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 IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
` Versata Exh. 2004
` Volusion v. Versata
` CBM2013-00017
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................... 2 
`
`Level of Skill in the Art ................................................................................... 4 
`
`III.  The Subject Patent ........................................................................................... 5 
`
`IV.  Scope of Inquiry and Relevant Legal Standards ............................................. 8 
`
`V. 
`
`Proposed Claims for Motion to Amend ........................................................... 9 
`
`A.  Claim 24 (proposed substitute for original claim 1) ................................. 9 
`
`B.  Claim 25 (proposed substitute for original claim 2) ............................... 10 
`
`C.  Claim 26 (proposed substitute for original claim 3) ............................... 10 
`
`D.  Claim 27 (proposed substitute for original claim 5) ............................... 11 
`
`E.  Claim 28 (proposed substitute for original claim 6) ............................... 11 
`
`F.  Claim 29 (proposed substitute for original claim 11) ............................. 11 
`
`G.  Claim 30 (proposed substitute for original claim 12) ............................. 12 
`
`H.  Claim 31 (proposed substitute for original claim 13) ............................. 12 
`
`I.  Claim 32 (proposed substitute for original claim 15) ............................. 12 
`
`J.  Claim 33 (proposed substitute for original claim 16) ............................. 13 
`
`VI.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 13 
`
`VII.  Analysis of the Proposed Claims ................................................................... 17 
`
`VIII.  Support for the Proposed Claims ................................................................... 28 
`
`A.  Specification Support for Proposed Claim 24 ......................................... 29 
`
`B.  Specification Support for Proposed Claim 25 ......................................... 31 
`
`
`
`–ii–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`C.  Specification Support for Proposed Claim 26 ......................................... 31 
`
`D.  Specification Support for Proposed Claim 27 ......................................... 32 
`
`E.  Specification Support for Proposed Claim 28 ......................................... 32 
`
`F.  Specification Support for Proposed Claim 29 ......................................... 33 
`
`G.  Specification Support for Proposed Claim 30 ......................................... 35 
`
`H.  Specification Support for Proposed Claim 31 ......................................... 36 
`
`I.  Specification Support for Proposed Claim 32 ......................................... 36 
`
`J.  Specification Support for Proposed Claim 33 ......................................... 37 
`
`IX.  Declaration ..................................................................................................... 38 
`
`
`
`–iii–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT NETTLES IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER MOTION TO AMEND
`
`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.
`
`b.
`
`The documents listed above,
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims,
`
`
`
`–1–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`c.
`
`The relevant legal standards, including the standards for patent
`
`eligibility, and
`
`d. 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
`
`Computer Science. My dissertation was entitled “Safe and Efficient Persistent
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`principles applicable to the ‘282 Patent and the proposed claims of Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Amend is a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or Electrical and
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`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) in an 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 a user browse, with activation of corresponding nodes and with aggregation of
`
`constraints expressed in the parentage of an activated node, allows the computer
`
`system to derive an appropriate query that is executable to return particular items
`
`from the database.
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`16.
`
`In some embodiments described in the ‘282 Patent, a database stores
`
`items having attributes. A browse hierarchy represents, and specifies a
`
`hierarchically-defined organization of a plurality of items stored in the database.
`
`The browse hierarchy includes a plurality of nodes that are each representative of a
`
`subset of the items stored in the database. The nodes together specify an
`
`aggregation of constraints and are operative in an application server to, for a
`
`particular browse activated one of the nodes, derive a query executable to return
`
`particular ones of the items stored in the database.
`
`17. These operative features are not at all abstract to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. I understand 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 proposed claims that I have reviewed specify,
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill, concrete systems and 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
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`18. The browse hierarchy contains two different types of nodes that are
`
`operatively employed in the proposed system and method claims. A first portion
`
`of the nodes of the browse hierarchy each specify one or more of the aggregatable
`
`constraints defining a scope of the corresponding subset of the items stored in the
`
`database represented by each node of the first portion relative to its respective
`
`parent node. A second portion of the nodes of the browse 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
`
`represented. Together, the nodes of the browse hierarchy, including constraint
`
`specifying and logical group defining nodes, impose an organization on items
`
`stored in the database. The nodes impose the 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, are a very specific
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`computational system mechanism by which a useful and easily maintained website
`
`may be implemented.
`
`IV. Scope of Inquiry and Relevant Legal Standards
`19.
`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 proposed
`
`claims 24-33 (which are detailed below) which I understand are being proposed in
`
`these proceedings contingent upon a determination that original claims of the ‘282
`
`Patent are not statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Nothing herein shall
`
`be taken as directed to those original claims.
`
`20.
`
`I have also 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 technical features recited in the proposed claims. I understand
`
`that the patent statute provides that an applicant for “any new and useful process,
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, 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.
`
`21.
`
`I have 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,
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`abstract ideas, and natural phenomena. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
`
`Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). Relative to the proposed
`
`claims, I have been advised that neither the laws of nature nor the natural
`
`phenomena exception is implicated, rather (at least based on the tenor of
`
`Petitioner’s challenge of original claims of the ‘282 Patent) 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.
`
`V.
`
`Proposed Claims for Motion to Amend
`22.
`
`I have been informed that Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend presents
`
`substitute claims as listed in the claim chart that follows. Reference numbers are
`
`included for individual elements of the substitute claims for simplicity and ease of
`
`reference herein.
`
`A. Claim 24 (proposed substitute for original claim 1)
`
`Ref
`
`
`
`Substitute Claim 24
`
`–9–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`Substitute Claim 24
`
`
`
`24c
`
`Ref
`24a A system comprising:
`an application server; and
`a browse hierarchy used by the application server for representing, and
`specifying a hierarchically-defined organization of a plurality of items stored
`in a database, said browse hierarchy comprising:
`24b a plurality of nodes stored in non-transitory storage accessible to the
`application server and each representative of a subset of the items stored in
`the database, the nodes together specifying an aggregation of constraints and
`operative in the application server to, for a particular browse activated one of
`the nodes, derive a query executable to return particular ones of the items
`stored in the database; and wherein
`each of the nodes is a child of one other node, except for a root one of the
`nodes, which is a child of no other one of the nodes and is an ancestor of all
`of the nodes of the browse hierarchy;
`24d a first portion of the nodes of the browse hierarchy that each specify one or
`more of the constraints defining a scope of the corresponding subset of the
`items stored in the database represented by each node of the first portion
`relative to their respective parent node; and
`a second portion of the nodes of the browse hierarchy that specify no
`constraints, each of the nodes of the second portion instead establishing a
`logical grouping defining a scope of the subset of the items stored in the
`database represented by each respective node of the second portion.
`
`24e
`
`
`
`B. Claim 25 (proposed substitute for original claim 2)
`
`Substitute Claim 25
`The system, including the browse hierarchy, of claim [[1]] 24 wherein the
`nodes of the second portion of the browse hierarchy that instead establish
`respective logical groupings, in turn have one or more child nodes, each
`representative of some further constraint defined subset portion of the subset
`of the items that are logically grouped.
`
`Ref
`25
`
`
`
`C. Claim 26 (proposed substitute for original claim 3)
`
`Ref
`26
`
`Substitute Claim 26
`The system, including the browse hierarchy, of claim [[1]] 24 wherein the
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`Ref
`
`
`
`Ref
`27
`
`
`
`Substitute Claim 26
`scope of the items represented by each browse activated one of the nodes is
`constrained by [[an]] the aggregation of any constraints specified by the
`particular browse activated node and all of its ancestors.
`
`D. Claim 27 (proposed substitute for original claim 5)
`
`Substitute Claim 27
`The system, including the browse hierarchy, of claim [[4]] 26 wherein the
`aggregation of constraints comprises formulation of a search rule from which
`the application server derives and communicates to the database the
`executable query and thereby retrieves and returns a subset of catalog
`information that includes unique identifiers for all of the items stored in the
`database that meet the aggregation of constraints.
`
`E. Claim 28 (proposed substitute for original claim 6)
`
`Substitute Claim 28
`Ref
`28a The system, including the browse hierarchy, of claim [[5]] 27 wherein: a
`third portion of the nodes of the browse hierarchy are leaf nodes, each of the
`leaf nodes having no children; and
`said browse hierarchy operable in the system to, when used by the
`application server, determine the aggregation of constraints and operable to
`generate the search rule for each leaf node of the third portion in response to
`activation of the respective leaf node.
`
`28b
`
`
`
`F. Claim 29 (proposed substitute for original claim 11)
`
`Substitute Claim 29
`Ref
`29a A method of representing a plurality of items stored in a database
`hierarchically, each of the items associated with one or more attributes, each
`of the attributes having one or more values, said method comprising:
`29b apportioning the plurality of items stored in the database into subsets;
`29c
`representing each of the subsets with a node in a browse hierarchy,
`29d
`said browse hierarchy representing and specifying a hierarchically-defined
`organization of the plurality of items stored in the database,
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`Ref
`29e
`
`29f
`
`29g
`
`Substitute Claim 29
`the nodes together specifying an aggregation of constraints and operative to,
`for a particular browse activated one of the nodes, derive a query executable
`to return particular ones of the items stored in the database,
`each of the nodes being a child of one other node, except for a root one of the
`nodes, which is a child of no other one of the nodes and is an ancestor of all
`of the nodes in the browse hierarchy;
`specifying one or more of the constraints for each node of a first portion of
`the nodes of the browse hierarchy, the constraints defining a scope of the
`corresponding subset of the items stored in the database represented by each
`node of the first portion relative to their respective parent node; and
`29h establishing a logical grouping of the items stored in the database for a
`second portion of the nodes of the browse hierarchy, the logical grouping
`defining a scope of the subset of items stored in the database represented by
`each respective node of the second portion of nodes, no constraints being
`specified for any of the second portion of the nodes.
`
`
`
`G. Claim 30 (proposed substitute for original claim 12)
`
`Substitute Claim 30
`The method of claim [[11]] 29 wherein the nodes of the second portion of the
`browse hierarchy that instead establish respective logical groupings, in turn
`have one or more child nodes, each representative of some further constraint
`defined subset portion of the subset of the items that are logically grouped.
`
`H. Claim 31 (proposed substitute for original claim 13)
`
`Substitute Claim 31
`The method of claim [[11]] 29 wherein the scope of the items represented by
`each browse activated one of the nodes is constrained by [[an]] the
`aggregation of any constraints specified by the particular browse activated
`node and all of its ancestors.
`
`I.
`
`Claim 32 (proposed substitute for original claim 15)
`
`Substitute Claim 32
`
`Ref
`30
`
`
`
`Ref
`31
`
`
`
`Ref
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`Substitute Claim 32
`Ref
`32 The method of claim [[14]] 31 wherein the aggregation of constraints
`comprises formulation of a search rule from which the executable query is
`derived, wherein the search rule is communicated to the database, and
`wherein a subset of catalog information that includes unique identifiers for all
`of the items stored in the database that meet the aggregation of constraints is
`retrieved and returned.
`
`
`
`J.
`
`Claim 33 (proposed substitute for original claim 16)
`
`Substitute Claim 33
`Ref
`33a The method of claim [[15]] 32 wherein: a third portion of the nodes of the
`browse hierarchy are leaf nodes, each of the leaf nodes having no children;
`and
`said browse hierarchy operable in the system to determine the aggregation of
`constraints and operable to generate the search rule for each leaf node of the
`third portion in response to activation of the respective leaf node.
`
`33b
`
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`23.
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’282
`
`Patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. It is my further understanding 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.
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`25. The ‘282 Patent does not provide a specific definition for “browse
`
`hierarchy.” However, proper meaning can be understood from the specification
`
`context in which “browse hierarchy” and like terms are 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 terminals 38 coupled to
`
`application server 8.” ‘282 Patent at 6:14-17 (emphasis added).
`
`26.
`
`In describing the constituent nodes of such a browse 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
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`27. 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
`
`query from the "include" rule and communicates the query to the database
`
`server 9. The database server 9 executes the query and retrieves the subset
`
`of the catalog data that meets the aggregated constraints for the leaf node
`
`activated during the browsing process. The database server 9 returns the
`
`subset of the catalog information in the form of a list of item SKUs 30 along
`
`with any ancillary marketing text or image data associated with each of the
`
`returned SKUs. In one embodiment, the data is presented for display on the
`
`user's terminal from which the browsing is conducted. where a user is
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`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 presented 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.
`
`28. 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
`
`a browse hierarchy, or hierarchy, at least as such terms are used in connection with
`
`constituent nodes that specify constraints and logical groupings to mean “an
`
`operative hierarchy 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 “browse hierarchy” in this concrete and operative
`
`manner.
`
`29.
`
`In forming my opinion, I have considered other usages of the term
`
`“hierarchy” elsewhere in the specification, as well the dictionary definition relied
`
`
`
`–16–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`upon by the Board in its Institution Decision (see Exh. 3001) and do not find them
`
`to be inconsistent with the above construction of “browse hierarchy” as used in the
`
`proposed claims. Nonetheless, and to the extent that the Board would consider a
`
`browse hierarchy, or hierarchy, at least as such terms are used in connection with
`
`constituent nodes that specify constraints and logical groupings to merely represent
`
`items or to constitute no more than a conceptual framework, I disagree. A person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the browse hierarchy, or
`
`hierarchy, as used in the proposed claims to be merely a conceptual framework or
`
`representative.
`
`VII. Analysis of the Proposed Claims
`30. The proposed claims recite specific implementations of a computer
`
`system including a database, a browse hierarchy including functionally descriptive
`
`nodes, and an application server in which the nodes are operative to derive a query
`
`executable that is executable to return particular items stored in the database. The
`
`proposed claims likewise recite a particular method of using the operative browse
`
`hierarchy.
`
`31.
`
`I understand 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 the proposed claims, I strongly
`
`disagree. As described above, the recited browse hierarchy is operative in the
`
`
`
`–17–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`systems and methods of the proposed claims. Furthermore, the proposed 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. The proposed claims do not
`
`preempt or completely monopolize the abstract idea because the proposed claims
`
`include many specific details regarding the implementation of the computer system
`
`and the operational features provided by the browse hierarchy.
`
`32. For example, the proposed claims require a specific browse 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
`
`instead establishing logical groupings defining subsets of items. Further, nodes of
`
`the second portion, in turn, may have child nodes representative of some further
`
`constraint defined subset portion of the subset of the items that are logically
`
`grouped. Even assuming an abstract idea of “representing a plurality of items in a
`
`database hierarchically” was implicated, practical 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 implementations of
`
`a hierarchically represented database that could include only the constraint
`
`specifying, first type of node and other useful implementations that need not
`
`include constraint-specifying nodes of a browse hierarchy at all. Such example
`
`
`
`–18–
`
`VERSATA-2004
`
`

`

`
`
`alternative implementations would be outside the scope of the proposed claims and
`
`therefore demonstrate that the proposed claims do not preempt all practical
`
`applications of the abstract idea(s) adopted by the Board or alleged by Petitioner.
`
`33.
`
`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