SFDC 1012
`SFDC 1012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`salesforce.com, inc.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`Applications In Internet Time LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case CBM: 2014-00168
`Patent U.S. 7,356,482
`______________________
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,356,482
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 AND
`§ 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`
`
`
`SFDC 1012
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Overview .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 2
`
`III. List of Documents Considered ........................................................................ 5
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`State of the Art ................................................................................................. 8
`
`VI. The ‘482 Patent .............................................................................................. 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Claims .......................................................................................... 17
`
`The Specification ................................................................................. 18
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 21
`
`Claim Construction.............................................................................. 23
`
`VII. Analysis ......................................................................................................... 28
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)) ........................... 28
`
`The ‘482 Patent Does Not Solve a Technological Problem
`Using a Technological Solution .......................................................... 29
`
`Indefinite Terms .................................................................................. 31
`
`Prior Art References ............................................................................ 36
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Peters ......................................................................................... 39
`
`Gordon....................................................................................... 41
`
`Haverstock ................................................................................ 42
`
`Pad++ ........................................................................................ 43
`
`Obviousness .............................................................................. 43
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`VIII. Compensation ................................................................................................ 46
`
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 46
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`I, Benjamin B. Bederson, hereby declare as follows.
`
`I.
`
`Overview
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) and otherwise competent to make
`
`this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of salesforce.com,
`
`inc. (“Salesforce”) for the above-captioned covered business method patent review.
`
`3.
`
`I have prepared this declaration in support of Salesforce’s petition for
`
`covered business method patent review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482 (“the ‘482
`
`Patent”). I understand that the ‘482 Patent resulted from U.S. Application No.
`
`09/797,488 (“the ‘488 application”), filed on March 1, 2001, naming Richard
`
`Frankland, Christopher M. Mitchell, Joseph D. Ferguson, Anthony T. Sziklai,
`
`Ashish J. Verma, Judith E. Popowski, and Douglas H. Sturgeon as the inventors.
`
`The ‘482 Patent issued on April 8, 2008, from the ‘488 application. I further
`
`understand that, according to USPTO records, the ‘482 Patent is currently assigned
`
`to Applications In Internet Time LLC (“AIT” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`4.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ‘482 Patent and
`
`considered each of the documents cited herein, in light of general knowledge in the
`
`art. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my experience in the relevant
`
`art and have also considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`prior to December 18, 1998, as discussed below.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`II. Background and Qualifications
`
`5.
`
`A detailed record of my professional qualifications, including a list of
`
`publications, awards, and professional activities, is summarized below.
`
`6.
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Computer Science Department and
`
`the Institute of Advanced Computer Studies at the University of Maryland, College
`
`Park. I also currently serve as Associate Provost of Learning Initiatives and
`
`Executive Director of the Teaching and Learning Transformation Center.
`
`7.
`
`From June 2000 to September 2006, I was the Director of the Human-
`
`Computer Interaction Lab (HCIL) at the University of Maryland. Before coming
`
`to the University of Maryland in 1998, I was an Assistant Professor in the
`
`Computer Science Department at the University of New Mexico, where my
`
`research included work on user interfaces. I have Doctorate and Master’s degrees
`
`in computer science from New York University.
`
`8.
`
`At UMD, I work in the area of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), a
`
`field that relates to the development and understanding of computing systems to
`
`serve user’s needs. Researchers in this field are focused on making universally
`
`usable, useful, efficient and appealing systems to support people in their wide
`
`range of activities. My approach is to develop innovative technology that serves
`
`people’s practical needs. Example systems following this approach that I have
`
`built include PhotoMesa (software for end users to browse personal photos stored
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`in a database), DateLens (software for end users to use their mobile devices to
`
`efficiently access their calendar information), SpaceTree (software for end users to
`
`efficiently browse very large hierarchies), and Pad++ (an application development
`
`platform utilizing zoomable user interfaces).
`
`9.
`
`I hold a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in computer science. I also earned an
`
`undergraduate minor in electrical engineering. I received the Janet Fabri Memorial
`
`Award for Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation for my Ph.D. work in robotics and
`
`computer vision. I have combined my hardware and software skills throughout my
`
`career in HCI research building various interactive electrical and mechanical
`
`systems that couple with software to provide an innovative user experience.
`
`10.
`
`I have published extensively with about 140 technical publications. I
`
`have given 80 invited talks, including 7 keynote lectures.
`
`11.
`
`I have been honored by numerous organizations in the field of HCL. I
`
`have won a number of awards including the Brian Shackel Award for “outstanding
`
`contribution with international impact in the field of HCI” in 2007, and the Social
`
`Impact Award in 2010 from the Association for Computer Machinery’s (“ACM”)
`
`Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction (“SIGCHI”). ACM is the
`
`primary international professional community of computer scientists and SIGCHI
`
`is the primary international professional HCI community
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`12.
`
`I am an “ACM Distinguished Scientist” which “recognizes those
`
`ACM members with at least 15 years of professional experience and 5 years of
`
`continuous Professional Membership who have achieved significant
`
`accomplishments or have made a significant impact on the computing field.” I am
`
`also a member of the “CHI Academy,” which is “an honorary group of individuals
`
`who have made substantial contributions to the field of human-computer
`
`interaction. These are the principal leaders of the field, whose efforts have shaped
`
`the disciplines and/or industry, and led the research and/or innovation in human-
`
`computer interaction. The criteria for election to the CHI Academy are: 1)
`
`Cumulative contributions to the field; 2) Impact on the field through development
`
`of new research directions and/or innovations; and 3) Influence on the work of
`
`others.
`
`13.
`
`I have appeared on public radio numerous times to discuss issues
`
`relating to user interface design and people’s use and frustration with common
`
`technologies, websites, and mobile devices. My work has been discussed and I
`
`have been quoted in mainstream media around the world over 100 times including
`
`the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Newsweek, the
`
`Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Independent, Le Monde, NPR’s All Things
`
`Considered, New Scientist Magazine, and MIT’s Technology Review.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`14.
`
`I have designed, programmed and publicly deployed dozens of user-
`
`facing software products which have cumulatively had millions of users.
`
`15.
`
`I have worked as an expert in several legal matters as a consulting
`
`expert, a fact witness, and an expert witness. I have written expert reports, had my
`
`deposition taken, and provided testimony during arbitration.
`
`III. List of Documents Considered
`
`16.
`
`In formulating my opinion, I have considered the following:
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`SFDC 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482 to Frankland et al.
`
`SFDC 1002 Publicly available file history of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`SFDC 1003 Kathleen Peters, “The Design of A Change Notification Server
`for Clients Of a Passive Object-Oriented Database Management
`System” (July 1992)
`
`SFDC 1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,243,717 to Gordon et al.
`
`SFDC 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,064,977 to Haverstock et al.
`
`SFDC 1006 Benjamin B. Bederson, James D. Hollan, Ken Perlin, Jonathan
`Meyer, David Bacon, and George Furnas, Pad++: A Zoomable
`Graphical Sketchpad For Exploring Alternate Interface Physics,
`Journal of Visual Languages and Computing (1996)
`
`SFDC 1007 Benjamin B. Bederson, James D. Hollan, Jason Stewart, David
`Rogers, Allison Druin, David Vick, A Zooming Web Browser, in
`Proceedings of SPIE Conference on Multimedia Computing and
`Networking, 1996
`
`SFDC 1008 Claim Chart of Peters to the to the ‘482 Patent
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`SFDC 1009 Claim Chart of Gordon to the ‘482 Patent
`
`SFDC 1010 Claim Chart of Haverstock to the ‘482 Patent
`
`SFDC 1011 Claim Chart of Pad++ to the ‘482 Patent
`
`SFDC 1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,615,258 to Barry et al.
`
`SFDC 1014 U.S. Patent No. 6,341,287 to Frankland et al.
`
`SFDC 1015 H. Balzert, F. Hofmann, V. Kruschinski, & C. Niemann, The
`JANUS Application Development Environment-Generating More
`than the User Interface, in CADUI (Vol. 96) (1996)
`
`SFDC 1016 U. Dayal, Active Database Management Systems, in JCDKB
`(June 1998)
`
`SFDC 1017 G.E. Krasner & S.T. Pope, A description of the model-view-
`controller user interface paradigm in the smalltalk-80 system,
`Journal of Object Oriented Programming, 1(3), 26-49 (1988).
`
`SFDC 1018 P. Szekely, Retrospective and Challenges for Model-Based
`Interface Development, in Design, Specification and Verification
`of Interactive Systems ’96 (1996)
`
`J. Zubowski, Java AWT Reference (Vol. 3) (March 1997)
`
`SFDC 1020 Christian Janssen et al., Generating User Interfaces from Data
`Models and Dialogue Net Specifications (1993)
`SFDC 1021 Excerpts from Computer User’s Dictionary (Microsoft Press
`1998)
`SFDC 1022 Excerpt from Dictionary of Computing (Oxford Science
`Publications 1986)
`SFDC 1024 Excerpts from the IBM Dictionary of Computing (1998)
`
`//
`//
`//
`//
`
`SFDC 1019
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is a
`
`hypothetical person who is used to analyzing the prior art without the benefit of
`
`hindsight. I further understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed
`
`to be one who thinks along the lines of conventional wisdom in the art and is not
`
`one who undertakes to innovate, whether by extraordinary insights or by patient
`
`and often expensive systematic research.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill is presumed
`
`to have knowledge of all references that are sufficiently related to one another and
`
`to the pertinent art, and to have knowledge of all arts reasonably pertinent to the
`
`particular problem that the claimed invention addresses.
`
`19. Considering these factors in the context of the claims and the
`
`specification of the ‘482 Patent, a POSITA in the 1998 time frame would have had
`
`the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in computer science with two years of work
`
`or research experience relating software for data processing and analysis functions.
`
`20. My opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`claimed inventions is based on the various approaches to software for data
`
`processing and analysis functions employed in the prior art, the type of problems
`
`encountered, and the rapidity with which innovations were made. I also considered
`
`the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background and
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`experience of those actively working in the field. Finally, I placed myself back in
`
`the relevant time period, and considered the engineers and scientists that I had
`
`taught and worked with in computer software industry.
`
`21. Throughout this declaration I describe my understanding of certain
`
`legal standards. I have been informed of these legal standards by Salesforce’s
`
`attorneys. I am not an attorney and I am relying only on instructions from
`
`Salesforce’s attorneys for these legal standards.
`
`V.
`
`State of the Art
`
`22. By November 1998, all of the essential elements of the ‘482 Patent
`
`were well known, individually and collectively. Several of the claimed limitations,
`
`such as browser applications and providing a user interface to the user, were such a
`
`basic part of software systems that they are not worth discussing in further detail.
`
`Others, such as dynamic user interface generation and notification systems, may
`
`seem more unique, but in fact were also very well known in the art.
`
`23. Dynamic UI Generation. When Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs)
`
`were initially developed, programmers would typically create them by manually
`
`writing the code for the GUIs. However, it quickly became apparent that it would
`
`often be more efficient to dynamically generate the GUI from a database or other
`
`data description language. By the mid-1990s, this basic insight resulted in a rich
`
`research field of dynamic user interface generation. By 1996, the field was mature
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`enough that a paper was written that reflected on the first ten years of development
`
`of the field, which noted “Research on model-based user interface development
`
`tools is about 10 years old.” (SFDC 1018, at Abstract).
`
`24. Numerous references from this time period describe systems that
`
`implemented dynamic user interface generation. For example, in 1993, Janssen
`
`described GENIUS, or GENerator for user Interfaces Using Software ergonomic
`
`rules. (See SFDC 1020). As shown in the paper’s first figure, there were multiple
`
`software layers that generated a user interface based on an underlying data model.
`
`The system is described as follows: “Animated user interfaces for database-
`
`oriented applications are generated from an extended data model and a new
`
`graphical technique for specifying dialogues.” (SFDC 1020, at Abstract).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`
`25. Another example was the JANUS system, described as follows: “The
`
`JANUS-system was capable of generating and animating a graphical user interface
`
`from an OOA model using the capabilities of an UIMS. The advanced system now
`
`produces the user interface, the code frame for the application domain, the
`
`database schema, further services (e.g., a help system, printing facility) and ‘last
`
`but not least’ the connection between all these parts. The starting point is still an
`
`OOA-Model.” (SFDC 1015, at 185).
`
`26. The following two figures from the Balzert paper show a simple
`
`example with an underlying data model and the generated user interface. The
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`paper goes on to describe more complex models and how the user interface is
`
`generated and connected back to the model.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`27. There are also numerous commercial examples where the content of a
`
`user interface is generated dynamically from a database. For example, prior art
`
`calendaring and email systems loaded the data to display within the GUI from a
`
`database, and dynamically generated the actual GUI display based on that data.
`
`Microsoft Outlook 97 was one widely used email system that displayed email
`
`loaded from a database.
`
`(Microsoft Outlook 97 (http://screenshots.modemhelp.net/screenshots/
`
`Microsoft_Office/Outlook_97/Client/Mail/Inbox.shtml))
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`28. Events & Notifications. A basic design principle of software
`
`engineering is that each component of a system should be as independent as
`
`possible. That is, it should be possible to modify and update one component
`
`without having to change the other components of the system. This design
`
`approach makes large systems much more easily maintainable.
`
`29. A common required functionality in such complex systems is that a
`
`given component needs to be aware when some attribute of another component
`
`changes. A core approach to supporting this “separation of concerns” is to define
`
`an “event model.” The idea is that one component enables other components to
`
`register to be notified when the first component changes. Then, when the change
`
`occurs, the first component fires an event which results in the second component
`
`that registered for those events being notified of the change.
`
`30. This event model has been common throughout software systems for
`
`decades. An example of a particularly well-known use of the event model was
`
`used in the Java programming language that came out in 1997. As part of the
`
`Abstract Windowing Toolkit (or AWT), Java’s event model was used by thousands
`
`of software developers around the world. A 1997 reference book described the
`
`AWT event model as follows:
`
`Java 1.1 implements a ‘delegation’ model, in which events are
`distributed only to objects that have been registered to receive the
`event. While this is somewhat more complex, it is much more
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`efficient and also more flexible, because it allows any object to
`receive the events generated by a component. In turn, this means that
`you can separate the user interface itself from the event-handling
`code.”
`
`(SFDC 1019, at 94 (http://oreilly.com/openbook/javawt/book/)).
`
`The new model requires objects be registered to receive events. Then,
`only those objects that are registered are told when the event actually
`happens. This new model is called ‘delegation’; it implements the
`Observer-Observable design pattern with events. It is important in
`many respects. In addition to being much more efficient, it allows for
`a much cleaner separation between GUI components and event
`handling.
`
`(Id. at 116).
`
`31.
`
`Java’s event model was not a new approach to software architecture,
`
`but rather was an implementation of a well-known approach called Model-View-
`
`Controller (MVC) that was developed as part of the 1980 Smalltalk programming
`
`language. MVC defined a “model” that that would notify listeners of changes to
`
`the model. The figure below from a 1988 review article shows the flow of events.
`
`I have seen variations of this model used ever since in just about every modern
`
`GUI system.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(See SFDC 1017).
`
`32. The 1992 thesis by Peters that I opine anticipates the ‘482 Patent itself
`
`builds on earlier database event notification systems. For example, a cited 1988
`
`paper describes “Active database management systems attempt to provide both
`
`modularity and timely response, by allowing event-condition-action rules to be
`
`specified declaratively; when events of interest occur, they efficiently evaluate the
`
`corresponding conditions, and if these conditions are satisfied, they trigger the
`
`corresponding actions.” (SFDC 1016, at Abstract).
`
`33.
`
`In other words, the idea of having general change-based notification
`
`systems was known and practiced throughout the field of computer science going
`
`back at least to the early 1980s.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`34. Given this state of the art, it would be standard practice for a POSITA
`
`to integrate these technologies in the solution of any system that they were
`
`attempting to build. Thus it is not surprising that the specific prior art I reference
`
`in this declaration anticipates or makes obvious the ‘482 Patent.
`
`VI. The ‘482 Patent
`
`35.
`
`I understand that this declaration is being submitted together with a
`
`petition for covered business method patent review of claims 1-21, 23-26, 28, 29,
`
`and 30, 40-59 of the ‘482 Patent.
`
`36.
`
`I have considered the disclosure of the ‘482 Patent in light of the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA as of December 18, 1998.
`
`37. The ‘482 Patent, entitled “Integrated Change Management Unit,”
`
`issued on April 8, 2008, from U.S. Application No. 09/797,488. The named
`
`inventors of the ‘482 Patent are Richard Frankland, Christopher M. Mitchell,
`
`Joseph D. Ferguson, Anthony T. Sziklai, Ashish J. Verma, Judith E. Popowski, and
`
`Douglas H. Sturgeon.
`
`38. Generally, the specification of the ‘482 Patent discusses the problem
`
`of maintaining enterprise database systems in industries where regulatory
`
`compliance is an ongoing or reoccurring concern. The ‘482 Patent states that a
`
`problem in the prior art “with any database that frequently changes is maintenance
`
`of the database as current. Where a database depends upon the current regulatory
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`state . . . continual reprogramming of the database software is required to reflect a
`
`constant stream of changes. This approach is not cost effective and, in effect,
`
`mortgages the database maintainer’s future.” (SFDC 1001, at Col. 8:1-8). As
`
`discussed below, as of the date of invention, this was not a new problem and a
`
`number of solutions to this problem already existed in the art before December 18,
`
`1998.
`
`A. The Claims
`
`39. The claims of the ‘482 Patent are directed to monitoring, detecting,
`
`and implementing changes in relevant information in the context of an application
`
`generated from information stored in a database.
`
`40. Claims 1, 21, and 41 are independent claims drawn to a system,
`
`method, and apparatus, respectively.
`
`41. Claims 1, 21, and 41 each require: (1) a “layer” of a server containing
`
`information about unique aspects of a particular application; a “layer” of a server
`
`containing information about user interface elements and one or more functions
`
`common to various applications and including the particular application; a “layer”
`
`of a server that “retrieves” other information to generate an application and user
`
`interface; a “layer” of a server or a method step that detects changes that affect an
`
`application, and the dynamic generation or regeneration of an application and its
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`user interface when a client device connects to a server computer or the means for
`
`doing so.
`
`42. Claims 22 through 40 appear to be the method step analogues of
`
`system claims 2 through 20. Compared against one another, they appear to be
`
`substantially similar except with respect to claims 3 and 23. Claim 3, depending
`
`from claim 1, requires the “second layer” of claim 1 to comprise a “business
`
`content database having data about one or more different predetermined business
`
`applications.” In contrast, Claim 23, which depends from claim 21, requires a
`
`“first layer” comprising a “business content database having data about one or
`
`more different predetermined business applications.”
`
`43. Claims 42 through 59 are apparatus analogues to system claims 2
`
`through 6, and claims 7 through claims 20, as well as method claims 22 through 26
`
`and 28 through 40. Claim 43, like claim 23, requires “first layer” having a
`
`“business content database having data about one or more different predetermined
`
`business applications.”
`
`B.
`
`The Specification
`
`44. The specification of the ‘482 Patent describes a system that (1)
`
`provides one or more databases that contain information on operations and
`
`requirements concerning an activity or area of business; (2) monitors and evaluates
`
`the relevance of information on regulatory and non-regulatory changes that affect
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`operations of the business and/or information management requirements; (3)
`
`converts the relevant changes into changes in work/task lists, data entry forms,
`
`reports, data processing, analysis and presentation (by printing, electronic display,
`
`network distribution and/or physical distribution) of data processing and analysis
`
`results to selected recipients, without requiring the services of one or more
`
`programmers to re-program and/or re-code the software items affected by the
`
`change; and (4) implements receipt of change information and dissemination of
`
`data processing and analysis results using the facilities of a network, such as the
`
`Internet.
`
`45. The specification of the ‘482 Patent specifically notes that the
`
`invention disclosed therein “monitors, responds to, and incorporates changes in,
`
`federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations (referred to
`
`collectively herein as “regulations”) and changes in technology in one or more
`
`regulated areas of commercial activity, such as environmental health and safety
`
`(EH&S), and food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices and treatments
`
`(‘FDCMTD’).” (SFDC 1001, at Col. 9:10-15).
`
`46. The invention claimed in the ‘482 Patent may not be limited to steps
`
`performed on or components of computer systems. The specification notes that the
`
`“regulatory changes” monitored by the invention “are recorded and posted for
`
`reference in different media, including paper, microfiche and electronic media.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`The internet is one source of information on regulatory change that is both prompt
`
`and cost-effective.” (SFDC 1001, at Col. 10:22-27). In an embodiment, the
`
`specification further offers an exemplary “regulatory change” that is “posted in the
`
`Federal Register and becomes promptly available as a hard copy (paper) and
`
`electronically, on the Internet.” (SFDC 1001, at Col. 10:37-40).
`
`47. None of the claims of the ‘482 Patent mention anything about
`
`monitoring, responding to, and incorporating changes in federal, state, and local
`
`laws, statutes, ordinances, and regulations or changes in technology in one or more
`
`regulated areas of commercial activity, such as environmental health and safety or
`
`food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, and treatments.
`
`48. The specification of the ‘482 Patent specifically notes that the
`
`“invention begins tracking change using one or more intelligent agents (‘IA’s’).
`
`An ‘intelligent agent’ is a specialized program that resides on a network, or at a
`
`server as an applet, and can make decisions and perform tasks based on pre-
`
`defined rules.” (SFDC 1001, at Col. 10:41-47).
`
`49. Each independent claim and most of the dependent claims do not
`
`mention anything about tracking changes using one or more intelligent agents or
`
`specialized programs residing on a network, or at a server as an applet, that can
`
`make decisions and perform tasks based on pre-defined rules.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`50. Although each independent claim of the ‘482 Patent includes the
`
`“dynamic generation” of user interfaces and functionality, the specification of the
`
`‘482 Patent does not mention anything about “dynamic generation” or how it can
`
`be performed.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`51. The ‘488 application was filed on March 1, 2001, with 154 total
`
`pending claims and 9 independent claims. Claim 1 was canceled in a preliminary
`
`amendment also filed on March 1, 2001.
`
`52. On March 31, 2005, an Office Action rejected all 154 pending claims
`
`of the ‘488 application as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
`
`subject matter.
`
`53. Responsive to the Office Action of March 31, 2005, on June 15, 2005,
`
`the Applicant canceled pending claims 67-155 and retained claims 2-66.
`
`54. On August 31, 2005, an Office Action rejected pending claims 2-66 as
`
`unpatentable under 25 U.S.C. § 102. Pending claims 2-66 were rejected as being
`
`anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,960,200 to Eager et al. (“Eager”).
`
`55. Responsive to the Office Action of August 31, 2005, on November
`
`14, 2005, the Applicant filed responsive remarks disputing the Examiner’s
`
`rejection of claims 2-66 under Eager. The Applicant filed no amendments to the
`
`pending claims.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`56. On January 18, 2006, an Office Action rejected pending claims 2-66
`
`again as being anticipated by Eager.
`
`57. Responsive to the Office Action of January 18, 2006, on May 18,
`
`2006, the Applicant filed responsive remarks further disputing the Examiner’s
`
`rejection of claims 2-66 under Eager. The Applicant amended pending claim 2 to
`
`incorporate the subject matter of claims 3 and 10. The Applicant also amended
`
`pending claim 24 to incorporate the subject matter of claims 25 and 32. The
`
`Applicant also amended pending claim 46 to incorporate the subject matter of
`
`claims 48 and 54. Pending claims 3, 10, 25, 32, 47, and 52 were canceled. Other
`
`claims were amended to reflect new internal cross references in the claims.
`
`58. On September 5, 2006, an Office Action rejected pending claims 2, 4-
`
`9, 11-24, 26-31, 33-46, 48-52, and 54-66 as being anticipated by Eager.
`
`59. Responsive to the Office Action of September 5, 2006, on November
`
`22, 2006, the Applicant filed remarks disputing the Examiner’s rejection of
`
`pending claims 2, 4-9, 11-24, 26-31, 33-46, 48-52, and 54-66 as being anticipated
`
`by Eager.
`
`60. On February 28, 2007, an Office Action again rejected pending claims
`
`2, 4-9, 11-24, 26-31, 33-46, 48-52, and 54-66 as being anticipated by Eager.
`
`61. The Applicant filed a notice of appeal on May 29, 2007. An appeal
`
`brief was filed on August 28, 2007.
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`62. A Notice of Allowance was mailed on December 28, 2007. The
`
`notice of allowance did not include any substantive reasons or rationale for
`
`allowance, except f