`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 1 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT V
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 2 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`The following claim charts are preliminary in nature. e-Numerate reserves the right to amend and supplement these charts as discovery
`proceeds.
`
`A computer program product embodied on at least one non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to cause at least
`29.
`one hardware processor to operate, the computer program product comprising:
`
`
`code stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to cause the at least one hardware
`processor to identify at least one computer-readable Extensible Markup Language (XML)-compliant data document that is eXtensible
`Business Reporting Language (XBRL)-compliant and includes:
`
`
`a plurality of line items with a plurality of data values, and
`
` a
`
` plurality of computer-readable semantic tags that describe a semantic meaning of the data values, where the at least one
`computer-readable XML-compliant data document is capable of including multiple hierarchical relationships between two of the
`plurality of line items;
`
`code stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to cause the at least one hardware
`processor to parse the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data document, by:
`
`
`receiving the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data document,
`
`identifying the multiple hierarchical relationships between the two line items, and at least one of the computer-readable
`semantic tags that describes the semantic meaning of at least one of the data values included in the at least one computer-readable
`XML-compliant data document;
`
`code stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to cause the at least one hardware
`processor to access a plurality of computer-readable rules including:
`
`
`a computer-readable datatype rule for validation of a type of data values,
`
`
`a computer-readable calculation rule for validation of a calculation involving data
`values, and
`
` computer-readable unit rule for validation of a unit of data values;
`
` a
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 3 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`
`code stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to cause the at least one hardware
`processor to process the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data document, by:
`
`
`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,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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; and
`
`processing at least a portion of the data values of at least a portion of the plurality of 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 semantic tags of the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data
`document;
`
`
`code stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to cause the at least one hardware
`processor to display a result of a validation of the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data document;
`
`code stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to cause the at least one hardware
`processor to develop a report, by:
`
`
`identifying the at least one computer-readable semantic tag that describes the semantic meaning of the at least one data
`value included in the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data document, and
`
`retrieving data from one or more sources to represent the at least one data value in the report.
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 4 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`Claim 29 Elements
`A computer program product
`embodied on at least one non-
`transitory computer readable
`medium and configured to
`cause at least one hardware
`processor to operate, the
`computer program product
`comprising:
`
`Applicability
`Users of an XBRL validator use a computer program product embodied on at least one non-
`transitory computer readable medium and configured to cause at least one hardware processor
`to operate, the computer program product.
`
`Note: Any entity using XBRL on an official basis requires use of an XBRL validator to ensure that
`an XBRL document complies with relevant rules set forth by the XBRL standard.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and/or
`Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) validate XBRL filings made to
`those organizations and infringe at least claim 29 of the ‘842 patent in violation of 35
`U.S.C. § 271(a) by using the patented invention to, inter alia, process multiple XBRL-
`compliant filings. See pertinent excerpt(s) below illustrating applicability to the FDIC/FFIEC
`xBAT formula processor, for example: https://xbrl.us/home/filers/fdic-reporting/.
`
`“The FFIEC report framework was designed with extensibility to other data series. As Figure 1
`illustrates, the framework uses a common dictionary which each report and characteristic
`taxonomy imports. This model provides a modular approach to taxonomy design that can be
`duplicated and extended to include additional regulatory reports, such as the FRB Y9 series. The
`FFIEC report framework reflects the CDR data model which uses formulas in both taxonomies to
`process and validate data received by financial institutions. The same formulas used by the CDR
`system are used in Call Report vendor software to ensure the transparency of formula results. If
`a formula processes incorrectly, both the CDR and vendor software should produce an identical
`result. This approach to pre-validation helps to proactively resolve issues during the report
`creation and submission process.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 5 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`
`
`
`“3.5 Processing
`
`Characteristic formulas are expressed to handle two processing models, pre and post. Then
`agencies developed a custom formula processor to handle both pre- and post-processing of
`XBRL formulas. These processing requirements were implemented using custom functions, such
`as ExistingNonNil.
`
`Characteristic and consistency formulas follow different processing models. Consistency
`expressions are defined to process data and provide a result. Characteristic expressions are
`defined to process data, provide a result, process the result, and provide a second and final
`result. This type of “cascading” data processing is a critical step to understand how financial
`data are processed in CDR. Validation must follow a fixed order of execution to provide a proper
`result. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate an overview of the cascading formula pipeline used by CDR.”
`
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 6 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`
`
`
`“The FDIC developed and enhanced the FFIEC taxonomy framework and initiated development
`on the XBRL Business Analyst Tool (xBAT). This tool marked the beginning of a full CDR
`implementation using XBRL as the exchange mechanism and brought the POC demo into
`reality. The Call Report and formula taxonomy design remained virtually the same but included
`absolute and relative context references. Call Report taxonomies are published on a calendar
`quarter. However, formula expressions reference prior period data, and a formula processor
`will need a point of reference when processing data with formulas. The xBAT formula
`taxonomy included absolute context definitions, such as “P0” for current period or “P1” for one
`period prior. The xBAT formula taxonomy also included relative contexts, such as “–P1Y” for
`the prior year or “–P1Q” for the prior year quarter. The xBAT formula taxonomy was a simple
`implementation of XBRL formulas and did not contain any special functions or processes, such
`as reportability. The xBAT formulas followed a simplistic implementation of cascading data
`validation where formulas process report data and provide a result message. Formula
`expressions did not require a special or custom processor to process formulas with data, but
`the final release of xBAT did provide a mechanism to validate report or formula taxonomies
`with instance data. The formula design was sufficiently simple so that any off-the-shelf XML
`processor could be used to process the formulas with instance data. Also, xBAT provided Call
`Report formulas in a separate formula taxonomy. This allowed a software vendor to process
`formulas with data without having to consider the report taxonomy based on financial
`reporting forms.”
`https://www.fdic.gov/bank/implementingxbrlformulas.pdf
`
`Users of an XBRL validator use code stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable
`medium and configured to cause the at least one hardware processor to identify at least one
`computer-readable Extensible Markup Language (XML)-compliant data document that is
`eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL)-compliant and includes: a plurality of line items
`with a plurality of data values, and a plurality of computer-readable semantic tags that describe a
`Page 6
`
`code stored on the at least one
`non-transitory computer
`readable medium and
`configured to cause the at least
`one hardware processor to
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 7 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`semantic meaning of the data values, where the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant
`data document is capable of including multiple hierarchical relationships between two of the
`plurality of line items. See excerpt(s) below, for example (emphasis added):
`
`Note: As set forth below, XBRL documents are required by the XBRL standard to be XML-
`compliant and include a plurality of line items with a plurality of data values, and a plurality of
`computer-readable semantic tags.
`
`“In XBRL terminology, a concept is a definition of a reporting term. Concepts manifest as XML
`
`Schema [SCHEMA‑1] element definitions. In the taxonomy schema a concept is given a concrete
`
`name and a type. The type defines the kind of data types allowed for facts measured according
`to the concept definition. For example, a “cash” concept would typically have a monetary type.
`This declares that when cash is reported, its value will be monetary. In contrast, a
`“accountingPoliciesNote” concept would typically have a string type so that, when the
`“accountingPoliciesNote” is reported in an XBRL instance, its value would be interpreted as a
`string of characters. Additional constraints on how concepts can be used are documented by
`
`additional XBRL attributes on the XML Schema [SCHEMA‑1] element definitions that correspond
`
`to the concepts…The linkbases in a taxonomy further document the meaning of the concepts by
`expressing relationships between concepts (inter-concept relationships) and by relating concepts
`to their documentation.”
`http://www.xbrl.org/Specification/xbrl-recommendation-2003-12-31+corrected-errata-2012-01-
`25.htm#_Toc202578211
`
`“The core XBRL specifications (see XBRL Essentials) define validation constraints which XBRL
`processors must impose on all XBRL reports. These enforce not only basic syntactical checks, but
`also ensure that the reports comply with the definitions in the taxonomy.”
`http://specifications.xbrl.org/validation.html
`
`Note: As set forth below, XBRL documents are required by the XBRL standard to be XML-
`compliant and be capable of including multiple hierarchical relationships between two line items.
`
`
`
`
`identify at least one computer-
`readable Extensible Markup
`Language (XML)-compliant data
`document that is eXtensible
`Business Reporting Language
`(XBRL)-compliant and includes:
`
` a
`
` plurality of line items with a
`plurality of data values, and
`
` a
`
` plurality of computer-readable
`semantic tags that describe a
`semantic meaning of the data
`values, where the at least one
`computer-readable XML-
`compliant data document is
`capable of including multiple
`hierarchical relationships
`between two of the plurality of
`line items;
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 8 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`
`
`
`http://www.exkss.com/devel/huHU/tankonyv/attachments/XBRL_For_Dummies.pdf
`
`“From a technical perspective, XBRL implements XML, but also encapsulates other WC3
`standards to enable features important to business reporting—like multiple relationships (both
`hierarchical and non-hierarchical) and extensibility—that are not available in native XML. The
`XBRL specification defines how to create documents containing your data in well-formed XML
`(called instance documents) and how to create files containing relevant business terminology,
`their meanings, their data types, relationships among terms, and the rules/formulas they must
`follow (called taxonomies).”
`http://www.xbrl.org/bpboarddocs/xbrlorcustomizedxml.pdf
`
`Users of an XBRL validator use code stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable
`medium and configured to cause the at least one hardware processor to parse the at least one
`computer-readable XML-compliant data document, by: receiving the at least one computer-
`readable XML-compliant data document, identifying the multiple hierarchical relationships
`between the two line items, and at least one of the computer-readable semantic tags that
`describes the semantic meaning of at least one of the data values included in the at least one
`computer-readable XML-compliant data document. See excerpt(s) below, for example (emphasis
`added):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`code stored on the at least one
`non-transitory computer
`readable medium and
`configured to cause the at least
`one hardware processor to
`parse the at least one computer-
`readable XML-compliant data
`document, by:
`
`receiving the at least one
`computer-readable XML-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 9 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`
`http://www.exkss.com/devel/huHU/tankonyv/attachments/XBRL_For_Dummies.pdf
`
`“XBRL can express multiple hierarchies of explicit relations. Because XBRL separates concept and
`relation definitions, you can define more than one hierarchy of such relations.”
`http://www.exkss.com/devel/huHU/tankonyv/attachments/XBRL_For_Dummies.pdf
`
`Users of an XBRL validator use code stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable
`medium and configured to cause the at least one hardware processor to access a plurality of
`computer-readable rules including: a computer-readable datatype rule for validation of a type of
`data values, a computer-readable calculation rule for validation of a calculation involving data
`values, and a computer-readable unit rule for validation of a unit of data values. See excerpt(s)
`below, for example (emphasis added):
`
`Note: As set forth below, a computer-readable datatype rule is required for validation of a type
`of data values.
`
`“The core XBRL specifications (see XBRL Essentials) define validation constraints which XBRL
`processors must impose on all XBRL reports. These enforce not only basic syntactical checks, but
`also ensure that the reports comply with the definitions in the taxonomy.”
`https://specifications.xbrl.org/validation.html
`
`“Datatypes
`All XBRL concept definitions are associated with a datatype that enforces basic validation of the
`format of reported values. For example, ensuring that strings are not reported against concepts
`which should take numeric values. At a technical level, XBRL reuses the XML Schema datatype
`system. The standard defines a wide range of base datatypes, but the Data Type Registry 1.0
`allows for the collaborative development, rapid review, publication and on-going use of
`additional specialised data constraints.”
`
`compliant data document,
`
`identifying the multiple
`hierarchical relationships
`between the two line items, and
`at least one of the computer-
`readable semantic tags that
`describes the semantic meaning
`of at least one of the data values
`included in the at least one
`computer-readable XML-
`compliant data document;
`code stored on the at least one
`non-transitory computer
`readable medium and
`configured to cause the at least
`one hardware processor to
`access a plurality of computer-
`readable rules including:
`
` a
`
` computer-readable datatype
`rule for validation of a type of
`data values,
`
` a
`
` computer-readable calculation
`rule for validation of a
`calculation involving data values,
`and
`
` a
`
` computer-readable unit rule
`for validation of a unit of data
`values;
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 10 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`http://specifications.xbrl.org/validation.html
`
`Note: As set forth below, a computer-readable calculation rule is required for validation of a
`calculation involving data values.
`
`“Calculations
`Taxonomies can capture basic summation relationships between concepts which will be checked
`during the validation process. As the scope of calculations that can be defined in this way is
`limited, many implementations choose to use Formula for all calculation constraints.”
`http://specifications.xbrl.org/validation.html
`
`Note: As set forth below, a computer-readable unit rule is required for validation of a unit of
`data values.
`
`“Units
`The XBRL 2.1 specification requires that facts for concepts with a monetary datatype use
`particular units based on the ISO 4217 currency code standard. More general constraints
`between datatypes and units can be defined in the Units Registry 1.0.”
`http://specifications.xbrl.org/validation.html
`
`“Validation
`Data quality can be greatly enhanced through multiple layers of validation. The XBRL standard
`provides the ability to design and publish business validation rules in a standardised format.
`Basic validation semantics can be represented in XBRL taxonomies using the core specifications.
`More complex constraints can be modelled using the Formula Specifications. These validation
`rules can be applied at the time of preparation of a report, as well as by all of the recipients of
`that report.”
`http://specifications.xbrl.org/spec-group-index-formula.html
`
`“the monetary type serves as the datatype for those financial concepts in a taxonomy which
`denote units in a currency. Instance items with this type must have a unit of measure from the
`ISO 4217 namespace of currencies.”
`http://www.xbrl.org/Specification/XBRL-2.1/REC-2003-12-31/XBRL-2.1-REC-2003-12-
`31+corrected-errata-2013-02-20.html#unit
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 11 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`
`
`code stored on the at least one
`non-transitory computer
`readable medium and
`configured to cause the at least
`one hardware processor to
`process the at least one
`computer-readable XML-
`compliant data document, by:
`
`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,
`
`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; and
`
`
`
`http://www.exkss.com/devel/huHU/tankonyv/attachments/XBRL_For_Dummies.pdf
`Users of an XBRL validator use code stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable
`medium and configured to cause the at least one hardware processor to process the at least one
`computer-readable XML-compliant data document, by: 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, 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; and processing at least a portion of the data values of at least a portion of the
`plurality of 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 semantic tags of the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data
`document. See excerpt(s) below, for example (emphasis added):
`
`“The XBRL conformance suite has over 400 tests, each which an XBRL processor must "pass" an
`property interpret XBRL functionality specified in the XBRL specification.”
`http://frux.wikispaces.com/file/view/Chapter-18-Extracting.pdf
`
`“The core XBRL specifications (see XBRL Essentials) define validation constraints which XBRL
`processors must impose on all XBRL reports. These enforce not only basic syntactical checks, but
`also ensure that the reports comply with the definitions in the taxonomy.”
`http://specifications.xbrl.org/validation.html
`
`“Datatypes
`All XBRL concept definitions are associated with a datatype that enforces basic validation of the
`format of reported values. For example, ensuring that strings are not reported against concepts
`which should take numeric values. At a technical level, XBRL reuses the XML Schema datatype
`system. The standard defines a wide range of base datatypes, but the Data Type Registry 1.0
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 12 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`processing at least a portion of
`the data values of at least a
`portion of the plurality of 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 semantic
`tags of the at least one
`computer-readable XML-
`compliant data document;
`
`allows for the collaborative development, rapid review, publication and on-going use of
`additional specialised data constraints.
`…
`Calculations
`Taxonomies can capture basic summation relationships between concepts which will be checked
`during the validation process. As the scope of calculations that can be defined in this way is
`limited, many implementations choose to use Formula for all calculation constraints.
`Units
`The XBRL 2.1 specification requires that facts for concepts with a monetary datatype use
`particular units based on the ISO 4217 currency code standard. More general constraints
`between datatypes and units can be defined in the Units Registry 1.0.”
`http://specifications.xbrl.org/validation.html
`
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 13 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 14 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 15 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`code stored on the at least one
`non-transitory computer
`readable medium and
`configured to cause the at least
`one hardware processor to
`display a result of a validation
`of the at least one computer-
`readable XML-compliant data
`document;
`
`http://www.exkss.com/devel/huHU/tankonyv/attachments/XBRL_For_Dummies.pdf
`
`Users of an XBRL validator use code stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable
`medium and configured to cause the at least one hardware processor to display a result of a
`validation of the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data document. See excerpt(s)
`below, for example (emphasis added):
`
`“The core XBRL specifications (see XBRL Essentials) define validation constraints which XBRL
`processors must impose on all XBRL reports. These enforce not only basic syntactical checks, but
`also ensure that the reports comply with the definitions in the taxonomy. The validation checks
`include:
`
`Datatypes
`All XBRL concept definitions are associated with a datatype that enforces basic validation of the
`format of reported values. For example, ensuring that strings are not reported against concepts
`which should take numeric values. At a technical level, XBRL reuses the XML Schema datatype
`system. The standard defines a wide range of base datatypes, but the Data Type Registry 1.0
`allows for the collaborative development, rapid review, publication and on-going use of
`additional specialised data constraints.
`
`Dimensions
`Taxonomies can associate dimensions with concept definitions, thereby controlling which
`dimensions may - or must - be used with particular concepts.
`Calculations
`Taxonomies can capture basic summation relationships between concepts which will be checked
`during the validation process. As the scope of calculations that can be defined in this way is
`limited, many implementations choose to use Formula for all calculation constraints.
`Units
`The XBRL 2.1 specification requires that facts for concepts with a monetary datatype use
`particular units based on the ISO 4217 currency code standard. More general constraints
`between datatypes and units can be defined in the Units Registry 1.0.”
`https://specifications.xbrl.org/validation.html
`
`“XML validation: Without a valid document in XML, validation is a nonstarter. Business users
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 16 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`should be able to take this level of validation for granted and never have to deal with it. All XBRL
`processors do XML validation under the hood.
`
`XML Schema validation: An XML document can be valid or well-formed XML, but it may not be
`structured correctly. That structure is what XML Schema validation provides. An XML parser
`generally performs XML Schema validation. The parser makes sure that the elements comply
`with the content model of an XML schema. It also ensures that the data types are correct. Most
`XML languages provide validation only to the extent of an XML schema. XBRL has a number of
`XML schemas that indicate how the XML syntax used by XBRL must be constructed, but XBRL
`goes far beyond XML Schema validation
`
`XBRL syntax validation: Like XML and XML Schema, the XBRL syntax needs to be correct so that
`any XBRL processor can correctly interpret the XBRL taxonomy and/or XBRL instance (not just the
`XBRL processor used to create them). XML processors catch some types of errors; XML Schema
`validation detects other types of errors. The XBRL Specification conformance suite has, however,
`more than 400 additional tests that are requirements on XBRL syntax, but XML or XML Schema
`validation can’t detect the errors. XBRL processors detect these types of syntax errors. Again,
`similar to XML validation and XML Schema validation, business users should be able to take this
`level of validation for granted and never have to deal with this level of validation. This
`classification also includes validation related to any XBRL modules utilized.”
`http://www.exkss.com/devel/huHU/tankonyv/attachments/XBRL_For_Dummies.pdf
`Users of an XBRL validator use code stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable
`medium and configured to cause the at least one hardware processor to develop a report, by:
`identifying the at least one computer-readable semantic tag that describes the semantic meaning
`of the at least one data value included in the at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data
`document, and retrieving data from one or more sources to represent the at least one data value
`in the report. See excerpt(s) below, for example (emphasis added):
`
`“Simply put, XBRL is a language that lets you build what you probably typically think of as a
`report. This report is a physical document, just like other documents you’re familiar with: a word-
`processing document, a spreadsheet, or maybe a PDF file. Like these reports, XBRL also has a
`document. The XBRL document, also called an XBRL instance, is built in the form of an electronic
`file and contains business information.
`http://www.exkss.com/devel/huHU/tankonyv/attachments/XBRL_For_Dummies.pdf
`
`Page 16
`
`code stored on the at least one
`non-transitory computer
`readable medium and
`configured to cause the at least
`one hardware processor to
`develop a report, by:
`
`identifying the at least one
`computer-readable semantic tag
`that describes the semantic
`meaning of the at least one data
`value included in the at least
`one computer-readable XML-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 17 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`compliant data document, and
`
`retrieving data from one or
`more sources to represent the
`at least one data value in the
`report.
`
`
`“An XBRL instance has four main parts:
`
`Values: The values are the text (individual values or entire narratives) and numbers in the report,
`the business information. Generally, the text and numbers come from some sort of business
`system, such as an ERP system or a spreadsheet. For example, a value would be a number like
`“5347” or text, such as “Inventory consists of finished goods and workin-progress” or even a
`paragraph or so of narratives.
`
` ✓
`
` Context: The context explains important information about the values. You need to
`understand what entity the value relates to, what period the values relate to, and if the values
`are actual, budgeted, and so on. For example, you want to be able to say that the information
`relates to your company and not some other company, and that the period is for 2009, not 2008.
`
` ✓
`
` Concepts: By concepts, we mean technical representations of business terms. For example,
`“Net Income (Loss)” and “Sales, Net” from Figure 1-2 are business terms. These business terms
`are associated with the text or numbers contained on a business report, the values. You can
`represent these business terms as technical structures and give them unique names, such as
`“NetIncomeOrLoss” or “SalesNet.” You don’t want confuse one concept with another; the unique
`names help to differentiate concepts and the associated business term. The concepts are
`basically a controlled vocabulary of precisely defined business terms. These can be financial
`reporting terms, accounting terms, or even nonfinancial terms; they really can be any terms, but
`they’ll likely be business terms of some sort. Values (like “5347” in the example) are reported for
`concepts and are reported within a specific context.
`
` ✓
`
` Dictionary: Concepts are expressed within a dictionary. In XBRL, these dictionaries are referred
`to as taxonomies, but we want to use the more comfortable term, dictionary, for a moment. The
`dictionary doesn’t necessarily define the concepts, but it does either define them or point to the
`definition or provide a definition in some manner. The important thing here is that the dictionary
`is the central location where concepts are pointed to information that defines that concept. The
`dictionary gives a precise definition about the meaning of each term (semantics), including
`references and examples. Other information helpful in making use of the concept is also
`provided, such as labels in any number of languages, relations of a concept to other concepts,
`and such. For example, a dictionary may contain the concept “NetIncomeOrLoss” or “SalesNet,”
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 53-22 Filed 04/27/21 Page 18 of 18
`
`Claim Charts for U.S. Patent 9,600,842
`
`express that the concepts have labels of “Net Income (Loss)” and “Sales, Net,” respectively, and
`communicate the specific ways the concept relates to other concepts in the dictionary such as
`“SalesGross,” “Taxes,” and “Expenses.””
`http://www.exkss.com/devel/huHU/tankonyv/attachments/XBRL_For_Dummies.pdf
`
`
`
`Caveat:
`The notes, cited excerpts, and/or portions thereof utilized herein are set forth for illustrative purposes only and are not meant to be limiting
`in any manner. For