`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`VOLUSION, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282
`Title: LOGICAL AND CONSTRAINT BASED BROWSE HIERARCHY WITH
`PROPAGATION FEATURES
`_____________________
`
`Declaration of Scott Nettles Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`–1–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
` Versata Exh. 2003
` Volusion v. Versata
` CBM2013-00017
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Qualifications and Professional Experience ........................................................ 4
`
`II. Level of Skill in the Art ....................................................................................... 6
`
`III. The Subject Patent ............................................................................................... 7
`
`IV. Scope of Inquiry and Relevant Legal Standards ............................................... 12
`
`V. Claim Construction ............................................................................................ 14
`
`VI. Analysis of Claims ............................................................................................. 17
`
`VII. Declaration ................................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT NETTLES IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`I, Scott Nettles, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this Declaration at the request of Patent Owner, Versata
`
`Development Group, Inc., in connection with a Petition for Covered Business
`
`Method Patent Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282 to Bonneau et al., entitled
`
`“Logical and Constraint Based Browse Hierarchy with Propagation Features” (“the
`
`’282 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of $550
`
`per hour. My compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. I have no personal interest in the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The ’282 Patent, Exhibit 1001;
`
`The prosecution history of the ’282 Patent;
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 09/884,180 as filed June 18, 2001
`
`(“the ’180 Application”).
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`a.
`
`The documents listed above,
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`The relevant legal standards, including the standards for patent
`
`eligibility, and
`
`c. My knowledge and experience based upon my work in this
`
`area, as described below.
`
`5.
`
`I reserve the right to modify or supplement my opinion, as well as the
`
`bases for my opinion, based on the nature and content of the documentation, data,
`
`proof, and other evidence or testimony that the Petitioner or its expert(s) may
`
`present or based on any additional discovery or other information provided to me
`
`or found by me in this matter.
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`6. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is included as Exh. 2006. A list of the cases during at least the last five years
`
`in which I have signed a Protective Order, have testified as an expert either at a
`
`trial, hearing, or deposition, or have submitted statements and/or opinions is also
`
`included.
`
`7.
`
`I attended Michigan State University from 1977 to 1981 as a Merit
`
`Scholar and an Alumni Distinguished Scholar, and received a bachelor’s degree in
`
`Chemistry. I later attended Carnegie Mellon University from 1988 to 1995, during
`
`which time I received both a master’s degree (1992) and a Ph.D. (1996) in
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`Computer Science. My dissertation was entitled “Safe and Efficient Persistent
`
`Heaps” and focused on high performance automatic storage management for
`
`advanced database systems.
`
`8.
`
`Before earning my Ph.D., I worked for over four years in industry at
`
`Silicon Solutions, Inc. and Digital Equipment Corporation, developing computer
`
`aided design (CAD) software for the semiconductor and computer sectors. For
`
`example, I designed and implemented systems for VLSI mask generation and
`
`VLSI design rule checking. I also built the first graphical drawing editor for the X
`
`window system, Artemis, which included a sophisticated graphical user interface.
`
`9.
`
`I have worked as a professor at three universities since 1995; the
`
`University of Pennsylvania, the University of Arizona, and The University of
`
`Texas at Austin. I was the recipient of a National Science Foundation CAREER
`
`award for “CAREER: Advancing Experimental Computer Science in Storage
`
`Management and Education” while I was an Assistant Professor at the University
`
`of Pennsylvania. During this time, I also was part of the DARPA funded
`
`SwitchWare project, which was one of the pioneering groups in the area of Active
`
`Networking (“AN”). My group developed PLAN, the first domain-specific
`
`programming language for programmable packets, as well as PLANet, the first
`
`purely active inter-network.
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I joined the faculty of The University of Texas at Austin (“UT”), in
`
`the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering in 1999. In 2005, I was
`
`appointed Associate Professor with tenure. At UT, my graduate teaching has
`
`focused on networking, including numerous advanced seminars on mobile and
`
`wireless networking. My undergraduate teaching has included networking,
`
`operating systems, and one of UT’s required programming class, which focuses on
`
`programming with abstractions, Java, and data structures.
`
`11. At UT, I continued to develop AN technology and in 2002, my Ph.D.
`
`student, Mike Hicks, won the ACM SIGPLAN dissertation award for our joint
`
`work on software updating. Along with my Ph.D. student, Seong-kyu Song, I
`
`focused my AN work on mobile and wireless networking. As a result, my research
`
`shifted away from AN to mobile and wireless networking in general, especially
`
`interactions between the network, the radios, and the physical world. Most of my
`
`current research involves the development of Hydra, which is a working prototype
`
`of an advanced software-implemented WiFi network funded primarily by NSF.
`
`12.
`
`In the Spring of 2013, I retired from UT and became an Adjunct
`
`Associate Professor. I now primarily work as a consultant on technical matters.
`
`II. Level of Skill in the Art
`13.
`In my opinion, the level of ordinary skill in the art needed to have the
`
`capability of understanding the computational system and software engineering
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`principles applicable to the ‘282 Patent is a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science
`
`or Electrical and Computer Engineering; or equivalent industry experience as one
`
`designing web-centric database systems and programming relative website
`
`applications. Strength in one of these areas can compensate for a weakness in
`
`another.
`
`14.
`
`I believe that I meet that level of skill and have, after consideration of
`
`the specification, detailed my understanding, which is summarized below.
`
`III. The Subject Patent
`15. The ’282 Patent describes computational system mechanisms that
`
`allow a computer system, e.g., a webserver and related information systems, to
`
`define in a flexible, expressive and (most importantly) operative way, an
`
`organization of data items in a database so as to facilitate presentation to users and
`
`its actual use, e.g., to or by human users browsing content served by a website, of
`
`relevant subsets of items from the database in correspondence with a browse
`
`trajectory through the presentation. The described mechanisms include the use of
`
`constraint-based specifications and non-constraint-based logical groupings
`
`expressed at respective nodes of an operative hierarchy that, in correspondence
`
`with (i) a user browse, (ii) activation of corresponding nodes and (iii) an
`
`aggregation of constraints expressed in the parentage of an activated node, allows
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`the computer system to derive an appropriate query that is executable to return
`
`particular items from the database.
`
`16.
`
`In a figure (which is included in-line below and as a full-size
`
`Exh. 2007), I have annotated FIG. 3 of the ‘282 Patent to explain the
`
`computational system mechanisms employed in systems and methods described in
`
`the ‘282 Patent. Specifically, I have annotated FIG. 3 to identify browse activation
`
`of a particular node in a hierarchy (i.e., the operative hierarchy visually depicted in
`
`FIG. 3) in response to user browsing (e.g., of website content presented at a user’s
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`computer using a web browser). Constraints specified at the browse activated
`
`node 152 of FIG. 3 (annotated as “Browse Activated Node A”) and in the activated
`
`node’s parentage (e.g., nodes 151, 145 and 143 of FIG. 3, annotated as B, C and D)
`
`are aggregated in the form of the include rule expressed and explained at col. 8,
`
`lines 20-45 of the ‘282 Patent specification. Thus, as explained in the patent
`
`specification and based on the organization imposed by constraints specified
`
`within the hierarchy, a rule defining all items that fall under the browse activated
`
`leaf node aggregates constraints and expressed as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘282 Patent at 8:39-45; see also annotated include rule of Figure 1.
`
`17. For a node activated during the browse process (e.g., browse activated
`
`leaf node 152, annotated as A and illustrated above), the application (executing on
`
`an application server) aggregates the constraints specified by the node and all of its
`
`ancestors into a single include rule. The application then derives a database search
`
`query from the include rule and communicates the query to the database.
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`18. These operative features are not at all abstract to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. I have been advised that Petitioner seeks to characterize the Patent
`
`Owner’s inventions as nothing more than the abstract idea of organizing product-
`
`related data to facilitate catalog browsing or, alternatively, as merely directed to
`
`the abstract idea of organizing product related data in a specific arrangement. I
`
`have also been advised that the Board instituted these proceedings based on a
`
`variation on Petitioner’s alleged abstract idea(s), rephrased as the abstract idea of
`
`“representing a plurality of items in a database hierarchically.” Relative to each
`
`version, I disagree. Instead, the claims of the ‘282 Patent specify, from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill, concrete and operative hierarchies
`
`together with methods that impose meaningful limits on the range of systems that
`
`could be said to exploit the abstract idea proposed by Petitioner or on which trial
`
`has been instituted. For avoidance of doubt and unless otherwise stated, I have
`
`considered and reached the same conclusion relative to each of the abstract idea
`
`variations summarized above; however, for convenience and consistency, I refer
`
`throughout my declaration primarily to the variation on which the Board actually
`
`instituted these proceedings.
`
`19.
`
`In addition to the operative, rather than merely two-dimensionally
`
`illustrative, nature of the hierarchy detailed above, the hierarchies of the ‘282
`
`Patent contain two different types of nodes that are operatively employed in the
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`claims. A first portion of the nodes of the operative hierarchy each specify one or
`
`more constraints defining a scope of the corresponding subset of the items stored in
`
`the database, which are represented by each node of the first portion relative to
`
`their respective parent node. Based on my review of the specification, it is my
`
`opinion that nodes of that first portion are to be nodes such as illustrated and
`
`described in connection with my annotation (above) of FIG. 3 of the ‘282 Patent,
`
`including nodes A, B, C and D.
`
`20. A second portion of the nodes of the hierarchy specify no constraints.
`
`Instead, each of the nodes of the second portion establish a logical grouping
`
`defining a scope of the subset of the items stored in the database, which are
`
`represented by a second portion node. The ‘282 Patent describes, as an example of
`
`the flexibility permitted by its techniques, the arbitrary logical groupings that can
`
`be expressed in the operative hierarchy. The second portion of the nodes does not
`
`specify constraints but defines a scope of the apportioned into subsets of items in
`
`the database as logical groupings. For example, the “Clearance” node 157
`
`(annotated as E in my annotation above) allows logical grouping of items from the
`
`database (e.g., by specifying SKUs outright for those PCs and software programs
`
`that have been placed on clearance). ‘282 Patent at 9:34-44. The specification
`
`also describes “Peripherals” node 155 (annotated as F) as a logical grouping node.
`
`Based on my review of the specification, it is my opinion that nodes of the second
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`portion are to be nodes such as illustrated and described in connection with my
`
`annotations (e.g., E and F, above) of FIG. 3 of the ‘282 Patent.
`
`21. Together, the nodes of the hierarchy, including constraint specifying
`
`and logical group defining nodes, impose an organization on items stored in the
`
`database by coding a mechanism by which the application server may, for a
`
`particular browse activated one of the nodes, derive a query executable to return
`
`particular ones of the items stored in the database. These are not mere
`
`abstractions, but rather, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, a very specific
`
`computational system mechanism by which a useful and easily maintained website
`
`may be implemented.
`
`IV. Scope of Inquiry and Relevant Legal Standards
`22.
`I have been asked to provide my understanding, from the perspective
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art, of technical features recited in claims 11-20
`
`of the ‘282 Patent. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my views, again
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, as to the significance
`
`and meaningfulness of certain technical features recited in claims 11-20 of the ‘282
`
`Patent. Any references to the issued claims or original claims refer to claims 11-
`
`20.
`
`23.
`
`I have been advised that the patent statute provides that an applicant
`
`for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`or any new and useful improvement therefor, may obtain a patent” subject to the
`
`other conditions and requirements of the statute. 35 U.S.C. § 101. I have also
`
`been advised that the Supreme Court has interpreted § 101 such that there are
`
`certain limited exceptions to the otherwise expansive categories (process, machine,
`
`manufacture, or composition of matter) expressed by statute, and that those
`
`exceptions are only for claims which encompass laws of nature, abstract ideas, and
`
`natural phenomena. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132
`
`S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).
`
`24. Relative to claims 11-20 of the ‘282 Patent, I have been advised that
`
`neither the laws of nature nor the natural phenomena exception is implicated,
`
`rather (based on the Petitioner’s challenge of ‘282 Patent claims and based on the
`
`decision of the Board instituting review) the only judicial exception possibly
`
`applicable here is that pertaining to abstract ideas. Finally, I have been advised
`
`that, in evaluating whether a claim impermissibly encompasses unpatentably
`
`abstract ideas, the proper inquiry is to consider whether the claim “as a whole,
`
`includes meaningful limitations restricting it to an application, rather than merely
`
`an abstract idea.” Ultramercial v. Hulu, 722 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013). If
`
`the claim includes such meaningful limitations, it is statutory subject matter. Id. I
`
`have been advised that the inquiry as to meaningfulness of a given limitation is
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`V. Claim Construction
`25.
`I have been advised that in order to properly evaluate the ’282 Patent,
`
`the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. I have been advised that the
`
`claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. I have also been advised that claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`and accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, unless the inventor, as a lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning for a
`
`term.
`
`26.
`
`In order to construe the claims, I have reviewed the entirety of the
`
`’282 Patent as well as its prosecution history. For consistency, references to the
`
`specification are with regard to column:line in the ‘282 Patent, as issued.
`
`27. The ‘282 Patent does not provide a specific definition for “hierarchy.”
`
`However, proper meaning can be understood from the specification context in
`
`which the term “hierarchy” is used. Specifically, the specification states that “[t]he
`
`present invention relates to browsing on-line catalogs and web sites, and more
`
`specifically to a flexible and arbitrarily expressive rules-based browsing hierarchy
`
`for on-line catalogs and web sites.” ‘282 Patent at 1:36-40 (emphasis added), Exh.
`
`1001. More specifically, the specification states that: “[t]he set of nodes and the
`
`arbitrary rules used to define the scope of the subset of catalog data to be included
`
`at each node of the browse hierarchy is created by seller-authorized users through
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`terminals 38 coupled to application server 8.” ‘282 Patent at 6:14-17 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`28.
`
`In describing the constituent nodes of the hierarchy, the specification
`
`states that:
`
`“Each node in the hierarchy is associated with a unique label. Each node
`
`also contains a list of the labels for each of its child nodes (if any).
`
`Optionally, each node is associated with marketing text and image data, and
`
`may specify one or more constraints that require all items falling under the
`
`node to have specific values for certain item attributes. The constraints
`
`specified at a node are logically ANDed together, and are in effect logically
`
`ANDed with the constraints specified (if any) by all of the nodes that are its
`
`ancestors. Thus, any items that fall under a particular node in the hierarchy
`
`must meet all of the constraints by specified by the node itself, but also any
`
`constraints that are specified by its ancestors. Put another way, each node
`
`inherits the constraints of its ancestors.”
`
`‘282 Patent at 5:3-16.
`
`29. The ‘282 Patent goes on to describe that:
`
`“[f]or each leaf node activated during the browse process, the application
`
`aggregates the constraints specified by the leaf node and all of its ancestors
`
`into a single "include" rule. The application then derives a database search
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`query from the "include" rule and communicates the query to the database
`
`server 9 … In one embodiment, the data is presented for display on the
`
`user's terminal from which the browsing is conducted. where a user is
`
`browsing the hierarchy over the Internet using a web browser, the list of
`
`retrieved SKUs and any data associated therewith is converted by the
`
`application to one or more web pages communicated to the user based on the
`
`query initiated by the selection of the leaf node,
`
`‘282 Patent at 6:20-38, and that:
`
`“[t]he buyer-authorized user can then browse the catalog database by
`
`selecting (i.e. activating) nodes in the hierarchy and initiating database
`
`queries as previously described.”
`
`‘282 Patent at 6:20-38.
`
`30. Thus, rather any abstraction, based on my review of the specification
`
`context, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`the term, hierarchy, at least as the term is used in connection with constituent
`
`nodes that specify constraints and logical groupings to mean “an operative data
`
`structure that, in correspondence with browse-related activation of nodes thereof,
`
`specifies an organization imposed on items in a database.” It is my opinion that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “hierarchy” in this concrete and operative manner.
`
`
`
`–16–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`31.
`
`In forming my opinion, I have considered other usages elsewhere in
`
`the specification, as well the dictionary definition relied upon by the Board in its
`
`Institution Decision (see Exh. 3001) and do not find them to be inconsistent with
`
`the above construction of “hierarchy” as used in the ‘282 Patent claims.
`
`Nonetheless, and to the extent that the Board would consider a hierarchy, at least
`
`as the term is used in connection with constituent nodes that specify constraints
`
`and logical groupings, to merely represent items or to constitute nothing more than
`
`a conceptual framework, I disagree. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`understand the term hierarchy, as used in the claims of the ‘282 Patent to be
`
`merely a conceptual framework or representative.
`
`VI. Analysis of Claims
`
`32. Claims 11-20 recite specific implementations of a method of using
`
`and accessing a hierarchy operative in a computer system. The hierarchy
`
`represents items stored in a database, and the computer system may interact with
`
`the database to retrieve relevant items stored in the database.
`
`33.
`
`I have been advised that Petitioner seeks to characterize the Patent
`
`Owner’s original claims as nothing more than the abstract idea of organizing
`
`product-related data to facilitate catalog browsing. Relative to claims 11-20, I
`
`disagree.
`
`34.
`
`
`
`I have been advised that in an effort to meet the goals of a just,
`
`–17–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`speedy, and inexpensive adjudication (see 37 CFR § 42.1(b)), Patent Owner has
`
`elected to cancel original claims 1-10 of the ’282 Patent and substitute therefor
`
`four (4) amended claims 24-28. Based on a cursory review of issued claims 1-10
`
`and the foregoing construction of the term hierarchy, it is my opinion that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would find that they are concrete and not abstract at all.
`
`35. Relative to claims 11-20 and as described above, the recited hierarchy
`
`is operative in the method claims 11-20. Furthermore, the original claims do not
`
`preempt or completely monopolize an abstract idea of organizing product-related
`
`data to facilitate catalog browsing or an abstract idea of representing a plurality of
`
`items in a database hierarchically, because claims 11-20 include many specific
`
`details regarding the operational features provided by the hierarchy that allow for
`
`practical alternatives not embraced by claims 11-20.
`
`36. For example, the original claims require a specific hierarchy having
`
`two different types of nodes—a first portion type of node specifying one or more
`
`constraints and a second portion type of node specifying no constraints but rather
`
`establishing logical groupings defining subsets of items. Even assuming an
`
`abstract idea of “representing a plurality of items in a database hierarchically” was
`
`implicated, practical alternative applications of the alleged abstract idea need not
`
`include a hierarchy having the aforementioned two different types of nodes. For
`
`example, there are other useful alternative applications of a hierarchically
`
`
`
`–18–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`represented database that could include only the constraint specifying, first type of
`
`node and other useful applications that need not include constraint-specifying
`
`nodes of a hierarchy at all. Such example applications would be outside the scope
`
`of the claims and therefore demonstrate that the claims do not preempt all practical
`
`applications of the abstract idea, even of the abstract idea alleged by Petitioner.
`
`37.
`
`Indeed, the ‘282 Patent explicitly discusses different ways to represent
`
`a plurality of items stored hierarchically in a database. For example, using FIGs.
`
`1a, 1b and 1c the ‘282 Patent, itself, illustrates and describes a simple
`
`representation of a database organized in accordance with a “classification-
`
`category-vendor” hierarchy. See ‘282 Patent at 2:16-65. In reference to FIG. 1a,
`
`the ’282 Patent states that: “imposing this hierarchy requires that products be
`
`stored in the database along with values for each of these three attributes.” ‘282
`
`Patent, 2:19-21.
`
`38.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the database organized in accordance with a “classification-
`
`category-vendor” hierarchy does not include second type nodes that specify no
`
`constraints, as recited in the original claims. Furthermore, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand that, based on the specification’s description of
`
`practical implementations in which such a “database itself may be physically
`
`ordered hierarchically,” (‘282 Patent at 3:5-9) even the first type constraint-
`
`
`
`–19–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`specifying nodes need not be included in practical, alternative applications of the
`
`abstract idea on which the Board instituted, namely “representing a plurality of
`
`items in a database hierarchically.” Thus, the ‘282 Patent’s own description of a
`
`database organized in accordance with a “classification-category-vendor”
`
`hierarchy evidences a practical, alternative application that represents a plurality of
`
`items in a database hierarchically and would not be preempted by the specific, and
`
`indeed, meaningful limitations of the issued claims.
`
`39. Furthermore, the programming required to implement the method of
`
`using and accessing the hierarchy as set forth in claim 11, would not be simple, but
`
`rather requires intricate and detailed computer programming. For example, the
`
`hierarchy is representative of items stored in the database and further specifies a
`
`hierarchically-defined organization of the items.
`
`40.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find
`
`that the hierarchy is more than a conceptual framework that is representative of
`
`items stored in the database but rather is an operational feature that is used to
`
`provide a highly flexible yet concrete way in which to browse and retrieve relevant
`
`items stored in the database.
`
`41. For example, the nodes of the hierarchy specify an aggregation of
`
`constraints. According to the ‘282 Patent, the “constraints defin[e] a scope of the
`
`subset of items represented by each of the nodes.” (’282 Patent at 3:51-52).
`
`
`
`–20–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, the plurality of items stored in the database is apportioned into subsets,
`
`and each of the subsets is represented with a node in the hierarchy. The nodes of
`
`the hierarchy provide operational features that enable a particular subset of items
`
`matching the constraints specified by a particular node to be searched for in the
`
`database and retrieved.
`
`42. Additionally, the nodes of the hierarchy are operative to, in
`
`correspondence with (i) a user browse, (ii) activation of corresponding nodes and
`
`(iii) an aggregation of constraints expressed in the parentage of an activated node,
`
`derive an appropriate query that is executable to return particular items from the
`
`database.
`
`43. According to the ’282 Patent, “whenever a leaf node is selected (i.e.
`
`activated), the constraints specified by the leaf node and all of its ancestors are
`
`ANDed together (i.e. aggregated) into a single rule that is used to generate a single
`
`query on the catalog database. The search returns a set of catalog items the scope
`
`of which is dictated by the aggregated constraints … In one embodiment, the rule
`
`‘includes’ all items in the database that meet the aggregation of constraints.” ’282
`
`Patent at 5:21-32.
`
`44. The aggregation of constraints provides meaningful limitations that
`
`impose actual restrictions to determine which items stored in the database are to be
`
`represented by a functional node in the operative hierarchy. Thus, the constraints
`
`
`
`–21–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`serve as a real-world mechanism by the nodes to create an appropriate and specific
`
`rule that is communicated to the database.
`
`45. Accordingly, the nodes of the hierarchy are not merely “browsable”
`
`and representative of a subset of items stored in the database. Rather, the nodes
`
`provide a real-world function to facilitate the search for and retrieval of relevant
`
`items from the database in concrete ways. In particular, the nodes of the hierarchy
`
`may be used to transform from an input space in which nodes may be activated in
`
`correspondence with browse activity of a user to a functional output space in which
`
`a query is derived based on the activated node and an aggregation of node-
`
`specified constraints. In such an example, the constraints specified by an activated
`
`node are functionally used to derive a concrete query that is executable. The query
`
`is executable to return relevant items stored in the database. Thus, the hierarchy
`
`and its nodes are concrete and operative and, when used (e.g., as recited in claims
`
`11-20), provide tangible results.
`
`46.
`
`In an example in relation to claim 11, an application program may run
`
`on the application server, which may be in communication with a database server
`
`though a communications bus. (See ’282 Patent at 6:1-4). As explained in the
`
`’282 Patent, “[f]or each leaf node activated during the browse process, the
`
`application aggregates the constraints specified by the leaf node and all of its
`
`ancestors into a single ‘include’ rule. The application then derives a database
`
`
`
`–22–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`search query from the ‘include’ rule and communicates the query to the database
`
`server 9.” (’282 Patent at 6:20-25).
`
`47.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find
`
`that the constraints specified by the nodes provide a concrete mechanism in which
`
`to facilitate and apply logical operations on the database. For example, the logical
`
`AND operation serves as a concrete, executable operation that is performed to
`
`create an appropriate and specific rule that may be communicated to the database.
`
`The items stored in the database are accessible through these derived queries that
`
`are based on concrete constraints specified by the activated node and nodes above
`
`the activated node in the hierarchy. (See ’282 Patent at 8:61-66). Thus, the
`
`hierarchy is a concrete, physical entity that provides increased efficiency in
`
`computer operations for browsing the database. In particular, the hierarchy
`
`provides tangible benefits that enable data stored in the database to be more easily
`
`accessed and retrieved.
`
`48.
`
`It is my further opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`find that the hierarchy imparts a concrete organization on the information stored in
`
`the database. The particular concrete organization may be different from the actual
`
`layout of the database and enables the user to browse the database through
`
`different navigational paths depending on the concrete organization. For example,
`
`the ’282 Patent describes an example embodiment in which “… the seller's
`
`
`
`–23–
`
`VERSATA-2003
`
`
`
`
`
`database is hierarchically flat and each product is represented by a unique SKU ID
`
`(identifier) in the catalog database.” (’282 Patent at 4:52-54). The ’282 Patent
`
`further states, “The database consisting of the data for each item can be flat (i.e. the
`
`database has no physical hierarchy such that all of the items are at the same level).
`
`In this case, items fall into a particular one of the terminal nodes of the hierarchy
`
`(i.e. a node having no children of its own) based on the attribute values that are
`
`ascribed to that node of the hierarchy.” (’282 Patent at 2:66-3:4).
`
`49. Some of the nodes of the hierarchy specify one or more constraints
`
`defining a scope of the subset of items represented by each of the nodes. The
`
`nodes are arranged in the hierarchy such that they may be a child and/or parent of
`
`another node. Further, “[e]ach node in the hierarchy inherits all of the constraints
`
`of its ancestors along with any of its own constraints, and the agg
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
