UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`
`Ford Motor Company
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Versata Software, Inc.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,825
`
`CMB Case No.: 2016-00100
`
`______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DEBORAH L. McGUINNESS, Ph.D.
`
`Page 1 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Qualifications and professional experience ..................................................... 5
`
`III. Relevant legal standards .................................................................................. 9
`
`A.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ..................................................................................... 9
`
`IV. Qualifications of one of ordinary skill in the art ...........................................11
`
`V.
`
`Challenged claims of the ‘825 Patent and proposed claim
`constructions ..................................................................................................12
`
`VI. The ‘825 Patent claims cover what humans did before computers ...............12
`
`VII. Claims 1-20 of the ‘825 Patent could be performed by a human using
`only pen and paper .........................................................................................19
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 ....................................................19
`The dependent claims of the ‘825 Patent ............................................32
`
`VIII. Claims 16 and 20 of the ‘825 Patent are indefinite because their
`structure is directed to a special purpose computer programmed to
`implement an algorithm not disclosed in the ‘825 Patent .............................34
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 16 of the ‘825 Patent .................................................................34
`1.
`Claim 16 “means for receiving” limitation no. 1 ......................34
`2.
`Claim 16 “means for processing” limitation .............................37
`3.
`Claim 16 “means for predetermining” limitation .....................40
`4.
`Claim 16 “means for retrieving” limitation ..............................42
`5.
`Claim 16 “means for receiving” limitation no. 2 ......................44
`6.
`Claim 16 “means for prioritizing” limitation ............................46
`7.
`Claim 16 “means for providing” limitation ..............................49
`Claim 20 of the ‘825 Patent .................................................................51
`1.
`Claim 20 “means for receiving” limitation ...............................51
`2.
`Claim 20 “means for prioritizing” limitation ............................53
`
`IX. Conclusion .....................................................................................................56
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`Description
`
`
`Identifier
`‘825 Patent
`
`
`
`AIA Legislative
`History Guide
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,805,825
`1002 Declaration of Deborah McGuinness
`1003
`Federal Register – August 14, 2012 (Part IV)
`A Guide to the Legislative History of the America
`Invents Act; Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. Bar J. No. 4
`(2002), pp. 539-653
`
`Federal Register – August 14, 2012 (Part V)
`1005
`
`‘825 Patent File History
`1006
`
`2002 Lincoln Continental Order Guide
`1007
`
`2002 Lincoln Continental Price List
`1008
`
`1009 Versata Claim Construction Disclosure Document
`
`1010 McGuinness Curriculum Vitae
`1011
`Stefik, Introduction to Knowledge Systems (1995) Stefik
`McDermott, R1: an Expert in the Computer
`Systems Domain, Proceedings AAAI-80 (1980)
`McGuinness
`et
`al., An
`Industrial-Strength
`Description Logic-Based Configurator Platform,
`IEEE Intelligent Systems (1998)
`McGuinness et al., Description Logic in Practice:
`A CLASSIC: Application, Proceedings of the 14th
`International Joint Conference on Artificial
`Intelligence, Montreal, Canada, (August 1995)
`1015 Versata Complaint in the Versata lawsuit
`1016 Versata Counterclaim in the Ford lawsuit
`
`1004
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`McDermott
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 57
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`I, Deborah L. McGuinness, Ph.D., hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Ford Motor Company in
`
`a Covered Business Method Review proceeding concerning U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,805,825 (“the ‘825 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`consulting rate of $500 per hour and, when working while traveling, $600. My
`
`compensation does not depend on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion on the patentability of claims
`
`1-20 of the ‘825 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`In preparation of this declaration, I have studied Exhibits 1001 and
`
`1006-1009 and 1011-1014 as listed in the Exhibit List shown above in my report.
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(a) The patents and file histories identified in the List of Exhibits;
`
`(b) The relevant legal standards as described to me by counsel, and
`
`any additional legal standards set forth in the body of this declaration; and
`
`(c) My knowledge and experience based upon my work and study
`
`as described below, considering the patentability of the ‘825 Patent from the
`
`viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art as of the
`
`priority date of the ‘825 Patent, which I am told is January 12, 2005.
`
`Page 4 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`II. Qualifications and professional experience
`
`6.
`
`I have provided my full background in the curriculum vitae that is
`
`attached as Ex. 1010, which more fully details my 30-plus years of experience in
`
`computer science and electrical engineering. I am also an inventor on five patents,
`
`four of which directly relate to product configuration: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,720,008,
`
`5,974,405, 6,256,627, 6,385,600, and 6,457,002.
`
`7. My academic training includes completing the requirements for a
`
`Bachelor of Science in Computer Science and a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics
`
`from Duke University in 1980. I completed a Master of Science degree from the
`
`Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department of the University of
`
`California at Berkeley in 1981. I also completed a Ph.D. in Computer Science
`
`from Rutgers University in 1996.
`
`8.
`
`I began my professional career immediately after my Bachelor’s
`
`degree and began work for AT&T Bell Laboratories in 1980. I was immediately
`
`accepted into the Bell Laboratories “One Year on Campus” program which
`
`supported me to be a full time Master’s student at Berkeley. Upon completion of
`
`my M.S. in 1981, I returned to Bell Laboratories and began work at the Home of
`
`the Future at the Home Information Systems Laboratory. In 1984, I transferred to
`
`the Computing Environments and Artificial Intelligence Department in New
`
`Jersey. While there, I was accepted into the Bell Laboratories Ph.D. program,
`
`Page 5 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`which supported me while I pursued a Ph.D. I simultaneously was accepted into
`
`the Computer Science Ph.D. program at Rutgers. In 1985, I became the first
`
`employee in the Artificial Intelligence Research department of Bell Laboratories. It
`
`was during this time period that I first began to work on a type of artificial
`
`intelligence (AI) system called description logic-based systems. I did my
`
`dissertation in description logics and I spent approximately a decade heavily
`
`involved with description logic-based systems and their use to directly address
`
`large configuration problems. In 1989, I and some Bell Labs colleagues began
`
`publishing our work on description logics and, in the early 90s, we began
`
`publishing our work on configuration problems. Our configuration systems have
`
`been used by AT&T and Lucent to configure over $6 billion worth of AT&T and
`
`Lucent products. I also continued to address configuration-style applications in
`
`after leaving AT&T, and for example used the same style application to
`
`“configure” wine and food pairings and I have published papers on those
`
`applications into the 2000s and beyond.
`
`9.
`
`I have been involved in a number of academic configuration activities.
`
`I gave a keynote address at what has been cited as the first in a series of
`
`configuration workshops –
`
`the 1996 American Association for Artificial
`
`Intelligence-sponsored workshop on configuration. I also provided the invited
`
`plenary talk on the entire meeting to the full artificial intelligence conference
`
`Page 6 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`community. I later co-organized two international configuration workshops. I was
`
`a guest editor for a special journal issue on configuration in the Artificial
`
`Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing Journal series. I
`
`authored the chapter on Description Logic for Configuration in the Handbook of
`
`Description Logics. I also have over 350 peer reviewed published papers,
`
`including a number on platforms for configuration, conceptual models for
`
`configuration, and configuration applications, including but not limited to:
`
`• Deborah L. McGuinness and Jon Wright. “An Industrial Strength
`
`Description Logic-based Configurator Platform.” IEEE Intelligent
`
`Systems, Vol. 13, No. 4, July/August 1998, pp. 69-77. (Ex. 1013.)1
`
`• Deborah L. McGuinness and Jon Wright. “Conceptual Modeling for
`
`Configuration: A Description Logic-based Approach” in the Artificial
`
`Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing
`
`
`
` Ex. 1013 is a true and accurate copy, with exhibit numbers added, of: Deborah L.
`
` 1
`
`McGuinness and Jon Wright, “An Industrial Strength Description Logic-based
`
`Configurator Platform,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 13, No. 4, July/August
`
`1998, pp. 69-77.
`
`Page 7 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`Journal (AIEDAM) - special issue on Configuration, AI EDAM 12(4):
`
`333-344 (1998).
`
`• Deborah L. McGuinness, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Lori Alperin Resnick,
`
`Charles Isbell, Matt Parker, and Chris Welty. “A Description Logic
`
`Based Configurator for the Web.” SIGART Bulletin, 9(2) pp. 20-22. Fall,
`
`1998.
`
`• Deborah L. McGuinness, Lori Alperin Resnick, and Charles Isbell.
`
`“Description Logic
`
`in Practice: A CLASSIC: Application”
`
`in
`
`Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial
`
`Intelligence, Montreal, Canada, August, 1995. (Ex. 1014.)2
`
`10. While at Bell Labs and AT&T, I focused on frame-based
`
`representation foundations, explanation environments for knowledge systems, and
`
`application environments, including configuration application environments, for
`
`frame-based systems.
`
`
` Ex. 1014 is a true and accurate copy, with exhibit numbers added, of: Deborah L.
`
` 2
`
`McGuinness, Lori Alperin Resnick, and Charles Isbell. “Description Logic in
`
`Practice: A CLASSIC: Application” in Proceedings of the 14th International Joint
`
`Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Canada, August, 1995.
`
`Page 8 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`11.
`
`In 1998, I left AT&T Labs research and moved to Stanford University
`
`
`
`where I started as Associate Director and Senior Research Scientist of the
`
`Knowledge Systems Laboratory, within the Computer Science Department. When
`
`I left the lab nine years later, I was acting director of the laboratory. While at
`
`Stanford, I focused on knowledge-based systems. The work included creating
`
`languages for representing information, designing frame representation and
`
`reasoning systems for deducing information, creating explanation environments,
`
`next generation web languages and environments, and building many AI-based
`
`applications, including some configuration applications.
`
`III. Relevant legal standards
`
`12.
`
`I have been asked to provide opinions on the patentability of the ‘825
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
`
`A.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`13.
`
`I have been informed that 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 states:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means
`
`or step for performing a specified function without the recital of
`
`structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be
`
`construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that corresponding structure, material, or acts described
`
`in the specification must be clearly linked to the claimed function, and that whether
`
`Page 9 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`the specification discloses such corresponding structure, material or acts is to be
`
`determined from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention.
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that in most cases when a computer-
`
`implemented means-plus-function claim is involved, special programming is
`
`required for a general-purpose computer to perform the corresponding claimed
`
`function, and that the patent must disclose the algorithm used to perform the
`
`claimed function.
`
`16. An algorithm is typically understood as a disclosed step-by-step
`
`procedure for accomplishing a given result; a full description of the steps to be
`
`executed. An algorithm is essentially how the specialized programming performs
`
`the claimed function, and is not simply repeating or describing such claimed
`
`function.
`
`17. The specification can disclose the 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.
`
`18. To provide adequate structure, the patent must disclose the structure
`
`necessary for a person having ordinary skill in the field to provide an operative
`
`software program for the claimed function and reasonably apprise a person having
`
`Page 10 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the field of the invention of the scope of the subject matter that is
`
`patented.
`
`19. While the disclosure of a patent specification is determined from the
`
`perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art, the disclosure for purposes
`
`of analyzing a means-plus-function claim cannot be supplemented through expert
`
`opinion. For example, undisclosed subject matter that an expert might consider
`
`“obvious” or “known to those of skill in the art” at the time of the invention is not
`
`a part of the written description unless that subject matter is disclosed in the
`
`specification.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2 of the patent statute requires that
`
`the claims “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention is met when a
`
`person experienced in the field of the invention would understand the scope of the
`
`subject matter that is patented when the claim is read in conjunction with the rest
`
`of the specification.
`
`IV. Qualifications of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`21.
`
`I understand that indefiniteness of a claim depends on whether a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art can understand the claim’s scope with
`
`reasonable certainty.
`
`22.
`
`I have reviewed the ‘825 Patent and its file history in the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office. The relevant field of art is product configuration software.
`
`Page 11 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`Based on this review and my knowledge in the area of configuration software, it is
`
`my opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have: (1) a
`
`bachelor’s degree
`
`in computer science, electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, or similar technical field and some familiarity with configuration
`
`systems, or (2) equivalent experience in the design and/or implementation of
`
`configuration systems. I base my opinion on personal knowledge and experience
`
`being a person of ordinary skill and working with persons of ordinary skill before,
`
`during, and after the time period in question. In my declaration, this person is
`
`sometimes referred to as “a person having ordinary skill in the art” or “a
`
`PHOSITA.”
`
`V. Challenged claims of the ‘825 Patent and proposed claim
`constructions
`
`23.
`
`I have been asked to review claims 1-20 of the ‘825 Patent.
`
`VI. The ‘825 Patent claims cover what humans did before computers
`
`24. By the mid-1990’s computer-based “knowledge” systems were well-
`
`known, published, and in use. (Ex. 1011, Stefik at 180-207 for numerous
`
`examples; Ex. 1012, McDermott at 269-70.) Numerous knowledge-based systems
`
`were in commercial use as well in this time period and companies also were in
`
`existence such as Teknowledge and Intellicorp that sold expert system building
`
`tools and provided consulting services to build expert systems. It was also
`
`Page 12 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`understood that “knowledge systems” were sometimes also called “expert” systems
`
`because a computer program would be updated with the knowledge of an expert in
`
`a given field.
`
`Ex. 1011, Stefik at 160
`
`
`
`25.
`
`“Configuration” systems were also well-known by the 1990’s as being
`
`a specialized type of knowledge-based system. (Ex. 1011, Stefik at 163-165; Ex.
`
`1012, McDermott at 269-70.) Configuration systems likewise would take an
`
`expert’s knowledge and employ it in a computer program that could be used by the
`
`companies buying or selling products that need to be configured or directly used by
`
`the public.
`
`26. Configuration systems are typically used by companies such that a
`
`person is able to “configure” a product that can actually be assembled and built.
`
`For instance, one of the oldest and well published configuration systems was
`
`published in 1980 along with many later publications and was used by Digital
`
`Equipment Corporation to configure their VAX computer systems – initially
`
`configuring the VAX-11/780 systems. (Ex. 1012, McDermott at 269.) This was
`
`aimed at technicians configuring the computer. The 1980 paper about the R1
`
`Page 13 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`system says “R1 has proven itself to be a highly competent configurer of VAX-
`
`11/780 systems. The configurations that it produces are consistently adequate, and
`
`the information that it makes available to the technicians who physically assemble
`
`the systems is far more detailed than that produced by the humans who do the
`
`task.” (Ex. 1012, McDermott at 271, Concluding Remarks.)
`
`27. Knowledge-based configuration has a long history that includes both
`
`consumer-facing as well as internal facing applications. The Wikipedia page on
`
`Knowledge-based configuration at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge-
`
`based_configuration has a list of 27 references (as of July 24, 2016), many of
`
`which are published in the 80s and 90s, including one configurator family that I co-
`
`authored for AT&T. That paper was published in 1998 and the configurator family
`
`was used by AT&T and Lucent in the late 80s and 90s. (Ex. 1013, D. McGuinness
`
`and J. Wright, An Industrial Strength Description Logics-Based Configurator
`
`Platform, IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 69–77, 1998.) That paper
`
`presents background on how we at AT&T used knowledge based systems (built on
`
`a description logic system) to configure transmission equipment such as DACS
`
`cross-connect systems. The paper shows that companies such as AT&T and
`
`Lucent were doing configuration in the 90s using systems that included rule-based
`
`models along with attribute (called roles in the AT&T system) models. “Our
`
`DACS IV-2000 application has a knowledge base that includes a concept
`
`Page 14 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`taxonomy and instance descriptions. … Concepts are structured descriptions and
`
`can have many encoded restrictions…” The paper goes on to describe the concepts
`
`in terms of roles (analogous to attributes in the patent” and those roles may have
`
`number restrictions restricting the number of role fillers and a value restriction –
`
`restricting the type of role fillers. (Ex. 1013, p. 71.) It is one example of evidence
`
`that persons of ordinary skill in the art were building configuration systems that
`
`utilized rule and attribute models.
`
`28. The claims of the ’825 Patent simply add conventional computer
`
`components to well-known business practices. Specifically, the ‘825 Patent
`
`attempts to combine a configuration model that uses rules with a prioritization
`
`approach that uses attribute values to the process of configuration selection using a
`
`computer. For example, claim 1 includes: (1) receiving attribute-based queries; (2)
`
`processing those queries; (3) determining and storing values of combinations of
`
`attributes; (4) retrieving the stored values; (5) receiving a selection of an attribute;
`
`(6) prioritizing valid configuration answers based on one or more of a plurality of
`
`attributes; and (7) providing at least a subset of configuration answers that are
`
`prioritized by one or more of the attributes. (Ex. 1001 [‘825 Patent] at Claim 1.)
`
`Claim 1’s reference to a “computer system programmed with code stored in
`
`memory and executable by a processor of the computer system,” recites no new
`
`Page 15 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`hardware, machine or technology to perform the claimed method. These references
`
`are nothing more than recitation of known technologies.
`
`29.
`
`Indeed, The ‘825 Patent describes and claims a configuration system
`
`that uses a “combined configuration rules-attributes model” to determine valid
`
`configuration answers and then prioritizes those answers based on one or more
`
`attributes in the combined configuration model. (Id. at Abstract, Figs. 5 and 6,
`
`5:13-19, 7:4-67, 10:31-2 and claim 1.) The ‘825 Patent lists several example-
`
`attributes for vehicles, which could be used as the basis for prioritizing
`
`configurations, such as “standard,” “optional,” “price,” “weight,” “towing
`
`capacity,” “description,” “warranty,” and “fuel efficiency.” (Id. at 6:12-29.)
`
`30. The ‘825 Patent discloses a prior art attribute-based prioritization
`
`Configuration system in Figures 3 and 4 (see below). As shown in Figures 3 and 4
`
`below, the prior art system (1) presents a configuration query to the configuration
`
`model to find valid configurations (shown in blue); then (2) filters the valid
`
`configurations using attribute information (such as reviewing information about
`
`price in the information model) to the valid answers to associate a weight to each
`
`answer (shown in yellow – particularly 406); and finally (3) uses a preference
`
`algorithm to select the preferred answer based on the weighting (shown in red).
`
`Page 16 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 [‘825 Patent] at Figs. 3 and 4 (annotated).)
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`31. Similarly, the purported invention of the ‘825 Patent performs the
`
`
`
`same process as the prior art system but does so using a combined “configuration
`
`rules-attribute model,” (506 in Fig. 5) which is used to determine prioritized-valid
`
`answers in one step. Figures 5 and 6 of the ‘825 Patent below describe the process
`
`of the purported invention of the ‘825 Patent. In those figures, the configuration
`
`rules (306 in Fig. 3) and attribute information (308 in Fig. 3) are combined
`
`together to form a combined rules attribute model (506 in Fig. 5 below). Process
`
`step 606 in Figure 6 below (green) depicts this methodology.
`
`(Ex. 1001 [‘825 Patent] at Figs. 5 and 6 (annotated).)
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`32. Besides altering the order in which the rules and attribute information
`
`
`
`are processed (by combining rules and attribute information into a single model),
`
`both the prior art system and the configuration system claimed in the ‘825 Patent
`
`perform the same functions of determining valid configuration answers and
`
`prioritizing those answers based on one or more attributes.
`
`VII. Claims 1-20 of the ‘825 Patent could be performed by a human
`using only pen and paper
`
`A.
`
`Independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16
`
`33. Claim 1 is representative of the independent claims of the ‘825 Patent:
`
`1. A method for using computer assisted configuration technology to
`
`generate one or more attribute prioritized configuration answers to
`
`one or more attribute-based configuration queries, the method
`
`comprising:
`
`performing by a computer system programmed with code
`
`stored in a memory and executable by a processor of the computer
`
`system to configure the computer system into a machine for:
`
`receiving one or more attribute-based configuration queries
`
`from a client system, wherein the attribute-based configuration
`
`queries include a selection of one or more parts of a product;
`
`processing the one or more attribute-based configuration
`
`queries, configuration rules, and attribute based preference algorithm
`
`using a combined configuration rules-attributes model and a
`
`configuration-rules processing engine to calculate valid configuration
`
`Page 19 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`answers in accordance with the combined configuration rules-
`
`attributes model, wherein a plurality of the configuration rules define
`
`relationships between parts of the product and a plurality of attributes
`
`represent details about the parts;
`
`predetermining values of one or more combinations of
`
`attributes associated with respective configuration answers;
`
`storing the predetermined values;
`
`retrieving the stored predetermined values associated with a
`
`particular valid configuration answer
`
`if
`
`the particular valid
`
`configuration is an answer to one or more of the attribute-based
`
`configuration queries;
`
`receiving a selection of at least one of the one or more product
`
`attributes to be prioritized;
`
`prioritizing the valid configuration answers by one or more of
`
`the plurality of attributes in the combined configuration rules-
`
`attributes model; and
`
`providing at least a subset of the valid configuration answers to
`
`the client system, wherein the provided valid configuration answers
`
`are prioritized by one or more of the plurality of attributes.
`
`(Ex. 1001 [‘825 Patent] at Claim 1.)
`
`34. The ‘825 Patent focuses on one primary idea: selecting and sorting
`
`(i.e., prioritizing) valid configuration answers based on attribute values, such as
`
`choosing low price configurations. In other words, the ‘825 Patent claims
`
`Page 20 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`organizing data (configuration answers) in a certain way based on preferences
`
`(e.g., lowest to highest priced).
`
`35. The ‘825 Patent further explains that the concept of determining valid
`
`configuration answers and prioritizing the valid configuration answers based on
`
`attribute values was well known in the prior art. Indeed, the ‘825 Patent describes
`
`the prior art as: (1) querying a configuration model to provide valid answers (Step
`
`1 below); (2) applying an attribute information model to the valid answers to
`
`associate a weight with each valid answer (Step 2 below); and (3) using a
`
`preference algorithm to select preferred answers (i.e., prioritize the answers) (Step
`
`3 below). (Ex. 1001 [‘825 Patent] at 3:22-60.) The prior art system described in
`
`the ‘825 Patent is depicted in the flow diagram below with steps 1-3 described
`
`above labeled.
`
`Page 21 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 [‘825 Patent] at Fig. 4 (annotated).)
`
`36. The ‘825 Patent describes sorting configuration answers including the
`
`parts “red” and “V6 engine” based on attribute information descriptions such as
`
`“the least expensive vehicle, the most expensive vehicle, the heaviest vehicle, etc.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 [‘825 Patent] at 3:15-21.) The ‘825 Patent also discusses that other
`
`products can be sorted using the described methodology, such as “[a] computer, or
`
`Page 22 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`any other product that consists of a number of configurable features.” (Id. at 1:44-
`
`47.)
`
`37. To illustrate that the claims can be performed by a human with pen
`
`and paper, consider a car dealer who wishes to simplify the car buying process for
`
`its customers. In this example, I begin with the price list and order guide for a
`
`2002 Lincoln Continental (see Exs. 1007 and 10083), which, I understand were
`
`readily available to car dealers before the ‘825 Patent was filed. The dealer could
`
`create a combined configuration rules-attributes model by reviewing the order
`
`guide for the Continental and determining that options available on a Base Lincoln
`
`Continental include: 16” Aluminum wheels (red below), heated front seats (green
`
`below) and a Vehicle Communication System (yellow below). Indeed, all three of
`
`those components are identified as “Optional” in the Order Guide (shown below).
`
`
`
` I have been informed that Exs. 1007 and 1008 are copies of an actual 2002
`
` 3
`
`Lincoln Continental Order Guide (Ex. 1007) and an actual 2002 Lincoln
`
`Continental Price List (Ex. 1008).
`
`Page 23 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1007 [2002 Continental Order Guide] at 4 (annotated).)
`
`38. The dealer could then determine the price of each option by looking at
`
`
`
`the Continental price list (Ex. 1008). The price list for the 2002 Continental shows
`
`that the suggested retail prices for the options are as follows: Heated Seats-$400
`
`(green below), 16” Aluminum Wheels-$360
`
`(red below) and Vehicle
`
`Communications System-$1295 (yellow below). (Ex. 1008 [2002 Continental
`
`Price List].) The price list showing these options is annotated below.
`
`Page 24 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1008 [2002 Continental Price List] (annotated).)
`
`39. The dealer could easily combine
`
`the component optionality
`
`
`
`information from
`
`the Order Guide (the rules of what components are
`
`optional/standard on different Continental versions) with the prices from the price
`
`list (the numerical attribute values) using pen and paper to create a table having
`
`combined “rules” and “attribute information.” That table would constitute the
`
`Page 25 of 57
`
`
`
` FORD 1002
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: FPGP0130CBMR1
`
`Case No.: CBM2016-00100
`Patent No.: 8,805,825
`
`
`
`combined rules-attributes model specified by the ‘825 patent claims. That table
`
`might look like the following:
`
`Table 1
`
`Driver
`Select
`System
`Continental
`Optional
`
`Base
`Continental
`Optional
`
`Personal
`Security
`Continental
`Optional
`
`Luxury
`Appearance
`Continental
`Standard
`
`Option
`Price
`$400
`
`Optional
`
`Optional
`
`Optional
`
`Op