Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 243
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
`
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC., and
`E-NUMERATE, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-859 C
`
`Judge Ryan T. Holte
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b)(6)
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Letter from Bolden to O’Kelly, O’Rourke (January 3, 2020) .................................................. A239
`
`Letter from O’Rourke to Bolden (January 13, 2020) ............................................................... A241
`
`PTAB IPR2018-01389, Doc. 12 ............................................................................................... A242
`
`PTAB IPR2018-01389, Doc. 14 ............................................................................................... A263
`
`PTAB IPR2018-01394, Doc. 11 ............................................................................................... A358
`
`PTAB IPR2018-01394, Doc. 13 ............................................................................................... A385
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 243
`
`U.S. Department of Justice
`
`Civil Division
`
`SB
`154-19-859
`
`Telephone: (202) 307-0262
`Facsimile: (202) 307-0345
`
`Washington. DC 20530
`
`January 3, 2020
`
`VIA EMAIL
`
`Sean T. O'Kelly
`O' KELLY & ERNST, LLC
`824 N. Market Street, Suite 1001A
`Wilmington, Delaware I 9801
`302-778-4000
`sokelly@oelegal.com
`
`Gerard M. O'Rourke
`O'ROURKE LAW OFFICE, LLC
`1201 N. Orange Street
`Suite 7260
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801-1186
`484-770-8046
`gorourke@orourkefirm.com
`
`Re:
`
`e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. et al. v. United States,
`United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-859 C
`
`Dear Sean and Jerry:
`
`We are writing to request that Plaintiffs provide their claim constructions for the terms
`that they claim are disputed. In Plaintiffs· recent brief in opposition, you argued that "claim
`construction issues compel denial of the Government' s motion." ECF 15 at 48. Specifically,
`you asserted that
`
`[ a ]t least the fol lowing terms/phrases warrant additional briefing ... : "tags," "tags
`indicating characteristics of the numerical values," "tags reflecting characteristics
`of the numerical values," "computer readable semantic tags" (and related
`limitations), and "macro" (and related limitations).
`
`11. You further represented to the Court that '·each of these terms have a concrete, technical
`meaning that distinguish the inventions from the prior art." 11.
`
`Your brief, however, failed to provide the basis for your representation - i.e., any
`proposed constructions for the identified terms. Accordingly, we request that you provide your
`proposed constructions, and that you identify all intrinsic and extrinsic evidence that supports the
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 243
`
`- 2 -
`
`proposed constructions. We further note that Plaintiffs already provided (or adopted) claim
`constructions for "tags," "semantic tags," and "macros'' for four of the patents-in-suit in inter
`partes review proceedings eight months ago, but you inexplicably failed to disclose these
`constructions in your opposition brief. Therefore, we request that you provide your
`constructions to us by January 13, 2020, so that we have sufficient time to evaluate the
`constructions for the Government's reply brief.
`
`If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the above number.
`
`SCOTT BOLDEN
`Deputy Director
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`
`cc:
`
`Shahar Hare!; Nelson Kuan (via email)
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 243
`
`O'Rourke Law Office, LLC
`
`1201 N. Orange Street, Suite 7260
`Wilmington, DE 19801-1186
`Telephone: (484)770-8046
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 13, 2020
`
`Scott Bolden, Esq.
`Deputy Director
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`Department of Justice
`Washington, DC 20530
`
`
`Re: e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. et al v. United States, USCFC No. 19-859
`
`
`Dear Scott:
`
`We write in response to your letter of January 3, 2020 in the above-referenced matter. You
`
`request that Plaintiffs provide their claim constructions (and intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`supporting same) for the terms Plaintiffs contend are in dispute. Plaintiffs will follow the claim
`construction schedule implemented by the Court in this matter and make its disclosures pursuant
`to that schedule. As a result, Plaintiffs will not provide claim constructions at this time.
`
`We note that you have provided no authority compelling Plaintiffs to make such a
`
`disclosure. With regard to the claim construction positions in the inter partes review (“IPR”)
`proceeding, those claim constructions are not relevant to this litigation because of the claim
`construction standard employed in the IPR proceedings at that time. 83 Fed. Reg. 51340, 51340
`(Oct. 11, 2018). It is not “inexplicable” that Plaintiffs did not disclose irrelevant information to
`the Court in Plaintiffs’ answering brief. Rather, it is perfectly understandable.
`
`However, Plaintiffs are surprised that the Government did not apprise the Court of the
`
`presence of a claim construction dispute in the IPRs in the Government’s Opening Brief on its
`Section 101 motion. The presence of such a dispute, even under the claim construction standard
`then-employed in the IPR, is strong evidence that a dispute will exist here. This is an independent
`basis for the Court to deny the Government’s motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cc: Shahar Harel; Nelson Kuan; Sean O’Kelly (via electronic mail)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`/s/Gerard M. O’Rourke
`
`Gerard M. O'Rourke
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 243
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
`
`
` Entered: February 13, 2019
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MERRILL COMMUNICATIONS LLC d/b/a MERRILL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEN B. BARRETT, and JONI Y. CHANG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Merrill communications LLC d/b/a Merrill Corporation (“Petitioner”)
`filed a corrected Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 11,
`and 19 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’748 patent”). Paper 11 (“Pet.”). e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a waiver of preliminary response. Paper 9.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow,
`we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We hereby
`institute an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’748 patent is involved in e-Numerate
`Solutions, Inc. v. Mattress Firm Holding Corp., Case No. 1:17-cv-00933
`(Del). Pet. 2; Paper 5, 2.
`
`B. The ’748 Patent
`The ’748 patent relates to a computer markup language for use in a
`data browser and manipulator. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:31−33.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 7 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’748 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’748 patent depicts data processing system 200 that
`comprises computer 201 and server computer 203 interconnected via
`network 214, such as the Internet. Ex. 1001, 11:48−52. Computer 201
`includes central processing unit 202, main memory 204, secondary storage
`device 206, display 210, and input device 212. Id. at 11:53−56. Server
`computer 203 may provide Reusable Data Markup Language (“RDML”)
`documents 102 to computer 201. Id. at 11:52−53.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 8 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Each of the challenged claims is independent. Claim 1 is illustrative:
`1. [1a] An apparatus, comprising:
`[1b] a device; and
`[1c] an application including a network browser on the device for
`accessing a system configured for:
`[1d] identification of at least one computer-readable Extensible
`Markup Language (XML)-compliant data document including:
`[1e] a plurality of line items with a plurality of data values, and
`[1f] a plurality of computer-readable semantic tags that describe
`a semantic meaning of
`the data values and are each
`computer-readably coupled to at least one of the data values,
`[1g] where the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant
`data document is capable of including multiple hierarchical
`relationships between two line items;
`[1h] parsing of
`the at
`least one computer-readable
`XML-compliant data document;
`[1i] accessing a plurality of computer-readable rules including:
`[1j] a computer-readable datatype rule for validation of a type of
`data values,
`[1k] a computer-readable calculation rule for validation of a
`calculation involving data values, and
`[1l] a computer-readable unit rule for validation of a unit of data
`values;
`least one computer-readable
`the at
`[1m] validation of
`XML-compliant data document by:
`[1n] identifying at least a subset of the computer-readable rules
`including at least one of:
`the computer-readable datatype rule for validation of the type of
`data values,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 9 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`
`the computer-readable calculation rule for validation of the
`calculation involving data values, or
`the computer-readable unit rule for validation of the unit of data
`values;
`[1o] processing at least a portion of the data values of at least a
`portion of the line items of the at least one computer-readable
`XML-compliant data document, utilizing the at least subset of
`the computer-readable rules and at least a portion of the
`computer-readable
`sematic
`tags of
`the at
`least one
`computer-readable XML-compliant data document;
`[1p] said apparatus configured for: accessing at least a portion
`of the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data
`document utilizing the application including the network
`browser.
`Ex. 1001, 141:2–52 (bracketed matter added).
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the prior art references listed below (Pet. 8).
`Alan Simpson & Elizabeth Olson, Mastering Access 97 (SYBEX Inc.
`1997) (Ex. 1005, “Simpson”)1
`Charles Goldfarb & Paul Prescod, The XML Handbook (Prentice Hall
`PTR 1998) (Ex. 1006, “Goldfarb”)
`Based on the current record, Petitioner has made a threshold showing
`that Simpson and Goldfarb are prior art printed publications under § 102.
`See Pet. 8−11; Ex. 1005, Part 1; Ex. 1006, Part 1; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 3−17;
`
`
`1Petitioner submits portions of the book in twelve parts, not thirteen parts as
`the Petitioner asserts. See, Pet. 35 (citing to Ex. 1005, Part 13, 1067−68),
`37.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 10 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 6−11. At this juncture, Patent Owner does not challenge
`Petitioner’s showing on this issue. Paper 9.
`
`E. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following ground of unpatentability (Pet. 17):
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1, 11, and 19
`
`
`§ 103
`
`Simpson in view of Goldfarb
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Construction
`The original Petition was filed on July 12, 2018, prior to the effective
`date of the rule change that replaces the broadest reasonable interpretation
`(“BRI”) standard. See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (final rule) (“This rule is
`effective on November 13, 2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR and CBM
`petitions filed on or after the effective date.”). We, therefore, apply the BRI
`standard in this proceeding. Under the BRI standard, claim terms generally
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In
`re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 14−17.
`At this juncture, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 11 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`constructions, nor proffers any claim constructions for other terms, as Patent
`Owner filed a waiver of preliminary response. Paper 9. For purposes of this
`Decision, we address the claim terms identified below to inform the parties
`as to our preliminary understanding of these term.
`
`“semantic tags”
`Each of the challenged claims recites the term “semantic tags.” For
`example, claim 1 recites:
`a plurality of computer-readable semantic tags that describe a
`semantic meaning of
`the data values and are each
`computer-readably coupled to at least one of the data values,
`where the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data
`document
`is capable of
`including multiple hierarchical
`relationships between two line items.
`The ’748 patent sets forth a Glossary that defines “tagging” as
`“adding metadata.” Ex. 1001, 2:56, 15:55−56. Citing the Microsoft
`Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999), Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have understood “metadata” to mean “data about data,”
`and “semantic” to mean “the relationship between words or symbols and
`their intended meanings.” Pet. 14−15 (citing Ex. 1009, 288, 402). Petitioner
`explains that the ’748 patent uses “metadata” and “semantic” in a manner
`consistent with these definitions, respectively. Id. (citing Ex. 1001,
`16:34−48, 46:11−18).
`Based on the evidence in this current record, we find Petitioner’s
`proposed claim construction for the term “semantic tag” to be consistent
`with the Specification. The specification is “the single best guide to the
`meaning of a disputed term” and “[u]sually, it is dispositive.” Phillips v.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 12 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Therefore, for
`purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed claim
`construction, interpreting “semantic tags” as “a reference or a sequence of
`characters that adds data describing the meaning of the data.”
`
`“mapping”
`Claims 11 and 19 recite “mapping the one or more of the computer-
`readable semantic tags to the one or more of the original values.” Citing to
`the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999), Petitioner asserts that the
`plain and ordinary meaning of “mapping” is “translating one value into
`another,” as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the ’748 patent. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1009, 281).
`Based on the evidence in this current record, we find Petitioner’s
`proposed claim construction for “mapping” to be consistent with the
`Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:1−14, 30:53−59. Therefore, for
`purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed claim
`construction, interpreting “mapping” as “translating one value into another.”
`
`“validation”
`Claim 1 recites “validation of the at least one computer-readable
`XML-compliant data document.” Citing to the Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary (4th ed. 1999), Petitioner asserts that the plain and ordinary
`meaning of “validation” is “analyzing data to determine whether it conforms
`to predetermined completeness [and/or] consistency parameters,” as would
`be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the ’748
`patent. Pet. 16−17 (citing Ex. 1009, 464).
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 13 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`
`Based on the evidence in this current record, we find Petitioner’s
`proposed claim construction for “validation” to be consistent with the
`Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 16:24−33, 17:12−21, 25:56−59.
`Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed
`claim construction, “validation” as “analyzing data to determine whether it
`conforms to predetermined completeness [and/or] consistency parameters.”
`
`B. Principles of Law on Obviousness
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`evidence of nonobviousness.2 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966).
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`
`
`2 Neither party presents arguments regarding objective evidence of
`nonobviousness in this proceeding at this time.
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 14 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d
`955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Petitioner’s declarant, Andrew Hospodor,
`asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s
`or graduate degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related
`field, and at least 3 to 5 years of work experience in developing software for
`data communication, manipulation, and reporting.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 14; Pet. 13.
`At this juncture, Patent Owner does not dispute this assertion. We note that
`Petitioner’s assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant
`proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`2001). For purposes of in this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.
`
`D. Obviousness Over Simpson and Goldfarb
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 11, and 19 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Simpson and Goldfarb.
`Pet. 17–55. Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how each claim
`limitation is met by the prior art combination and reasons for combining the
`teachings of Simpson and Goldfarb, citing Dr. Hospodor’s declaration for
`support. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`Overview of Simpson
`Simpson is a user guide that describes the structure and operation of
`the Microsoft Access 97 database management system software. Ex. 1005.
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 15 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`Simpson teaches that the Access database software could import or link data
`into the database from a wide variety of file formats, including hypertext
`markup language (“HTML”) tables. Id. at Part 5, 209−40. It also teaches
`that the Access database software could create dynamic links to the database
`in output documents, such as reports, or in HTML tables published to the
`World Wide Web. Id. at Part 3, 126; Part 5, 247−50; Part 9, 445−72.
`Simpson further teaches that field names and metadata fields within the
`database can be used to tag data in the database records with semantic
`meaning that can be utilized by the software in queries and calculations. Id.
`at Part 2, 74; Part 8, 359−414; Part 9, 419−33; Part 11, 742−44.
`
`Overview of Goldfarb
`
`Goldfarb discloses how XML works and the improvements XML
`brings to computing systems and the World Wide Web, including the
`structure and function of XML. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, Part 1, 33−47; Part 2,
`153−62. According to Goldfarb, the structure and function of XML “allows
`us to do more precise searches, deliver software components, describe such
`things as collections of Web pages and electronic commerce transactions,
`and much more.” Id. at Part 1, xxxv. At the time the book was published,
`XML already had impacted “all types of applications from work processors
`and spreadsheets to database managers and email. More and more, such
`applications are reaching out to the Web, tapping into the power of the Web,
`and it is XML that is enabling them to do so.” Id. at Part 1, xxxvi.
`In addition, Goldfarb discloses several examples of how XML has
`been implemented to improve computing systems. For instance, Goldfarb
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 16 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`discloses an XML visual editing and publishing tool for a government filing
`application, including the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”)
`EDGAR reporting system. Id. at Part 2, 153−62. Goldfarb describes the use
`of Document Type Definitions (“DTDs”) associated with EDGAR to
`facilitate the reporting of financial data in SEC 10-K filings. Id. at Part 1,
`41; Part 2, 154−58.
`
`Analysis
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Simpson and Goldfarb
`renders claims 1, 11, and 19 obvious. Pet. 23−56. Petitioner provides
`detailed explanations as to how the prior art combination teaches or suggests
`every limitation of the claims, and articulated reasoning to combine the
`teachings of Simpson and Goldfarb, citing Dr. Hospodor’s testimony for
`support. Id.; Ex. 1003.
`Upon review of Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence, we
`are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently, for purposes of
`this Decision, that the combination of Simpson and Goldfarb renders the
`claimed subject matter obvious. Notably, Petitioner provides claim charts,
`mapping each limitation of the challenged claims to the prior art teachings.
`Pet. 23−56. We discuss below Petitioner’s contentions regarding
`independent claim 1, which recites an apparatus and is illustrative of the
`claimed subject matter. Independent claims 11 and 19 contain recitations
`similar to those of claim 1.
`Petitioner explains that Simpson teaches “[a]n apparatus comprising: a
`device,” as required by claim 1, because Simpson describes the use of a
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 17 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`database management system (“DBMS”) software product (e.g., Microsoft
`Access 97 software) to process data on a computer. Id. at 23−24 (citing
`Ex. 1005, Part 1, 5−13; Part 3, 103−07).
`As to limitation [1c] recited in claim 1 (reproduced above), Petitioner
`explains that Simpson teaches that “a user may embed a web browser within
`an Access database.” Id. at 24−25 (citing Ex. 1005, Part 9, 543 (“For
`example, the Microsoft WebBrowser control can be programmed to open a
`Web page in the control’s own window.”), Part 3, 125−26).
`For limitation [1d] recited in claim 1, Petitioner explains that Simpson
`teaches that Microsoft Access 97 can “[i]mport data that’s already in HTML
`format.” Id. at 25−27 (citing Ex. 1005, Part 3, 125; Part 5, 237−40).
`According to Petitioner, HTML and XML are markup languages with very
`similar structures, both of which were developed by the same standard
`setting organization as derivatives of the SGML markup language. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1006, Part 1, xxxix−xl; Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Petitioner notes that
`Goldfarb teaches that a person of ordinary skill in the art could download
`free software tools to translate XML documents into HTML. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1006, Part 5, 396−98). Petitioner avers that such an artisan would have
`found it obvious to import data from an XML document into Access, either
`by first converting to HTML using one of the software tools identified by
`Goldfarb or by incorporating the functionality of those tools into a query,
`macro, or coded routine that import the information directly from the XML
`file into Access. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28; Ex. 1006, Part 1, 41; Part 2,
`157−58).
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 18 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`
`With respect to limitation [1e] recited in claim 1, Petitioner points out
`that Simpson teaches that imported HTML tables generally contain a
`plurality of line items, each of which may include multiple data fields. Id. at
`27−29 (citing Ex. 1005, Part 5, 237−39; Figs 7.17, 7.18 (illustrating what an
`HTML table would look like when viewed in a Web browser and how the
`data would appear after being imported into an Access database table)). And
`Goldfarb provides an example of creating a document with a number of line
`items containing data values. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, Part 2, 155−57,
`Fig. 11−4).
`As to limitation [1f] recited in claim 1, Petitioner asserts that Simpson
`teaches the use of Microsoft Access 97 to import tables of numerical data
`from a variety of sources, including spreadsheets, text files, HTML files,
`Internet sources, and other databases. Id. at 29−32 (citing Ex. 1005, Part 5,
`209−40). And Simpson teaches that by default, Microsoft Access 97 will
`attempt to identify the correct data type for a field based on the contents of
`the imported data, and the user can create an import specification that
`assigns particular data types to each imported filed, identified by field name.
`Id. (citing Ex. 1005, Part 5, 225, 231−37). Petitioner explains that the field
`names located in the first line of the imported test file act as tags identifying
`the data type for the imported data field. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37−39;
`Ex. 1005, Part 5, 237−39). In addition, Petitioner notes that Goldfarb
`teaches that a tag representing a unit of measure is a semantic tag. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1006, Part 5, 436).
`For limitation [1g] recited in claim 1, Petitioner submits that Simpson
`teaches that database records in Microsoft Access 97 (including records
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 19 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`imported from external data files) may have multiple hierarchical
`relationships between them. Id. at 32−34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41; Ex. 1005,
`Part 9, 422−26, Fig. 11.5). And Goldfarb teaches that “XML introduces a
`unique set of requirements for hierarchical naming and structure,”
`“hierarchy – can be embedded in the tags that ‘mark up’ the individual
`document,” and “XML data . . . is composed of self-describing information
`elements that are richly linked, and that utilize a hierarchical structure and
`naming mechanism.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49; Ex. 1006, Part 2, 99, 112,
`115, 154−55, Fig. 11-2).
`With respect to limitation [1h] recited in claim 1, Petitioner asserts
`that, in view of the teachings of Simpson and Goldfarb, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have imported data from an XML document by parsing
`it in the same manner that Access parses data from text, spreadsheet, and
`HTML files, utilizing known techniques to convert between XML and
`HTML file formats. Id. at 34−35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28−30; Ex. 1006,
`Part 1, 38 (“XML provides a mechanism for allowing text to be organized
`non-linearly and potentially in multiple pieces. The parser reorganizes it
`into the linear structure.”)).
`For limitation [1i] recited in claim 1, Petitioner notes that Simpson
`teaches the use of a wide variety of validation and error-checking rules, and
`Goldfarb teaches using Interleaf BladeRunner to create a submission
`document for SEC that conforms to SEC Regulations by using an EDGAR
`DTD. Id. at 35−36 (citing Ex. 1005, Part 4, 166−67; Part 5, 239−41; Part 6,
`298−99; Ex. 1006, Part 2, 158−59, Fig. 11−5).
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 20 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`
`As to limitation [1j] recited in claim 1, Petitioner submits that
`Simpson teaches the use of data type rules to identify fields in a record being
`imported that contain data that does not match the specified data type for the
`corresponding field. Id. at 36−37 (citing Ex. 1005, Part 5, 241; Part 6, 298).
`And Goldfarb teaches the rules can be created in XML to ensure data
`conforms to certain constraints. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, Part 8, 588).
`For limitation [1k] recited in claim 1, Petitioner explains that Simpson
`teaches the use of validation rules to identify fields in a record being
`imported that contain data whose values are out of bounds for the acceptable
`limits of the corresponding data field. Id. at 37−38 (citing Ex. 1005, Part 5,
`241). And Simpson also discloses the creation of additional validation rules
`for particular fields by a user, along with corresponding “Validation Text”
`error message. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, Part 4, 166−67, Table 6.3; Part 6, 299).
`Petitioner avers that an ordinarily skilled artisan reading Simpson would
`have understood that the validation rules could be applied to calculated
`fields. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42−44; Ex. 1005, Part 11, 742−44).
`In connection with limitation [1l] recited in claim 1, Petitioner
`explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`validating the data type is a necessary requirement to validate the units of the
`data corresponding to that data type. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42−44).
`Regarding limitation [1m] recited in claim 1, Petitioner asserts that
`Goldfarb teaches identifying and fixing non-conforming errors in an
`EDGAR submission. Id. at 38−39 (citing Ex. 1006, Part 2, 159−60).
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 21 of 243
`
`IPR2018-01389
`Patent 9,268,748 B2
`
`
`As to limitation [1n] recited in claim 1, Petitioner notes that Goldfarb
`discloses publishing a conforming EDGAR submission document based on
`computer-readable rules. Id. at 39−40 (citing Ex. 1006, Part 2, 161).
`For limitation [1o] recited in claim 1, Petitioner relies upon its
`analysis regarding the previous limitations. Id. at 40.
`Lastly, with respect to limitation [1p] recited in claim 1, Petitioner
`relies upon its analysis regarding limitation [1c] and also points out that
`Goldfarb teaches publishing a conforming EDGARD submission document
`“in two electronic forms: in XML for submission to the SEC, and in HTML
`to place on your Web site for viewing by any Web browser.” Id. at 40
`(citing Ex. 1006, Part 2, 161).
`Upon review of Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence, we
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently, for purposes of this
`Decision, that the combination of Simpson and Goldfarb teaches or suggests
`every limitations of at least claim 1. As noted above, claims 11 and 19
`contain similar recitations.
`
`As to the reason to combine the teachings of Simpson and Goldfarb,
`Petitioner first notes that Simpson teaches that the Microsoft Access 97
`database software has the capability to import and output data in HTML
`format. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1005, Part 3, 125−26; Part 5, 237−40). Petitioner
`also notes that XML was designed to expand the capabilities of HTML and
`to provide an application-independent file format to make it easier to share
`information bet