second
`
`markup document, so that at least some of the first numerical values of the first markup document
`
`and at least some of the second numerical values of the second markup document have a common
`
`unit of measure.” Further, applying the Court’s construction, the function for this term is “causing
`
`automatic conversion of at least a portion of the numerical values, contained in at least one of two
`
`markup documents, using one or more attributes (such as unit, magnitude, modifier, scale,
`
`measure, and adjustment) and one or more conversion factors to one common unit of measure of
`
`numerical values.”
`
`33. e-Numerate does not include the constraint “so that at least some of the first numerical
`
`values of the first markup document and at least some of the second numerical values of the second
`
`markup document have a common unit of measure” but focuses only on the first part of this term
`
`“causing automatic transformation of at least a portion of the first or second numerical values of
`
`at least one of the first markup document or the second markup document,”—even though it sought
`
`(and received) construction of the longer term by the Court—in its description of the function for
`
`the corresponding term of claim 18. Applying the Court’s construction of Disputed Claim Term
`
`13B, the function of the “code for” term in this section should include the constraint “using one or
`
`more attributes (such as unit, magnitude, modifier, scale, measure, and adjustment) and one or
`
`more conversion factors to one common unit of measure of numerical values.” In my opinion, a
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 16 of 23
`
`15
`
`
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the constraint as a necessary part of the function
`
`being described by this term.
`
`34. e-Numerate has identified two distinct functionalities related to the concept of
`
`transformation as providing the structure for the corresponding claim 18 term: that within the
`
`RDML data viewer and that of the X-value transformer. Transformation within the RDML data
`
`viewer, described in the identified portions of columns 24-26, concerns conversion of data already
`
`present in the Primary Data Store (PDS) and is activated by a user’s control of a display. This is
`
`evident in the explanation immediately preceding e-Numerate’s citation at 24:1-11:
`
`For an example of the use of these attributes, suppose the RDML data viewer
`100 has plotted the following value/measurement:
`426 US Dollars (in thousands) per Hour; adjusted for inflation (1996=100).
`The user now wants to convert this to:
`"X" Italian Lira (in billions) per Day, in nominal lira
`where "X" is the value to be calculated and the rest of the line is the
`measurement. The data viewer 100 makes this transformation automatically
`for the user because it has conversion factors for the following:
`35. Further in this explanation, the specification states that “The user may simply select a new
`
`unit, magnitude, etc. from a drop-down box and make a selection” (24:28-29) and “The desired
`
`transformations may be received from a user or may be determined by the data viewer 100
`
`automatically to, for example, accommodate the addition of a new document 102 to a display of a
`
`current one” (24:39-43).
`
`36. Since these transformations depend on a “unit list” file (24:66-67, 25:1-67, and 26:1-10),
`
`any such transformations appear to be limited to transformations where the conversion factors are
`
`stable and known in advance.
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 17 of 23
`
`16
`
`
`
`37. The other functionality that e-Numerate identified related to the concept of transformation
`
`as providing structure for the corresponding claim 18 term is the X-value transformer. The X-value
`
`transformer is depicted below:
`
`
`
`38. It can be seen above that the X-value transformer is invoked when the RDML Data Viewer
`
`of Figure 7A reads and parses an RDML document. The X-value transformer performs work on
`
`its input document and sends its output to the Primary Data Store (PDS).
`
`39. However, no coherent algorithm is evident for determining which numerical values should
`
`be transformed by the X-value transformer. Given distinct numerical values A and B, should A be
`
`converted to B’s format, or should B be converted to A’s format, or should both A and B be
`
`converted to a further format C, or something else? For example, 18:12-25 states:
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 111-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 18 of 23
`
`17
`
`
`
`The X-value transformer 710 makes sure that the data values to be graphed
`against the x-axis are in common units. For example, if document A is an
`annual time series and document B is a quarterly time series, the X-value
`transformer 710 in this case would use the "li_aggregation" attributes of the
`line items in document B to aggregate four quarters at a time into annual data.
`As a second example, if document A is a category document with x-values
`equal to stock ticker symbols (F, IBM, XON, etc.), and document B contains
`x-values denominated in company names (Ford, International Business
`Machines, Exxon, etc.), then the x-value transformer 710 will use the
`"li_class" attributes in the line items of each document t