UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EBAY ENTERPRISE, INC and EBAY INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`LAWRENCE B. LOCKWOOD
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case CBM2014-00026
`U.S. Patent No. 5,576,951
`____________________
`
`
`Lockwood’s Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`

`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Legal Framework ............................................................................................. 3
`II.
`III. The ’951 patent describes computer-implementable algorithms and actual
`structure corresponding to the claimed functions. ........................................... 8
`A.
`The specification describes a specific algorithm and actual structure to
`implement “means for interrelating said textual and graphical
`information,” satisfying the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. §
`112, ¶ 2. ................................................................................................. 9
`1.
`The ’951 patent describes an algorithm that converts a general-
`purpose computer into a special-purpose computer
`corresponding to the interrelating-textual-and-graphical-
`information function. ................................................................11
`The ’951 patent describes actual structure corresponding to the
`interrelating-textual-and-graphical-information function. ........21
`The ’951 patent provides a nexus between the claimed
`“interrelating” function and the description of the algorithm and
`structure that implements that function. ...................................27
`The specification describes a specific algorithm and actual structure to
`implement “indicating means,” satisfying the definiteness requirement
`of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. .......................................................................29
`1.
`The ’951 patent describes a display algorithm that converts a
`general purpose computer into a special-purpose computer
`corresponding the indicating-a-pathway function. ...................31
`The ’951 Patent describes actual structure corresponding to the
`indicating-a-pathway function ..................................................36
`The ’951 patent provides a nexus between the claimed
`“indicating” function and the description of the algorithm and
`structure that implements that function. ...................................40
`IV. The Board should enter a final decision that the ’951 patent’s claims are not
`indefinite because eBay has not submitted the expert-witness testimony that
`’951 patent failed to describe sufficient corresponding structure for its
`claimed “interrelating” and “indicating” functions. .....................................42
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Cases
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty. Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999) .....................................................................................................5, 7
`
`Augme Technologies v. Yahoo, Inc., 2014 WL 2782019 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................ 4
`
`Creo Products, Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 305 F. 3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................... 6
`
`Elcommerce.com v. SAP AG, 745 F.3d 490 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....... 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 43, 45
`
`Finisar v. DirectTV, 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................ 6
`
`In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................... 8
`
`Levine v. Samsung Telecommunications Am., LLC, 2012 WL 383647 ..................... 7
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014) ............................. 3
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Abb, Inc., 2012 WL 3112302 .......................................................2, 7
`
`Stanacard, LLC v. Rebtel Networks, AB, 680 F.Supp.2d 483 (S.D.N.Y.
`2010) ................................................................................................................ 7
`
`Typhoon Touch Technologies v. Dell Inc., 659 F. 3d 1376, 1385 (Fed.
`Cir. 2011). ........................................................................................................ 3
`
`W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir.
`1983) ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..............5, 7
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................. 3, 9, 21, 29, 35, 46
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) .................................................................................................42
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 ......................................................................................................44
`
`
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`The Board instituted this covered-business-method patent review on the
`
`single question whether all claims of the ’951 patent are indefinite. The Board’s
`
`decision is premised on its finding that two means-plus-function terms of the ’951
`
`patent, more likely than not, lack a description of sufficient corresponding
`
`structure—particularly adequate corresponding algorithms programmed to be
`
`performed by a general purpose computer. The two relevant means-plus-function
`
`terms are:
`
`• “means for interrelating said textual and graphical information,” and
`
`• “indicating means for indicating a pathway that accesses
`
`information.”
`
`Here, Lockwood provides three independent reasons why the Board should enter a
`
`final decision confirming the patentability of the ’951 patent’s claims as not
`
`indefinite.
`
`First, the patent describes specific algorithms programmed to be performed
`
`by a general-purpose computer. Significantly, Lockwood’s showing on these issues
`
`is supported with expert-witness testimony. (Ex. 2022.)
`
`Second, the eBay incorrectly limited its analysis of indefiniteness to whether
`
`the ’951 patent disclosed sufficient corresponding algorithms for performance on a
`
`general-purpose computer. But the ’951 describes actual corresponding structure—
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`not merely a general-purpose computer—that performs the claimed function.1
`
`Specifically, the ’951 patent describes a PROM2—literally a fixed hardware circuit
`
`—that performs both the interrelating and the indicating functions. Actual
`
`structure, including circuits, has uniformly been held to satisfy the definiteness
`
`requirement for a means-plus-function term. Again, unlike eBay’s lack of extrinsic
`
`evidence, Lockwood provides actual extrinsic evidence lacking in the petition -
`
`expert-witness testimony from Dr. Earl Sacerdoti. (Ex. 2022.)
`
`
`1 See, e.g., SIPCO, LLC v. Abb, Inc., 2012 WL 3112302 at 29 (E.D.Tex. July
`
`30, 2012) (finding that a “site controller” “made of general purpose computer
`
`components” was not a general purpose computer but instead “defined adequate
`
`physical structure such that a [POSA] could determine the metes and bounds of the
`
`claim term.”)
`
`2 See Ex. 2024 (stating “PROM is a field-programmable read-only memory
`
`which is constructed with all possible memory values present. Each, outcome is
`
`connected to a fused link which can be opened by injecting a current into the
`
`memory cell . Once the fused link is opened, the program is set and the action of a
`
`PROM is that of a standard ROM. The advantage is that the user can program each
`
`PROM to fit a specific application and still retain the advantage of using several of
`
`the same components in a system.”).
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`Third, eBay’s petition omits any extrinsic evidence of how a skilled artisan
`
`would have understood the claims or the intrinsic evidence, including the
`
`specification. This omission is decisive because evidence as to the perspective of a
`
`skilled artisan is necessary to find that a means-plus-function term is indefinite for
`
`lacking sufficient corresponding structure. See Elcommerce.com v. SAP AG, 745
`
`F.3d 490, 506 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Typhoon Touch Technologies v. Dell Inc., 659 F.
`
`3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Without this basic evidence, the record of this
`
`covered-business-method patent proceeding cannot, as a matter of law, support any
`
`finding of indefiniteness.
`
`II. Legal Framework
`For 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2, the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the patent application governs the definiteness analysis. W.L.
`
`Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1556–57 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`“[A] means-plus-function clause is indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with
`
`the corresponding function in the claim.” Elcommerce.com, 745 F.3d at 501.3 The
`
`3 The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nautilus v. Biosig should not affect
`
`the analysis of whether a means-plus-function limitation is supported by sufficient
`
`corresponding structure. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120
`
`(2014). The Nautilus decision altered the prior insolubly-ambiguous standard for
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`patent need only disclose sufficient structure for a person of skill in the art to
`
`provide an operative software program for the specified function. Id. Therefore, the
`
`detail that must be provided “depends on the subject matter that is described and its
`
`role in the invention as a whole, in view of the existing knowledge in the field of
`
`the invention.” Id.
`
`And a finding that a means-plus-function term is indefinite must generally
`
`be supported with evidence that a skilled artisan reading the patent at the time of
`
`the invention would have understood it lacked structure corresponding to the
`
`claimed functions.4 See Typhoon Touch Technologies v. Dell Inc., 659 F. 3d 1376,
`
`
`indefiniteness, substituting a new reasonably-certain test. The issue here concerns
`
`the proper test for means-plus-function claims. The Federal Circuit addressed the
`
`proper test for means-plus-function in two recent post-Nautilus cases, neither of
`
`which cite Nautilus on this issue. Augme Technologies v. Yahoo, Inc., 2014 WL
`
`2782019 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of America, 2014
`
`WL 2619546 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`4 The Federal Circuit has recognized only one circumstance where expert-
`
`witness testimony on the issue of adequate structure is not required: where the
`
`patent is completely devoid of any structure. See Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`1385 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The defendants have directed us to no evidence that a
`
`programmer of ordinary skill in the field would not understand how to implement
`
`this function.”); Elcommerce.com v. SAP AG, 745 F.3d 490, 506 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(“Without evidence, ordinarily neither the district court nor this court can decide
`
`whether, for a specific function, the description in the specification is adequate
`
`from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.”)
`
`A patent may satisfy the requirement to describe corresponding structure in
`
`two ways that are relevant here. First, for a function performed on a general-
`
`purpose computer, a means-plus-function limitation is not indefinite if the patent
`
`describes and links an algorithm to the claimed function. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l
`
`Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Second, the patent may
`
`describe actual structure, such as an ASIC. See, e.g., Atmel Corp. v. Information
`
`Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that the disclosure
`
`of circuit in the title “On-Chip High Voltage Generation in NMOS Integrated
`
`Circuits” was enough of a disclosure for the “high voltage generating means” for
`
`the claim not to be indefinite).
`
`
`F.3d 1302, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Lockwood shows below Section III.A1 and
`
`III.B1 that this exceptional circumstance is not present here.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`Algorithm has a broad meaning in this context. The patentee is “not
`
`required to produce a listing of source code or a highly detailed description of the
`
`algorithm to be used to achieve the claimed functions in order to satisfy” the
`
`definiteness requirement. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty. Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`
`521 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008); “this court permits a patentee to express that
`
`algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in
`
`prose…, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient
`
`structure.” Finisar v. DirectTV, 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008). And, the
`
`disclosure of structure can be “implicit” and rely on the knowledge of a skilled
`
`artisan to “flesh out a particular structural reference in the specification for the
`
`purpose of satisfying the statutory requirement of definiteness.” Creo Products,
`
`Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 305 F. 3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For computer-
`
`implemented inventions, it is standard to describe algorithms in “prose, diagrams,
`
`and flow charts.” Elcommerce.com, 745 F.3d at 503. And, a patent may omit
`
`information and knowledge possessed by persons of ordinary skill in the field of
`
`the invention. Id. “When the structure or acts that perform the function “would be
`
`‘well within the skill of persons of ordinary skill in the art,’ such functional-type
`
`block diagrams may be acceptable and, in fact, preferable if they serve in
`
`conjunction with the rest of the specification to enable a person skilled in the art to
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`make such a selection and practice the claimed invention with only a reasonable
`
`degree of routine experimentation.”” Id. at 504.
`
`Where the corresponding structure is not a general purpose computer, and
`
`the patentee discloses actual physical structure, as in Atmel, the patentee need not
`
`also supply an algorithm because the definiteness requirement has already been
`
`met. Numerous courts have found the disclosure of adequate physical structure
`
`satisfies the definiteness requirement of means-plus-function claims. Atmel, 198
`
`F.3d at; SIPCO, LLC v. Abb, Inc., 2012 WL 3112302, at *28-31 (E.D. Tex. 2012)
`
`(holding that inclusion of a “site controller” “made up of general purpose computer
`
`components” as physical structure rendered means-plus-function claim sufficiently
`
`definite without triggering the algorithm requirement of WMS Gaming); Levine v.
`
`Samsung Telecommunications Am., LLC, 2012 WL 383647, at *19 (E.D. Tex.
`
`2012) (holding means-plus-function claim definite and finding no algorithm
`
`necessary where patentee disclosed “special purpose hardware” such as “video
`
`image signal transmitter”); Stanacard, LLC v. Rebtel Networks, AB, 680 F.Supp.2d
`
`483, 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding claim definite because the specification “does
`
`not point to some undefined software implemented on a general purpose computer
`
`as the corresponding structure for its functional claim limitations…[but] [r]ather
`
`[to]…a special purpose hardware device or software component, readily
`
`identifiable to a person of skill in the art...which can serve as the corresponding
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`structure for a means plus function limitation.”). However, the structure must do
`
`more than perform the identified function - the specification or prosecution history
`
`must provide a nexus, i.e. it must link or associate the structure with the function.
`
`In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`Here, the ‘951 patent meets the definiteness requirement in both respects: it
`
`discloses algorithms for performing the claimed functions, and discloses actual
`
`physical structure that a person of ordinary skill on the art would readily recognize
`
`as more than a general purpose computer.
`
`
`
`III. The ’951 patent describes computer-implementable algorithms and
`actual structure corresponding to the claimed functions.
`
`The ’951 patent describes both computer-implementable algorithms and
`
`actual structure for performing the claimed functions.5 Lockwood presents
`
`substantial evidence showing that a POSA would have been able to recognize the
`
`structure in the specification and associated it with the corresponding function in
`
`the claim. Elcommerce.com, 745 F.3d at 501; (Ex. 2022) (“Sacerdoti Decl.”).
`
`
`5 Lockwood provides only some representative, non-exhaustive examples of
`
`the support found throughout the specification and figures of the ’951 patent
`
`demonstrating the challenged claim terms are not indefinite.
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`Lockwood’s expert, Dr. Sacerdoti, has “studied and practiced in the field of
`
`computer science for over 40 years.” (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 7.) After
`
`reviewing the specification and the prosecution history of the ’951 Patent, Dr.
`
`Sacerdoti explained that a POSA would have known and understood the structure
`
`that corresponds to the claimed function for each of the challenged claim terms,
`
`satisfying the definiteness requirement.
`
`The Board should find that eBay has not satisfied its burden of proving by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claim terms are indefinite.
`
`A. The specification describes a specific algorithm and actual
`structure to implement “means for interrelating said textual and
`graphical information,” satisfying the definiteness requirement of
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
`
`The specification describes both (i) an algorithm to transform a general
`
`purpose computer into a specific purpose computer configured to perform the
`
`function of “interrelating said textual and graphical information” and (ii) actual
`
`structure: a sequencer and PROM in FIG. 4 and a modem, DMA, and RAM
`
`memory in FIG. 5, associated with and configured to perform the function of
`
`“interrelating said textual and graphical information.” (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 38-46, 50-61.)
`
`CHART CC1 of the Sacerdoti Declaration (reproduced below) shows in
`
`summary form that the ’951 patent satisfies the definiteness requirement for the
`
`“means for interrelating.”
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`Claim Element Function
`
`Algorithm
`
`Corresponding
`
`Structure
`
`Means for
`
`interrelate
`
`1. Receiving selection
`
`Sequencer 17;
`
`interrelating
`
`textual and
`
`data from the user.
`
`PROM 16; Modem
`
`said textual and
`
`graphical
`
`2. Converting this
`
`115; DMA 116, and
`
`graphical
`
`information
`
`selection data into two
`
`RAM Memory 117
`
`information
`
`or more series of disk
`
`segment addresses.
`
`3. Retrieving inquiries
`
`from the second series
`
`of disk segments.
`
`4. Sending the inquiries
`
`to a reservation system
`
`5. Receiving textual
`
`answers back.
`
`6. Identifying narrative
`
`chapters from the data
`
`source that has been
`
`coded for video display
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`
`Claim Element Function
`
`Algorithm
`
`Corresponding
`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`Structure
`
`using the first series of
`
`disk segments.
`
`CHART CC1 of the Sacerdoti Declaration
`
`1.
`
`The ’951 patent describes an algorithm that converts a
`general-purpose computer into a special-purpose computer
`corresponding to the interrelating-textual-and-graphical-
`information function.
`
`The ’951 patent describes a specific algorithm corresponding to the
`
`interrelating-textual-and-graphical-information function. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent,
`
`9:57-10:9.) eBay overlooked a key part of the patent specification that describes a
`
`six-step algorithm to be implemented to transform a general purpose computer into
`
`a special-purpose computer to perform the claimed interrelating function. As Dr.
`
`Sacerdoti explains, a POSA would have understood that this algorithm corresponds
`
`to the interrelating function. (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 50.) In fact, the ’951
`
`patent describes that the algorithm’s output is interrelated textual and graphical
`
`information: “the sale of real estate properties would use interrelated textual and
`
`graphical information stored on videodisc 114.” (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 16:24-26)
`
`(emphasis added.)
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`The flowchart in FIG. 5 of the ’951 patent describes the algorithm used to
`
`interrelate textual and graphical information. Sacerdoti Fig. C-Flowchart of the
`
`Sacerdoti Declaration (reproduced below) illustrates the relation between an
`
`example algorithm disclosed in the ’951 patent and FIG. 5 of the ’951 patent.
`
`Specifically, FIG. 5 illustrates a six-step algorithm that uses the instructions on the
`
`PROM to create a sales presentation. (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 51.) Another
`
`example of this same algorithm is discussed with respect to FIG. 4.
`
`Sacerdoti Fig. C-Flowchart (Annotating Fig. 5 and 10:21-37 of the ’951 patent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`The flowchart in FIG. 5 of the ’951 patent, shown on the left-hand side of
`
`Dr. Sacerdoti’s Sacerdoti Fig. C-Flowchart illustrates a process to take data
`
`provided by the user and select and display the appropriate textual and graphical
`
`information to a sales presentation. (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 51.) First, the
`
`computer retrieves user data from input registers. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 10:23-24;
`
`9:58-61.) The computer converts this data into series of disk-segment addresses.
`
`(Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 9:65-10:3.) In this example, the second series of disk
`
`segments are binary-coded inquiries. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 10:26-27.) These are
`
`transmitted to an external data source, for example a reservation system, by the
`
`modem. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 10:27-28; Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 51.)
`
`Answers to these inquiries are received back from the external data source. (Ex.
`
`1008, ’951 patent, 10:28-29; Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 51.) In addition, the first
`
`set of disc segments are used to retrieve narrative data coded for video display.
`
`(Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 10:26-28.) Finally, the computer presents the narrative data
`
`and answers to the user as a sales presentation on the CRT. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent,
`
`10:5-9.)
`
`Sacerdoti Fig. C-Prose of the Sacerdoti Declaration (reproduced below)
`
`illustrates another example of where this algorithm, discussed below with respect
`
`to FIG. 4, is disclosed in the specification of the ’951 patent.
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`
`
`Sacerdoti Fig. C-Prose (Annotating 9:57-10:14 of the ’951 patent)
`
`The description of FIG. 4 discloses an exemplary six-step algorithm for
`
`interrelating textual and graphical information related to a topic selected by a user
`
`to create a sales presentation. (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶¶ 53-54.)
`
`In Sacerdoti Fig. C-Prose of the Sacerdoti Declaration, the left-hand side is
`
`a reproduction of column 9, line 57 to column 10, line 14 of the ’951 patent. The
`
`right hand side of the figure presents a six-step algorithm that a POSA would have
`
`understood to be described in the prose that corresponds to the “means for
`
`interrelating.” (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶¶ 53-54.) Each of the six steps is
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`
`addressed in turn below with respect to Sacerdoti Figs. C1-C6 of the Sacerdoti
`
`Declaration (also reproduced below).
`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`
`
`Sacerdoti Fig. C1 (Annotating 9:57-10:14 of the ’951 patent)
`
`The first step is to receive selection data from a user. (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti
`
`Decl., ¶ 55.) The terminal provides various topics that may be of interest to the
`
`user. (See Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 13:66-14:5.) The selection data, indicating a topic
`
`of interest to the user, can be entered either through a keyboard or a card reader.
`
`(Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 9:58-60.)
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`
`
`Sacerdoti Fig. C2 (Annotating 9:57-10:14 of the ’951 patent)
`
`The second step is to convert the selection data into series of disk-segment
`
`addresses, for example A POSA would have understood that these could be
`
`pointers to information in data source 9. (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 56.) For
`
`example, the selection data can be converted into disc segment addresses. (Ex.
`
`1008, ’951 patent, 9:65-10:3.) As discussed with regard to FIG. 5 of the ’951
`
`patent above, there are at least two series of disk segment addressed, one related to
`
`textual data and the other relating to graphical data. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 10:24-
`
`28.)
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`
`
`Sacerdoti Fig. C3 (Annotating 9:57-10:14 of the ’951 patent)
`
`The third step is to use a series of disk-segment addresses associated with
`
`textual data to retrieve inquiries from the data source. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 10:3-
`
`5.) As Dr. Sacerdoti stated, a POSA would have understood that these inquiries are
`
`related to the selection data retrieved in the first step. (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶
`
`57.)
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`Sacerdoti Fig. C4 (Annotating 9:57-10:14 of the ’951 patent)
`
`The fourth step is to send those inquiries to an external data source, such as a
`
`reservation station. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 10:4-5; Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶
`
`
`
`58.)
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`
`
`Sacerdoti Fig. C5 (Annotating 9:57-10:14 of the ’951 patent)
`
`The fifth step receives answers to the transmitted inquiries back from the
`
`external data source. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 10:5-6.) These answers will be textual
`
`in nature. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 10:13-14.) A POSA would have understood that
`
`the answers are textual information that are related to the selection data received
`
`from the user in the first step. (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 59.)
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`
`
`Sacerdoti Fig. C6 (Annotating 9:57-10:14 of the ’951 patent)
`
`The final step is to use another of the series of disk-segment addresses, this
`
`one associated with graphical information, to retrieve audio-visual narrative
`
`chapters from the data source. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 10:26-28 and 10:11-12.) As
`
`with the textual information in step 5, a POSA would have understood that this
`
`graphical information is related to the selection data received from the user. (Ex.
`
`2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 60.) Thus, having access to textual and graphical
`
`information related to the topic selected by the user, the system can now create a
`
`personalized sales presentation.
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`For the reasons discussed above the “means for interrelating” is definite
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. As Dr. Sacerdoti has explained, a POSA, reading the
`
`claims and the specification, would have understood that the patent linked actual
`
`structure and a computer-implementable algorithm to the claimed interrelating
`
`function. Therefore, the means-for-interrelating-textual-and-graphical-information
`
`claim phrase is not indefinite.
`
`2.
`
`The ’951 patent describes actual structure corresponding to
`the interrelating-textual-and-graphical-information
`function.
`
`In addition to specific algorithm, the ’951 patent links the claimed function
`
`of “interrelating textual and graphical information” with an actual structure that
`
`performs this function—a sequencer and PROM that generates disk segment
`
`addresses pointing to graphical information related to a topic selected by a user,
`
`along with a modem, DMA, and RAM memory that retrieve textual information
`
`related to the same topic. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 9:57-10:9; Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 38, 39). As Dr. Sacerdoti explains, a POSA would have understood this
`
`structure, sequencer 17 and PROM 16, corresponds to the claimed interrelating
`
`function. (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶40.) Indeed, after detailing this structure, the
`
`’951 patent describes that the structure’s output is interrelated textual and graphical
`
`information: “the sale of real estate properties would use interrelated textual and
`
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`graphical information stored on videodisc 114.” (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 16:24-26)
`
`(emphasis added.)
`
`The ’951 patent’s PROM and sequencer are not a general-purpose computer
`
`but comprise an actual structure under means-plus-function law. A POSA would
`
`have understood that a sequencer is a device that sequences through a collection of
`
`processor instructions in order. (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 41.) These
`
`instructions drive the PROM. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 9:67-10:2.) At the time of the
`
`invention, a PROM would have been configured by blowing fuses within the
`
`device to transform it into a specific digital circuit. As Dr. Sacerdoti explained, the
`
`PROM is programmed once and then permanently integrated into an electronic
`
`device. (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 41.) For example, the ’951 patent describes a
`
`PROM configured as a circuit that returns a set of instructions to access series of
`
`specific disc segment addresses in response to input from a sequencer and then
`
`integrated into the terminal. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 9:65-10:3; Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 41-42.)
`
`Not only does this structure employ a hard-wired PROM, it also uses a
`
`DMA to eliminate the need for the processor to access the RAM. A POSA would
`
`have understood that this placement of components alleviates the system bus
`
`congestion by offloading the modem’s communication with the RAM memory
`
`from the main system bus. (See Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 44.) Specifically, the
`
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`DMA allows the modem to store the received interrelated textual answers to the
`
`correct location in the RAM memory without requiring the microprocessor. Id.
`
`This allows the terminal to continue to address the user while waiting for and
`
`receiving answers from an external data source. Id.
`
`The ’951 patent not only describes how the PROM and sequencer are
`
`arranged but the actual steps they perform to interrelate textual and graphical
`
`information. The described sequencer and PROM generate disk-segment addresses
`
`pointing to graphical information related to a topic selected by a user along with a
`
`modem, DMA, and RAM memory that retrieve textual information related to the
`
`same topic. eBay, having assumed that the corresponding structure was a general
`
`purpose processor, failed to analyze any of the hardware disclosed in the ’951
`
`patent. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 9:57-10:14; see also Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., Fig.
`
`B and ¶¶ 48-49.)
`
`FIG. 4 and its description detail a system that presents options to a user,
`
`accepts a selection from the user, and uses that selection to create a sales
`
`presentation that uses textual and graphical information related to the user’s
`
`selection. (See Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 9:57-10:14.)
`
`Sacerdoti Fig. A1 (reproduced below) annotates FIG. 4 of the ’951 patent to
`
`show a corresponding structure highlighted in yellow.
`
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`
`
`Sacerdoti Fig. A1 (Annotating Fig. 4 and 9:57-10:9 of the ’951 patent)
`
`The generated addressing data, i.e., the disc-segment addresses, can be used
`
`to access information directly from a data source or retrieve information from an
`
`external data source. (Ex. 2022, Sacerdoti Decl., ¶ 43.) The ’951 patent describes
`
`how the generated instructions can be used to retrieve information directly from a
`
`data source. For example, in the system illustrated in FIG. 4, the instructions may
`
`use a portion of the generated disc-segment addresses to access audio-visual
`
`displayable narrative chapters directly from the data source. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent,
`
`10:10-14 and 26-28.) The instructions may also use portions of the generated data
`
`
`
`
`- 24 -
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00026
`
`segment addresses to retrieve inquiries to be sent to an external data source via a
`
`modem. (Ex. 1008, ’951 patent, 10:3-5 and 10:24-26.)
`
`The ’951 specification discloses how the DMA and RAM memory can be
`
`used in conjuncture with the modem to communicate with an external data source
`
`without hindering the data processor’s ability to c