Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 81-8 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 8
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 81-8 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1of8
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT N
`EXHIBIT N
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 81-8 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 8
`
`1
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC. and
`E-NUMERATE, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-859 C
`
`Judge Ryan T. Holte
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. DAVID MARTIN IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED PRELIMINARY CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Terms from the ’748 Patent .................................................................................................2
`
`I.
`
`A.
`
`in a
`“code for outputting a presentation… results
`corresponding change in an instance of the report” (claim 11
`of the ’748 Patent) ....................................................................................................2
`
`II.
`
`Signature ..............................................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 81-8 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 8
`
`I.
`
`Terms from the ’748 Patent
`
`2
`
`
`A. “code for outputting a presentation… results in a corresponding change in an
`instance of the report” (claim 11 of the ’748 Patent)
`
`3. The term “code for outputting a presentation that is based on at least a portion of the at
`
`least one object, the presentation capable of including at least a portion of the original values
`
`including the at least one original value, where the computer program product is configured such
`
`that, based on the at least one reference of the at least one object to the at least one original value
`
`of the at least one original document, a change to the at least one original value of the at least one
`
`original document results in a corresponding change in an instance of the presentation” appears in
`
`claim 11 of the ’748 Patent.
`
`4. The full text of the claim reads (underlining added):
`
`11. A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer
`readable medium, comprising:
`
`code for storing a plurality of original documents including a plurality of
`original values, including a first document including first values and a
`second document including second values;
`
`code for processing at least a part of the first document and at least a part of
`the second document, resulting in at least one object including at least one
`reference to at least one of the plurality of original values of at least one of
`the plurality of original documents;
`
`code for receiving a user selection of one or more computer-readable semantic
`tags;
`
`code for receiving a user selection of one or more of the original values;
`
`code for mapping the one or more of the computer-readable semantic tags to
`the one or more of the original values;
`
`code for outputting a presentation that is based on at least a portion of the at
`least one object, the presentation capable of including at least a portion of
`the original values including the at least one original value, where the
`computer program product is configured such that, based on the at least
`one reference of the at least one object to the at least one original value of
`the at least one original document, a change to the at least one original
`value of the at least one original document results in a corresponding
`change in an instance of the presentation;
`
`code for outputting a report that is based on at least a portion of the at least
`one object, the report capable of including at least a portion of the
`original values including the at least one original value, where the
`computer program product is configured such that, based on the at least
`one reference of the at least one object to the at least one original value of
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 81-8 Filed 03/14/22 Page 4 of 8
`
`3
`
`
`the at least one original document, a change to the at least one original
`value of the at least one original document results in a corresponding
`change in an instance of the report; and
`
`code for outputting at least one computer-readable Extensible Markup
`Language (XML)-compliant data document that is based on at least a
`portion of the at least one object and at least a portion of the mapping, the
`at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data document capable of
`including a plurality of line items with at least a portion of the original
`values including the at least one original value and at least some of the
`computer-readable semantic tags, where the computer program product is
`configured such that, based on the at least one reference of the at least one
`object to the at least one original value of the at least one original
`document, a change to the at least one original value of the at least one
`original document results in a corresponding change in an instance of the
`at least one computer-readable XML-compliant data document:,
`
`said computer program product configured such that the at least some of the
`computer-readable semantic tags are each computer-readably coupled to
`the at least portion of the original values of at least one computer-readable
`XML-compliant data document.
`
`5. 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.
`
`6. For this term, e-Numerate has proposed “Not construed under § 112 par. 6. Terms should
`
`be construed consistent with other identified terms.” In addition, e-Numerate proposed a
`
`construction for “object” as “plain and ordinary meaning.”
`
`7. The relevant function for this term is “outputting a presentation that is based on at least a
`
`portion of the at least one object, the presentation capable of including at least a portion of the
`
`original values including the at least one original value, where the computer program product is
`
`configured such that, based on the at least one reference of the at least one object to the at least
`
`one original value of the at least one original document, a change to the at least one original value
`
`of the at least one original document results in a corresponding change in an instance of the
`
`presentation.”
`
`8. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “presentation” in the ’748 Patent to
`
`mean a “visualization of the object that is displayed” as indicated in Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction of “presentation.” Plaintiff proposes “plain and ordinary meaning” for the term
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 81-8 Filed 03/14/22 Page 5 of 8
`
`4
`
`
`“presentation” in this claim. In my opinion, this is consistent with Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction, in that the plain and ordinary meaning does relate to visualization and display of the
`
`object. There are at least two reasons.
`
`9. First, the specification uses the term “presenting” (and related words like “presented” and
`
`“present”) in the context of object visualization and display, e.g., at 7:20-24, 18:1-3, 27:18-21,
`
`28:50-54, 30:12-14, 32:66-33:1, 33:60-34:3, 41:3-4, 41:20-25, and 46:6-7. The term does not
`
`appear to be used for any purpose other than display.
`
`10. Second, this claim contains limitations that recite both (1) “code for outputting a report”
`
`and (2) “code for outputting a presentation” (the current term), in which the limitations are identical
`
`except for reciting “report” in one and “presentation” in the other. This shows that “report” and
`
`“presentation” are not the same. The term “report” is directly described, e.g., at 7:53-55 (“The
`
`RDML data viewer 100 automatically combines data documents 102 and style documents 106 to
`
`create reports”). Thus, a “presentation” is not the result of combining data documents with style
`
`documents. Another limitation reciting (3) “code for outputting at least one computer-readable
`
`Extensible Markup Language (XML)-compliant data document” similarly suggests that the
`
`intended “presentation” is not such an XML document.
`
`11. Next, this claim requires the “presentation” to be “capable of including at least a portion of
`
`the original values.” This does not make sense. A presentation is a visual display of content. No
`
`presentation is “capable” of being anything other than what it actually is. While it is possible that
`
`this limitation was meant to refer to a capability of code as opposed to a capability of the
`
`presentation, the claim was not drafted to indicate that.
`
`12. I have reviewed the patent’s specification in order to determine the relevant structure
`
`(and/or algorithm) to perform this functionality. I have analyzed the structure indicated by: the
`
`graphical user interface; Fig. 7A block 734; Figs. 14 A – D, Figures 15 A, B & C; Fig. 16, Fig. 17,
`
`Fig. 19 B; col. 33, line 45 – 58; col. 34, line 55 – col. 35, line 39; col. 46, line 31 – line 39; col. 51,
`
`line 31 – 41. This is the structure that e-Numerate has identified for the term “means for causing a
`
`display of at least a portion of the single markup document” (claim 18 of the ’383 Patent) and also
`
`includes all structure that e-Numerate has identified for the term “means for displaying the single
`
`data set” (claim 26 of the ’816 Patent), except that the citations have been updated to refer to the
`
`numbering used in the ’748 Patent specification (which is shared by the’816 and ’383 Patents).
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 81-8 Filed 03/14/22 Page 6 of 8
`
`5
`
`
`13. This potential structure does make reference to the name “Graphical User Interface” (e.g.,
`
`at Fig. 7A block 734) and its responsibilities. But identifying an entity by name and stating its
`
`responsibilities is not a description of the structure that implements these responsibilities. At best,
`
`it is a rephrasing of the desired function. For example, this potential structure includes a passage
`
`describing the general responsibilities of the Graphical User Interface as follows at 46:31-39:
`
`The screen shots of FIGS. 14A-D, 16 and 17 have been of the graphical user
`interface (“GUI”) 734 which has several responsibilities. Generally, it creates
`itself and other visual components upon start-up of the application, and
`provides a central storage place for a minimal number of global variables of
`the application (such as file directories, etc.). Further, it responds to user
`actions, such as mouse clicks and keyboard shortcuts, and repaints the screen,
`or portions of the screen, at appropriate moments.
`
`14. The above excerpt does not describe an algorithm that implements these responsibilities
`
`including “repaint[ing] the screen, or portions of the screen, at appropriate moments.”
`
`15. Similarly, the potential structure includes a passage describing a chart manager object that
`
`“displays” some RDMLLineItems “on a chart displayed on the graphical user interface” at 33:45-
`
`58 (underlining added):
`
`Referring back to FIG. 7A, in one implementation consistent with the present
`invention, the chart manager object 714 takes up to six RDMLLineltems 1304
`from the PDS 712 and displays them on a chart displayed on the graphical
`user interface 734 and is typically used in conjunction with the tree view 720
`and the macro panel 732. When a user clicks a mouse on a line item in the
`tree view 720, that line item is added to the chart. When the user clicks the
`mouse on a macro line in the macro panel 732, the selected line items that are
`charted are transformed according to the programming of the macro. The
`chart manager 714 may be separated from the graphical chart view 716 to
`allow the ability to change chart software components easily should different
`or better graphic chart components become desirable.
`
`16. No algorithm is provided for selecting “up to six RDMLLineItems” from the PDS.
`
`Presumably, the technique used to select these RDMLLineItems while potentially omitting others
`
`matters. But even assuming that the specific RDMLLineItems to display have been selected
`
`somehow, the above excerpt does not describe an algorithm that implements an ability to display
`
`them; it simply asserts that the implementation “displays them.”
`
`17. The potential structure includes a passage at 34:55-35:39 that begins as follows
`
`(underlining added):
`
`FIGS. 14A-F will now be described in greater detail, and in particular, FIGS.
`14A and 14B will be described in connection with FIGS. 15A, 15B, and 15C,
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 81-8 Filed 03/14/22 Page 7 of 8
`
`6
`
`
`which illustrate steps of a method for updating a chart view 716 upon the
`selection of a line item 1206 in the tree view 720 in an exemplary scenario in
`accordance with the present invention. …
`
`18. As described above, the excerpt describes the system’s response to user interaction, not
`
`code or means for “outputting a presentation” as required by the current term. The passage from
`
`34:55-35:39 does impose further display requirements in response to the user interaction, such as
`
`“deletes the last series (displayed data of a line item) from the chart view” (35:2-3), “fills the x-
`
`axis 1404 with data” (35:14), “updates the series styles” (35:28), “updates… the chart types (i.e.,
`
`area bar, stacked bar, …” (35:32-33), among other requirements. But even assuming that these
`
`descriptions apply to the claim 11 “code for outputting a presentation” term, they at best specify
`
`the desired outcome and do not indicate an algorithm for implementing them.
`
`19. The remaining specification portions included in this potential structure concern the
`
`system’s macro functionality and language. Such example references include Figure 19B, which
`
`is described at 2:37-38 as “an RMML graphical interface”, with RMML being identified at 5:7-13
`
`as “Reusable Macro Markup Language (‘RMML’), for producing and utilizing macros…” Another
`
`reference to Figure 19B and RMML at 51:30-41 appears within the section entitled “RMML
`
`Graphical Interface”:
`
`RMML Graphical Interface
`
`FIG. 19B illustrates objects responsible for managing the process of creating,
`managing, and handling events from the 45 graphical user interface 734. FIG.
`20A shows a screen shot of the RDML data viewer 100; the NewMacroPanel
`732 is displayed in the lower half of the screen. The available macros are
`displayed in individual windows in the MacroLibrary panel 1926 on the left
`side of the lower panel. The right side 50 of the macro panel 732 is the macro
`information panel 2002 which holds the macro description panel 1958 and the
`parameter panel 1960.
`
`20. Yet claim 11, in which the current term is found, bears no relationship to RMML or macros.
`
`The above references to RMML and macros do not provide an algorithm for the recited function.
`
`21. In light of the foregoing, in my opinion, no algorithm is found within the specification that
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would use to perform the recited function and therefore this
`
`term is indefinite.
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 81-8 Filed 03/14/22 Page 8 of 8
`
`II.
`
`Signature
`
`7
`
`
`22. If the Court permits it, I reserve the right to amend this declaration in case I become aware
`
`of further evidence or identification of term function or structure that affects the opinions I have
`
`expressed herein, including supplementing or amending this declaration in response to
`
`supplementation and amendments by e-Numerate to its claim construction positions.
`
`23. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct.
`
`
`
`Executed this day, February 11, 2022 in Bismarck, North Dakota.
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`
` David Martin
`
`Case No. 19-859C
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTIN
`
`