UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DAVID W. FRANKE
`IN SUPPORT OF
`VERSATA’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Versata 2002
`Ford v. Versata
`CBM2016-00100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DAVID W. FRANKE
`IN SUPPORT OF
`VERSATA’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Versata 2002
`Ford v. Versata
`CBM2016-00100
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................... 1
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 3
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE LAW USED IN THIS DECLARATION ................... 4
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................ 4
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 5
`VII. USING CONVENTIONAL CONFIGURATION MODELS ......................... 5
`VIII. CONVENTIONAL ATTRIBUTE-BASED CONFIGURATION
`PROCESSING ........................................................................................................... 6
`IX. THE ’825 PATENT’S TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION ............................. 9
`X. THE CLAIMS IMPROVE THE FUNCTIONING OF A CONFIGURATION
`SYSTEM IN A TECHNOLOGICAL MANNER. ..................................................12
`XI. FORD’S “PEN AND PAPER” ANALYSIS IS DEFICIENT ......................16
`XII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`I, Dr. David W. Franke, hereby declare as follows:
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I understand that Ford Motor Company has filed a petition for covered
`
`business method review as to claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,805,825 (“the ’825
`
`patent”). I understand that the ’825 patent is titled “Attribute Prioritized
`
`Configuration Using a Combined Configuration-Attribute Data Model” by Brian
`
`K. Showers, Brandon M. Beck, and Nathan E. Little. I understand that the ’825
`
`patent is currently owned by Versata Development Group (“Versata”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Versata to provide expert opinions in
`
`connection with this covered business method review proceeding. Specifically, I
`
`have been asked to provide my expert opinion relating to the technical features
`
`recited in claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 17-19 of the ’825 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`I am an expert in the field of configuration, data mining, and big data
`3.
`
`programming, having designed and implemented large scale configuration and data
`
`mining software.
`
`4.
`
`Currently, I am Chief Scientist at Vast.com in Austin, TX, where I
`
`lead the data science team in efforts related to data mining and data analysis for
`
`market insights, descriptive models, and predictive models for consumer
`
`considered purchases.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`I am also an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of
`
`5.
`
`Computer Science at The University of Texas at Austin where I teach courses in
`
`big data programming, and will be teaching a course in data mining. I also teach
`
`big data programming as part of the data management course in the Master of
`
`Science in Business Analytics program in the McCombs School of Business at UT
`
`Austin.
`
`6.
`
`I received my B.S. in Mathematics Summa Cum Laude in 1976 from
`
`The University of Oklahoma. I received my M.S. in Computer Science in 1977
`
`from The Pennsylvania State University. And I received my Ph.D. in Computer
`
`Science in 1992 from The University of Texas at Austin.
`
`7.
`
`I was previously a Distinguished Technical Fellow at Trilogy
`
`Software, Inc. in Austin, TX. I was the principal architect and implementer on
`
`Trilogy’s flagship SalesBUILDER product, a product configuration tool. I also
`
`performed product research and development and implemented data mining for
`
`Trilogy’s Sales Optimizer tool.
`
`8.
`
`I have been awarded 14 U.S. patents in the areas of configuration
`
`systems and data caching and data mining.
`
`9. My Curriculum Vitae is submitted as Exhibit 2003, which contains
`
`further details on my education, experience, publications, and other qualifications
`
`to render an expert opinion. My work on this case is being billed at a rate of $400
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`per hour. My compensation is not contingent upon the outcome of this covered
`
`business method review.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In forming my expert opinions expressed in this declaration, I have
`10.
`
`considered and relied upon my education, background, and experience. I reviewed
`
`the Petition filed by Ford along with relevant exhibits to the Petition.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`I have reviewed the specification of the ’825 patent.
`
`I understand that the ’825 patent has been provided as Exhibit 1001. I
`
`will cite to the specification using the following format: (Ex. 1001, 1:1-10). This
`
`example citation points to the ’825 patent at specification column 1, lines 1-10.
`
`13.
`
`I have also reviewed and am familiar with the following documents:
`
`Description
`
`Paper /
`Exhibit #
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,825 to Showers et al. (’825 patent)
`1001
`1002
`Declaration of Deborah McGuinness
`1006
`’825 Patent File History
`1007
`2002 Lincoln Continental Order Guide
`1008
`2002 Lincoln Continental Price List
`1010 McGuinness Curriculum Vitae
`Stefik, Introduction to Knowledge Systems (1995)
`1011
`1012 McDermott, R1: an Expert in the Computer Systems Domain,
`Proceedings AAAI-80 (1980)
`1013 McGuinness et al., An Industrial-Strength Description Logic-
`Based Configurator Platform, IEEE Intelligent Systems (1998)
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`
`Paper /
`Exhibit #
`1014 McGuinness et al., Description Logic in Practice: A CLASSIC:
`Application, Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference
`on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Canada (August 1995)
`
`Description
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights
`
`and opinions regarding the ’825 patent and the above-noted papers that form the
`
`basis for the ground of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE LAW USED IN THIS DECLARATION
`15. When considering the ’825 patent and stating my opinions, I am
`
`relying on legal principles that have been explained to me by counsel.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the subject matter of a claim is directed to a
`
`technological invention if, in part, it solves a technical problem using a technical
`
`solution.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that Versata has disclaimed claims 5, 10, 15, 16, and 20
`
`of the ’825 patent. I have not considered these claims in reaching my conclusions.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`18. Based on the disclosure of the ’825 patent, a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or similar technical field, including familiarity
`
`with knowledge representation and reasoning typically acquired in a course on
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`artificial intelligence, as well as at least three years of experience in the design and
`
`implementation of configuration systems.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I understand that the claims of the ’825 patent are to be given their
`19.
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in concurrent litigation, the parties have agreed that
`
`the term “attribute” means “a particular detail about a part of a part group, which is
`
`different from a rule, but which can be part of a rule.”
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that in the concurrent litigation, the parties have
`
`agreed that the term “attribute prioritized” means “giving priority to valid
`
`configuration answers based on selected attribute types and values.”
`
`22. Regardless of the foregoing constructions, my analysis below is based
`
`on giving each claim term its plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the
`
`specification under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as would be understood
`
`by a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`VII. USING CONVENTIONAL CONFIGURATION MODELS
`23. The ’825 patent generally relates to computer assisted configuration
`
`technology. (Ex. 1001, ’825 Patent, 4:39-43.)
`
`24. When building complex systems with many configuration choices,
`
`some of which may have relationships to other configuration choices, computers
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`may have to process millions of configuration possibilities in order to ensure that
`
`the configuration is valid. (Id., 1:28-49.)
`
`25.
`
`Initially, a configuration model is built based on configuration rules.
`
`(Id.) This configuration model can be interrogated by configuration questions to
`
`provide a set of valid answers. (Ex. 1001, 1:61-2:30.)
`
`26. The ’825 patent gives an example of a query that can be asked of the
`
`configuration model: “[f]or the given configuration model, are the parts ‘red’ and
`
`‘V6 engine’ compatible with each other?” (Id.) Such a query would return an
`
`answer from the configuration model, in this case either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no.’ (Id.)
`
`27. Configuration models can take on a number of forms, including the
`
`tree-based model of ’825 patent FIG. 2, or the rules-based model of ’825 patent
`
`Table 1 (at col. 2, ll. 44-59). Approaches for developing configuration models are
`
`described in the ’825 patent. (Id., 2:16-30.)
`
`28. When configuring a product made up of a number of possible parts,
`
`processing compatibility relationships between those parts in an efficient manner is
`
`important to system performance. (Id., 4:30-35.)
`
`VIII. CONVENTIONAL ATTRIBUTE-BASED CONFIGURATION
`PROCESSING
`
`29. The already complex problem of configuration processing becomes
`
`even more complex when configuration queries can be made not only of the parts,
`
`but of attributes of those parts. (Ex. 1001, 3:8-21.) In addition to identifying valid
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`configurations, these configurations can be ordered in terms of preference with
`
`respect to attributes of the parts. (Id., 3:13-21.)
`
`30. The ’825 patent allows for processing of configurations having
`
`attribute-based preferences in a computationally-efficient manner. The ’825 patent
`
`states that “[a]ttribute-based configuration processing has conventionally suffered
`
`from scale and performance issues.” (Id., 3:8-10.)
`
`31. As an example of these computationally-challenging problems, the
`
`’825 patent gives the following example queries:
`
`“Given a set of configured parts, return the part with the
`lowest cost that is compatible with the given parts,
`according to the rules in a given configuration model.”
`
`“Given a configuration model and a fully specified
`configuration, determine the sum of the price attributes
`for all of the parts in that configuration.”
`
`(Id., 3:2-8.)
`
`32.
`
`In its Background section, the ’825 patent describes a conventional
`
`process for prioritizing valid configuration answers based on attributes. Id., 3:11-
`
`4:35.) This conventional process is shown in FIG. 4 of the ’825 patent, reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`
`
`
`33. As shown in FIG. 4, a configuration model is interrogated as per
`
`conventional practice in order to find a set of valid answers to a particular
`
`configuration query. (Id., 3:38-46 and FIG. 4, element 404.) Then, attributes from
`
`an attribute information model are applied to the valid answers in order to associate
`
`each valid answer with the attributes that apply to it. (Id., 3:46-53 and FIG. 4,
`
`element 406.)
`
`34. Using one of the ’825 patent’s sample queries, the conventional
`
`process would be as follows for the query: “Given a set of configured parts, return
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`the part with the lowest cost that is compatible with the given parts, according to
`
`the rules in a given configuration model.” (Id., 3:1-4.) First, the configuration
`
`model would be queried to find all parts that are compatible with the given parts,
`
`according to the rules in the configuration model. (Id., 3:38-46 and FIG. 4, element
`
`404.) Then, for all of the parts returned by the query, an attribute information
`
`model is queried in order to return cost information for each part. (Id., 3:46-53 and
`
`FIG. 4, element 406.)
`
`35. With cost information associated with each of the parts returned by
`
`the first query, the results would then be sorted to find the preferred answer (i.e.,
`
`the part returned by the query that has the lowest associated cost attribute). (Id.,
`
`3:1-8)
`
`36. While this conventional approach will provide an attribute-based
`
`configuration that provides a preferred answer, it requires performing expensive
`
`computations in interrogating the configuration model in order to provide answers
`
`that will ultimately be discarded. (Id., 3:11-21.) In this conventional example, any
`
`valid configuration that involves anything other than the lowest-cost valid part will
`
`have required wasted processing in determining the validity of the configuration.
`
`IX. THE ’825 PATENT’S TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION
`37. Rather than wasting computational power on determining whether a
`
`configuration is valid when the configuration will ultimately be discarded based on
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`attribute information, the ’825 patent uses a combined configuration rules-attribute
`
`system with an integrated configuration model to efficiently identify and attribute
`
`prioritize valid configuration answers to attribute-prioritized configuration queries.
`
`(Ex. 1001, Abstract, 5:50-65.) As a result, computing power is efficiently spent on
`
`configurations that will ultimately be valid options.
`
`38. The
`
`’825
`
`patent’s
`
`combined
`
`configuration
`
`rules-attribute
`
`configuration model, shown below in FIG. 5 of the ’825 patent, minimizes the
`
`number of valid configuration answers to be considered for presentation based on
`
`the attribute information. (Id., Abstract, 5:60-65.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`In contrast with the conventional approach previously discussed, the
`
`39.
`
`’825 patent is able to interrogate the configuration-attribute model with a
`
`configuration query and a preference algorithm in a single step, in order to
`
`determine an answer that is both preferred and valid. (Ex. 1001, 7:16-21 and FIG.
`
`6, element 606.) This process is shown above in FIG. 6 of the ’825 patent.
`
`40. Using the same sample query as before (“Given a set of configured
`
`parts, return the part with the lowest cost that is compatible with the given parts,
`
`according to the rules in a given configuration model”), the process is now handled
`
`in a single step. Specifically, the ’825 patent provides the ability to query the
`
`configuration-attribute model specifically for a part that is not only compatible
`
`with the given parts, but is also the lowest cost part of the compatible parts. (Id.,
`
`3:1-4 and 5:50-56.)
`
`41. This is an important departure from the conventional approach. Rather
`
`than generating all valid configurations with respect to the configuration query
`
`submitted by the user, and then prioritizing them based on the selected attribute,
`
`the ’825 patent uses the combined configuration-attribute model to guide the
`
`configuration process to explicitly avoid generating all valid configurations. The
`
`’825 patent approach provides a computationally efficient solution by only
`
`generating those valid configurations that meet the attribute-based criteria.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`the attributes discussed here may
`involve financial
`
`42. Although
`
`information (e.g., the cost of a part), the configuration-attribute model is agnostic
`
`to the specific data within the attribute field. (Ex. 1001, 1:50-60 and 6:11-16.) As
`
`an example, the ’825 patent notes that attribute data for vehicle parts may be, for
`
`example, “Standard,” “Optional,” “Price,” “Weight,” “Towing Capacity,”
`
`“Description,” “Warranty,” or “Fuel Efficiency.” (Id., Table 2, col. 6, ll. 19-29.)
`
`Cost or price need not be one of the attributes considered, or otherwise factored
`
`into a configuration.
`
`X. THE CLAIMS IMPROVE THE FUNCTIONING OF A
`CONFIGURATION SYSTEM IN A TECHNOLOGICAL MANNER.
`
`43. Ford’s discussion of the claims focuses on the language of claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, my discussion here centers on the language of claim 1 as the basis for
`
`understanding the technological improvements of the ’825 patent over routine and
`
`conventional techniques in the art.
`
`44. The ’825 patent provides specific constructs used for improving the
`
`functionality of a configuration system, such as through the use of a combined
`
`configuration rules-attribute configuration system 500 of FIG. 5. (Id., 5:66-6:2 and
`
`FIG. 5, element 500.)
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`
`
`
`
`
`45.
`
`I have reproduced FIGs. 2 and 7 of the ’825 patent above. FIG. 2
`
`illustrates an exemplary conventional configuration model, while FIG. 7 illustrates
`
`an exemplary configuration rules-attributes model in accordance with the
`
`technological improvements of the ’825 patent. (Ex. 1001, 2:31-32, 6:41-42.)
`
`46. These two trie structure approaches are useful for comparison, but
`
`other contrasting approaches may be used instead. For example, the configuration
`
`rules of Table 1 in the ’825 patent (see id., col. 2, ll. 44-59) may be contrasted with
`
`a configuration rules-attribute model that includes attributes within the rule set.
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`However, for the purposes of this discussion, the trie structures of conventional
`
`approach FIG. 2 and novel approach FIG. 7 are used.
`
`47. Claim 1 recites, in part, “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 answers in accordance with the
`
`combined configuration rules-attributes model, wherein a plurality of the
`
`configuration rules defined relationships between parts of the product and a
`
`plurality of attributes represent details about the parts.”
`
`48. A configuration rules-attributes model, as recited in claim 1, is able to
`
`process a configuration query to produce valid answers. (Ex. 1001, 5:13-19.) This
`
`model is a particular software construct specifically arranged to handle such
`
`queries. (Id., 5:13-19.)
`
`49. By incorporating attribute data into the configuration model (thereby
`
`creating a configuration rules-attributes model), computational efficiency is
`
`achieved. (Id., 5:50-56.) This can be seen with the application of the prior example
`
`query (“Given a set of configured parts, return the part with the lowest cost that is
`
`compatible with the given parts, according to the rules in a given configuration
`
`model”) to the tries of FIGs. 2 and 7.
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`50. To resolve the above query using the configuration model of FIG. 2,
`
`given parts A1, B1, C1, and Y1, the initial query would return X1 and X2 as
`
`candidate parts that are valid in this configuration. Then, as a separate step, the
`
`attributes for parts X1 and X2 would need to be determined, and the part with the
`
`lowest cost identified.
`
`51.
`
`In contrast, resolving the above query using the configuration rules-
`
`attribute model of FIG. 7, given part A1, the model can be consulted at the next
`
`level (e.g., group 704) to determine the lowest cost part from a set of parts
`
`immediately. The result to the query would be only the lowest cost part.
`
`52.
`
`In both trie examples, the computation time includes the traversal
`
`computation time of the trie -- but the configuration model of FIG. 2 incurs the
`
`additional computation time of querying an attribute information model. (Id., 3:38-
`
`53 and FIG. 4, elements 404 and 406.) Thus, the ’825 patent configuration model
`
`enables efficient querying of data in a computing system.
`
`53. This efficiency can extend further to efficient memory and processor
`
`usage, as the ’825 patent notes that this solution “allows the performance impact of
`
`combining multiple attributes, e.g. maximizing the number(s) of a certain
`
`attribute(s) or totaling the values of certain attributes, to be minimized by pre-
`
`processing combinations of multiple attributes of valid configurations and
`
`amortizing the preprocessed combinations over many queries.” (Id., 8:16-23.)
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`54. Creating a combined configuration rules-attributes model requires
`
`more than the simple merger of a configuration model with an attribute
`
`information model. Although the specific implementation is a design choice, the
`
`resulting configuration rules-attributes model is more than the sum of its parts -- it
`
`must be able to answer a new type of query, “attribute-based configuration
`
`queries,” as recited in claim 1. To accomplish this, a structural change in the model
`
`is required to integrate the rule and attribute information, and to be able to answer
`
`the new type of query. This structural change is evident in the difference between
`
`the two trie structures shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 7.
`
`XI. FORD’S “PEN AND PAPER” ANALYSIS IS DEFICIENT
`55. Ford’s expert argues the claimed subject matter of the ’825 Patent
`
`“could be performed by a human using only pen and paper.” (Ex. 1002,
`
`McGuinness Declaration, Section VII.) However, this does not address the
`
`particularities of several claim features, including the claimed “attribute-based
`
`configuration queries” and “combined configuration rules-attributes model.”
`
`56.
`
`In particular, claim 1 recites the use of a “configuration-rules
`
`processing engine to calculate valid configuration answers in accordance with the
`
`combined configuration rules-attributes model.” This engine, by applying the
`
`configuration rules-attributes model to an incoming attribute-based configuration
`
`query, provides an answer to the query. (Ex. 1001, 5:50-56.)
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`57. Contrary to Ford’s expert, a person resorting to pen and paper would
`
`not implement the claimed functionality of the ’825 patent. The Order Guide and
`
`Price List cited by Ford are designed specifically for rapid lookup by a person. But
`
`the purported combined rules-attributes model shown as Table 1 (Ex. 1002, p. 26)
`
`is unusable to answer attribute-based configuration queries in the manner required
`
`by claim 1.
`
`58. As shown in the example using the Order Guide and Price List,
`
`multiple configurations are generated and considered (four different trim levels),
`
`and then selected based on the price attribute. These configurations have not been
`
`fully completed with regard to the configuration rules, so the full price implication
`
`of any single option is not fully accounted for.
`
`59. This approach could proceed and generate complete configurations, a
`
`challenging task when done by hand in terms of complexity and time. Once
`
`generated (possibly hundreds or thousands), these complete configurations could
`
`then be priced using the Price List. But this is the conventional approach that the
`
`’825 patent has eschewed for a novel approach where the generation and
`
`consideration of configurations is guided by attribute values.
`
`60. This can be understood using the very example “combined rules-
`
`attributes model” provided by Ford’s expert. If a user wants to know the total cost
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`of adding the “Vehicle Communication System” option, it is insufficient to look up
`
`option code 51C (the code corresponding to that option) in the Price List.
`
`61.
`
`Instead, a complete configuration model (or, in the specific case of the
`
`’825 patent, a combined configuration rules-attributes model) is needed in order to
`
`identify that Package 51C requires “Alpine Audio System (916).” (Ex. 1007, 2002
`
`Lincoln Continental Order Guide, p. 5.) And package 916 is itself required with
`
`two other possible packages besides the “Vehicle Communication System.” (Id., p.
`
`5.)
`
`62. The complexity of these configuration rules makes it untenable for a
`
`user, such as a car dealer, to perform even the most simple configuration rules-
`
`attributes models in the claimed manner. And, more particularly, the efficiencies
`
`realized by the claimed implementation are specific to improving computational
`
`speed of a configuration-rules processing engine running on a computing device
`
`through the ability to answer attribute-based configuration queries using a
`
`combined configuration rules-attributes model.
`
`63. The McGuinness Declaration fails to account for the computational
`
`efficiency of specifically being able to handle an attribute-based configuration
`
`query, as recited in claim 1. In Table 1 of the McGuinness Declaration (Ex. 1002,
`
`p. 26), the proposed pen-and-paper approach shows “all possible configurations”
`
`that are consistent with the user configuration query are generated and priced, so
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`that the dealer (human) can sort them based on price and select the configuration
`
`with the preferred price. A purported “combined model” is indicated, but is used in
`
`exactly the conventional manner -- first generate all possible valid configurations,
`
`then apply attribute values to prioritize them. This approach is specifically avoided
`
`by the ’825 patent claims, and is expanded on at col. 7, line 61 of the ’825 patent.
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00100
`Patent No. 8,805,825
`
`XII. CONCLUSION
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be
`64.
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be
`
`subject to cross-examination in the case and that cross-examination will take place
`
`within the United States. If cross-examination is required of me, I will appear for
`
`cross-examination within the United States during the time allotted for cross-
`
`examination.
`
`65.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Executed December 23, 2016
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David W. Franke/
`Dr. David W. Franke
`
`- 20 -
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
