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 CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DAVID W. FRANKE
`IN SUPPORT OF
`VERSATA’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Versata 2002
`Ford Motor v. Versata
`CBM2016-00101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DAVID W. FRANKE
`IN SUPPORT OF
`VERSATA’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Versata 2002
`Ford Motor v. Versata
`CBM2016-00101
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`
`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. STITCHING PRODUCT MODELS CONVENTIONALLY ......................... 6
`VIII. A CONVENTIONAL MODEL FOR CONSOLIDATION ............................ 9
`IX. THE CLAIMED ’080 PATENT’S TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION ........11
`X. FORD’S “PEN AND PAPER” ANALYSIS IS DEFICIENT ..........................14
`XI. CLAIMS 2, 10, AND 16 ARE DEFINITE ...................................................17
`XII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`I, Dr. David W. Franke, hereby declare as follows:
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I understand that Ford Motor Company has filed a petition for covered
`
`business method review as to claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,739,080 (“the ’080
`
`patent”). I understand that the ’080 patent is titled “Consolidation of Product Data
`
`Models” by Brandon M. Beck and Shawn A. P. Smith. I understand that the ’080
`
`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 1-21 of the ’080 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 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`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.
`
`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 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`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 ’080 patent.
`
`I understand that the ’080 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 ’080 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. 7,739,080 to Beck et al. (’080 patent)
`1001
`1006
`Declaration of Deborah L. McGuinness
`1007
`’080 Patent File History
`Deborah L. McGuinness Curriculum Vitae
`1008
`Stefik, Introduction to Knowledge Systems (1995)
`1009
`1010 McDermott, R1: an Expert in the Computer Systems Domain,
`Proceedings AAAI-80 (1980)
`1011 McGuinness et al., An Industrial-Strength Description Logic-
`Based Configurator Platform, IEEE Intelligent Systems (1998)
`1012 McGuinness et al., Description Logic in Practice: A CLASSIC:
`Application, Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference
`on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Canada (August 1995)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights
`
`14.
`
`and opinions regarding the ’080 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 ’080 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 Ford has challenged the patentability of claims 2, 10,
`
`and 16 as being indefinite. I understand that the determination of whether claims
`
`are indefinite is based on whether the claim informs a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art of the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that Versata has disclaimed claim 22 of the ’080 patent. I
`
`have not considered this claim in reaching my conclusions.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`19. Based on the disclosure of the ’080 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 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`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 ’080 patent are to be given their
`20.
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in concurrent litigation, the parties dispute the
`
`construction of the step of “extending at least one of the ancestor configuration
`
`model family spaces.” I understand that while no agreement was reached, a Special
`
`Master concluded that the step must be substantively performed by a computer or
`
`computer system, not by a human.
`
`22.
`
`I also understand that in the concurrent litigation, the Special Master
`
`similarly concluded that the step of “removing [the added space] from the child
`
`configuration model family space…” must be substantively performed by a
`
`computer or computer system, not by a human.
`
`23. 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.
`
`24.
`
`I further understand that in the concurrent litigation, the Special
`
`Master concluded that the term “inconsistencies between rules” as found in claims
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`2, 10, and 16 means the same thing as “conflicts between rules.” It is also my
`
`understanding that Ford has objected to the Special Master’s conclusion based on
`
`arguments similar to those presented in their petition. I believe that the Special
`
`Master’s conclusion is correct, based on my analysis shown below with respect to
`
`claims 2, 10, and 16.
`
`VII. STITCHING PRODUCT MODELS CONVENTIONALLY
`25. The ’080 patent generally relates to configuration systems for
`
`products. (Ex. 1001, ’080 Patent, Abstract and 1:14-15.) These configurations are
`
`built on configuration models for a product -- where the model is a collection of
`
`rules defining buildable configurations of a product. (Id., 2:57-58.)
`
`26. For certain products, multiple configuration spaces are maintained
`
`with individual rules. As the ’080 patent notes, “a company may market a product
`
`with a particular set of standard features in one region and market the same product
`
`with a different set of standard features in another region.” (Id., 3:2-5.) For
`
`example, a computer power supply may have a standard 110V input in one country
`
`and a standard 220V input in another country. (Id., 3:9-11.)
`
`27. Keeping
`
`these separate configuration spaces
`
`is usually most
`
`convenient for maintenance purposes. (Id., 3:14-16.) However, when answering
`
`product questions, sometimes it is necessary to have a view into the set of
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`allowable feature combinations across all configuration spaces. (Ex. 1001, 3:38-
`
`51.)
`
`
`
`28. As shown in FIG. 5 of the ’080 patent, reproduced above, three
`
`separate models for a product may be created and maintained separately for three
`
`geographic regions. (Id., 3:51-53.) In order to have a combined view into the three
`
`models, the models may be stitched together. (Id., 3:60-62 and Figure 5, elements
`
`504, 506, and 508.)
`
`29. Stitching models together may result in unspecified buildable
`
`configurations. (Id., 3:64-4:5.) A conventional consolidation process would not
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`automatically detect unspecified configuration buildables and correct them. (Ex.
`
`1001, 4:5-7.) And given the large number of rules in complex models, automation
`
`for the consolidation process is necessary. (Id., 4:7-9.)
`
`30. The ’080 patent provides an example of simple stitching and its
`
`complications. Specifically, the ’080 patent provides the following rules for
`
`models 102 and 104:
`
`
`
`31.
`
`In Model 102, the allowable buildable configuration is MKT1.ENG1.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 4:20-23 and FIG. 1, element 102.) This could mean that in marketing
`
`region 1 (e.g., the United States), only engine 1 is available. In Model 104, the
`
`allowable buildable configurations are MKT2.ENG1 and MKT2.ENG2. (Id., 4:20-
`
`26 and FIG. 1, element 104.) This could mean that in marketing region 2 (e.g.,
`
`Canada), both engines 1 and 2 are available.
`
`32. The naïve stitching of these models would result in the following
`
`model defining constraints, MDC = { MKT1+MKT2 }: MKT1 O ALL, MKT2 O
`
`ALL, ENG1 S ALL, and ENG2 O ALL. (Id., 4:31-36 and FIG. 1, element 106.)
`
`These rules would permit the following buildable configurations: MKT1.ENG1,
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`MKT1.ENG2, MKT2.ENG1, and MKT2.ENG2. (Id., 37-43 and FIG. 1, element
`
`106.)
`
`33.
`
`In the above scenario, MKT1.ENG2 is an unspecified buildable
`
`configuration. This configuration is not available when the individual Models 102
`
`and 104 are considered, and only appears during the naïve stitching of the models.
`
`(Id., 4:47-49 and FIG. 1, elements 102 and 104.) This result should be avoided in
`
`order to present a proper consolidated model, as in the above example where
`
`engine 2 is not available in marketing region 1.
`
`VIII. A CONVENTIONAL MODEL FOR CONSOLIDATION
`34. As shown in FIG. 6 of the ’080 patent, reproduced below, the
`
`conventional solution is to add each of the rules from each model being
`
`consolidated, and to qualify each rule with the model defining constraint label that
`
`indicates the origin of the rule in the consolidated model. (Id., 4:58-62 and FIG. 6.)
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`
`
`
`35. As seen above, the intersection of the MKT family with the ENG
`
`family, coupled with the SER family for SER1, results in a complete model for
`
`Configuration Model 602 (shown at 610). Similarly, the intersection of the MKT
`
`family with the ENG family, coupled with the SER family for SER2 results in a
`
`complete model for Configuration Model 612. (Ex. 1001, 6:1-11 and FIG. 6,
`
`elements 602, 610, and 612.)
`
`36.
`
`If each of the MKT, ENG, and SER families are stitched from
`
`Configuration Models 602 and 612, the resulting combinations of the stitched
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`families result in an unspecified buildable configuration shown as 636 -- in this
`
`case MKT1.ENG2.SER2. (Id., 6:61-7:2 and FIG. 4, elements 602, 612, and 636.)
`
`37.
`
`In order to fix this consolidated model, an operator would need to
`
`manually identify the unspecified buildable configuration and remove it. (Ex.
`
`1001, 4:55-62.)
`
`IX. THE CLAIMED ’080 PATENT’S TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION
`38. FIG. 8 of the ’080 patent, reproduced below, illustrates the
`
`consolidation of Model 602 and 610 (discussed above in view of the conventional
`
`consolidation model), in accordance with the approach described in the ’080
`
`patent. The claimed approach of the ’080 patent differs from the conventional
`
`approach to model consolidation described above, by its technical approach to
`
`identifying conflicts in the models and resolving the conflicts by extending and
`
`restricting the models to allow consolidation. The specifics of the technical
`
`approach are recited in detail in the steps of claim 1.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`
`
`
`39. Rather than simply finding the intersection of the MKT, ENG, and
`
`SER families from Models 602 and 612, the ’080 patent approach states that
`
`because the ENG family is above Model 612’s defining constraint family (SER) in
`
`a directed acyclic graph (DAG) for the model (see ’080 patent, FIG. 3), it is not
`
`possible to adjust the ENG family by intersecting its space with Model 612’s
`
`defining constraint (SER2). (Ex. 1001, 9:9-14 and FIG. 3, elements 602 and 612.)
`
`This step corresponds to the “identifying a conflict …” feature of representative
`
`claim 1.
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`Instead, the ENG family in Model 612 is extended to be compatible
`
`40.
`
`with the release of the ENG family in Model 602. (Id., 9:14-16, elements 602 and
`
`612.) This step corresponds to the “extending at least one of the ancestor
`
`configuration model family spaces …” feature of representative claim 1.
`
`41. This extension is compensated for by restricting the SER family so
`
`that it is no longer released in the space we extend the ENG family
`
`(MKT1.ENG2.*). (Id., 9:16-19.) This step corresponds to the “removing from the
`
`child configuration model family space …” feature of representative claim 1.
`
`42. The result is that the restriction on the SER family interacts with the
`
`extension of the ENG family in such a way that the consolidated model 822 does
`
`not include unspecified buildable configurations. (Id., 9:19-24, element 822.) This
`
`step corresponds to the “combining the first and second configuration models …”
`
`feature of representative claim 1.
`
`43. This approach allows a computing system to preserve the DAG
`
`structure that the data is sourced from (i.e., “the configuration models are
`
`organized in accordance with respective directed acyclic graphs”). With this
`
`requirement in place, the claimed approach of the ’080 patent (e.g., claim 1) works
`
`around the DAG limitation in order to provide a valid result for a consolidated
`
`model.
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`44. This approach can be used in any number of configuration systems,
`
`and is agnostic to the product or the specific use of the product. In particular, the
`
`’080 patent notes that “[m]any embodiments of the present invention have
`
`application to a wide range of industries including the following: computer
`
`hardware and software manufacturing and sales, professional services, financial
`
`services, automotive sales and manufacturing, telecommunications sales and
`
`manufacturing, medical and pharmaceutical sales and manufacturing, and
`
`construction industries.” (Ex. 1001, 18:3-9.) Whether a product that is the subject
`
`of the configuration models is used in manufacturing, is offered for sale, or is used
`
`for any other purpose has no bearing on the features of the ’080 patent claims.
`
`X.
`
`FORD’S “PEN AND PAPER” ANALYSIS IS DEFICIENT
`
`45. Ford’s expert argues that “[a]ll steps of the independent claims can be
`
`done by a human using pen and paper.” (Ex. 1006, McGuinness Declaration, para.
`
`30.) However, a human would never perform the claim features, as the claimed
`
`algorithm is only suitable to machine performance. The conflict identification and
`
`resolution process of the ’080 patent claims is not the automation of the manual
`
`conflict identification and resolution process of the conventional approach, but
`
`rather an entirely novel approach designed specifically
`
`to work within
`
`computational limitations (e.g., preserving the DAG) that would not be present in a
`
`pen and paper approach.
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`In particular, Ford’s expert omits any analysis of the specific manner
`
`46.
`
`in which the data being manipulated is structured. Claim 1, for example, requires
`
`that “the configuration models are organized in accordance with respective
`
`directed acyclic graphs, each configuration model includes at least one ancestor
`
`configuration model family space and a child configuration model family space
`
`below the ancestor configuration model family space.” No explanation of how a
`
`configuration model, holding with this structure, is utilized in the pen and paper
`
`manipulation shown by Ford’s expert, is given or even discussed.
`
`47. Given the particularities of the data being manipulated and the
`
`specific manner in which the claimed configuration models are structured, Ford’s
`
`expert fails to explain why a human using pen and paper would ever take this
`
`approach to consolidating configuration models.
`
`48. The data structure described in the claims is specifically selected to
`
`facilitate editing of the individual configuration models. The consolidation of
`
`configuration models structured in this manner happens to be challenging, and is a
`
`problem solved for software implementations by the claimed approach.
`
`49. A human using pen and paper would not structure the configuration
`
`models in the same way, but would rather select a structure that would better lend
`
`itself to consolidation (though without the benefit of ease of editing -- another
`
`feature that is only important to a computer-implemented approach). For example,
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`a human approach would be to reorder the parent/child structure of the
`
`configuration model space so that, in the example, the SER feature is considered
`
`first, thereby setting the context defined in the “defining constraints” of the
`
`independently developed models and removing the possibility of inconsistencies in
`
`the consolidated model.
`
`50. By reordering feature families (that is, modifying the DAG structure),
`
`the rules in the consolidated model are interpreted as:
`
`if SER1 is true/selected, then all the rules from the
`original model where SER1
`true/selected was
`the
`defining constraint can be applied, and any rule from an
`original (pre-consolidation) model where SER1 was
`false/unselected cannot be applied.
`
`The human approach would be
`
`to prevent
`
`inconsistencies by
`
`judicious
`
`restructuring of the model, allowing them to not have to be concerned with
`
`detecting inconsistencies in the consolidated model.
`
`51. The goal of the ’080 approach is to preserve the DAG structure, a
`
`problem and solution entirely peculiar to the computer environment in which the
`
`’080 patent claims are implemented. The actual human pen and paper approach
`
`would never introduce the conflict in the first place, since the conflict only arises
`
`due to the specific data structure of the configuration model.
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`
`XI. CLAIMS 2, 10, AND 16 ARE DEFINITE
`52. Ford’s expert argues that dependent claims 2, 6, and 16 of the ’080
`
`patent do not convey their scope to a skilled artisan with reasonable certainty. (Ex.
`
`1006, paras. 57-67.) Claim 2 is representative of these claims at issue, and reads:
`
`2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
`
`detecting any inconsistencies between rules included in
`the consolidated model; and
`
`attempting to resolve any detected inconsistencies.
`
`53. Ford’s expert argues that this limitation cannot be understood with
`
`reasonable certainty, and therefore the applicable claims should be invalid because
`
`the limitations are indefinite. (Id.) More specifically, Ford’s expert argues that an
`
`“inconsistency” in claims 2, 10, and 16 is not defined nor distinguished from a
`
`“conflict.” (Id., para. 58.)
`
`54. Ford’s expert contends
`
`that
`
`there actually cannot be any
`
`inconsistencies in the consolidated model because the independent claim only
`
`creates the consolidated model if it is able to resolve the identified conflicts. (Id.,
`
`paras. 59 and 60.) Ford’s expert adds that if any inconsistencies do exist in the
`
`consolidated model, then the consolidated model is flawed -- as the ’080 patent
`
`explains, “[i]f an incompatibility is detected that cannot be automatically resolved,
`
`then the configuration models should not be combined” into a consolidated model.
`
`(Id, para. 61.)
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`55. However, dependent claim 2 can reasonably be read such that its
`
`additional step is performed earlier in time, before the resolution of such conflicts
`
`in the independent claims.
`
`56. Given
`
`the
`
`interchangeable usage of
`
`the
`
`terms “conflict,”
`
`“incompatibility,”
`
`and
`
`“contradiction,”
`
`and
`
`“inconsistency,”
`
`the
`
`term
`
`“inconsistency” in dependent claims 2, 10, and 16 must mean the same thing—an
`
`inconsistency between rules is a conflict between rules. (Ex. 1001, 18:51-52,
`
`20:32-33, 21:13-14.)
`
`57.
`
`It is certainly possible to understand the meaning of the dependent
`
`claims at issue. In each case, they require the detection of an inconsistency (or
`
`conflict) in the consolidated model, and then an “attempt” to resolve it. In other
`
`words, there must be a consolidated model which has been formed by combining
`
`first and second configuration models, in which “a conflict” was also identified and
`
`resolved, in the process leading up to combining the first and second configuration
`
`models. The dependent claims require there to be a detected inconsistency (or
`
`conflict) in this consolidated model, despite having identified and resolved an
`
`earlier conflict.
`
`58.
`
`Importantly, the independent claims require “identifying a conflict”
`
`and then resolving it and forming the consolidated model. The independent claims
`
`do not necessarily require “identifying all conflicts” and then resolving all conflicts
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`before creating the consolidated model. Within this construct it would be possible
`
`to have a consolidated model containing such a conflict, despite having already
`
`identified and resolved another conflict. The meaning of this claim language, in
`
`light of the patent and file history, is understandable with reasonable certainty.
`
`59.
`
`I agree with the Special Master (see paragraph 23) that the term
`
`“inconsistencies between rules” in claims 2, 10, and 16 means the same thing as
`
`“conflicts between rules.” Under this reasonable interpretation, these claims have a
`
`meaning that can be understood with reasonable certainty such that they are not
`
`indefinite.
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00101
`Patent No. 7,739,080
`
`XII. CONCLUSION
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be
`60.
`
`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.
`
`61.
`
`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
