IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`KARYA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, §
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
` § No. 2:20-cv-00134-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
` § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`RESMAN, LLC,
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
` §
`
`DEFENDANT RESMAN, LLC’S P.R. 3-3 AND 3-4
`PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-3 and the Scheduling Order, Defendant ResMan, LLC (“Defendant” or
`
`“ResMan”) provides the following Preliminary Invalidity Contentions in conjunction with the
`
`P.R. 3-4 Production Accompanying Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. This disclosure is based
`
`on the asserted claims identified in Plaintiff’s P.R. 3-1 Disclosures for U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687.
`
`Defendant’s application of the prior art in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions does not
`
`represent Defendant’s agreement as to the meaning, definiteness, written description support for,
`
`entitlement to priority date for, or enablement of any claim contained therein. There has been no
`
`claim construction yet in this case. Defendant reserves the right to amend and supplement these
`
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions in accordance with the Court’s orders, the local Patent Rules,
`
`and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as discovery continues in this matter.
`
`I.
`
`P.R. 3-3. PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`A. Asserted Patent and Claims
`
`These Preliminary Invalidity Contentions set forth Defendant’s contentions regarding
`
`invalidity of the Asserted Claims, which are as follows:
`
`
`
`1
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 1
`
`

`

`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 2
`
`

`

`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 3
`
`

`

`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 4
`
`

`

`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 5
`
`

`

`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 6
`
`

`

`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 7
`
`

`

`[RESMAN001010 -
`RESMAN001013]
`Bidding for homes goes virtual
`[RESMAN001017]
`Homebid gets wireless
`[RESMAN001001]
`California Realty Firm, Internet
`Companies Create Home-Bidding
`Service
`[RESMAN001025 -
`RESMAN001028]
`Homebid.com Displays
`Technology to Make Online Home
`Sales via Personal Digital
`Assistants and WAP-enabled
`Cellular Phones
`[RESMAN001029 -
`RESMAN001032]
`Homebid Acquires Real Estate
`Transaction Management Tools
`from Internet Strategy to Give
`Realtors® an End-to-end Web-
`based Homebuying Solution
`[RESMAN001033 -
`RESMAN001036]
`Homebid.com Offer Manager
`[RESMAN001041 -
`RESMAN001044]
`Homebid.com Technology
`[RESMAN001045]
`Homebid.com Portfolio
`[RESMAN001046 -
`RESMAN001049]
`Homebid.com Mission Statement
`and Profile
`[RESMAN001050]
`The Dot-com Before the Storm
`[RESMAN001051 -
`RESMAN001057]
`
`Prudential Preferred Realty Teams
`With Microsoft’s HomeAdvisor
`Technologies and Homebid.com to
`Bring Cutting-Edge Tools To
`Pittsburgh Real Estate
`
`Feb. 8, 2000
`
`Jennifer Mack
`
`ZDNet News
`
`Apr. 7, 2000
`
`
`
`Feb. 8, 2000 George Avalos
`
`Inman News
`
`Contra Costa
`Times
`
`May 19, 2000 Richard Burger
`
`Homebid.com, Inc.
`
`Sep. 26, 2000 Richard Burger
`
`Homebid.com, Inc.
`
`Jun. 19, 2000
`
`Jun. 21, 2000
`
`Jun. 19, 2000
`
`Jun. 20, 2000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Summer 2000 Kevin Hawkins
`
`Sep. 14, 2000
`
`
`
`Homebid.com, Inc.
`
`Homebid.com, Inc.
`
`Homebid.com, Inc.
`
`Homebid.com, Inc.
`
`California Real
`Estate Magazine -
`Real Estate
`Technology
`Microsoft
`Corporation
`
`
`
`8
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 8
`
`

`

`[RESMAN001058 -
`RESMAN001060]
`HomeAdvisor.com Announces
`Major Expansion, Now Offers a
`One-Stop Shop for Everything
`About the Home
`[RESMAN001061 -
`RESMAN001063]
`
`May 15, 2000
`
`
`
`Microsoft
`Corporation
`
`C. P.R. 3-3(b): Anticipation and/or Obviousness of Each Item of Prior Art
`
`A claim may be invalid as lacking novelty, i.e., it is anticipated, under one of the provisions
`
`
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). A patent claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference discloses all the
`
`essential limitations of the claim. Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367,
`
`1379 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987). The single reference need not
`
`“expressly” set forth information corresponding to each limitation of the claim to anticipate.
`
`Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Rather,
`
`“[a] prior art reference anticipates a patent claim if the reference discloses either expressly or
`
`inherently, all of the limitations of the claim.” EMI Grp. N. Am. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
`
`268 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, “a prior art reference may anticipate without
`
`disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if that missing characteristic is necessarily present,
`
`or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403
`
`F.3d 1331, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (natural results flowing from the operation of prior art are
`
`inherent) (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`A claim may also be invalid for failing to meet the standards of “nonobviousness” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103. An invention is not patentable if the differences between the claimed invention
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter of the claimed invention as a whole would have
`
`been obvious, at the time the invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. There are four factual issues underlying the ultimate legal question of whether
`
`
`
`9
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 9
`
`

`

`claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior
`
`art and the claimed invention; (3) the level of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made;
`
`and (4) secondary or “objective” considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
`
`18, (1966); Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(referring to secondary considerations as “objective criteria” and “objective indicia”).
`
`The first Graham factor—scope and content of the prior art—requires distinction “between
`
`the references sought to be combined and the ‘prior art’, as the latter category is much broader.”
`
`Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re
`
`Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1199-1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Thus, the knowledge of the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art includes basic principles found in textbooks or treatises, which are
`
`“unlikely to be restated in cited references.” Id. In evaluating obviousness, prior art references
`
`may be combined to identify the storehouse of information that would be available to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Furthermore, “[a] statement in a
`
`patent that something is in the prior art is binding on the applicant and patentee for determinations
`
`of anticipation and obviousness.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`The second Graham factor—differences between the prior art and the claimed invention—
`
`requires considering whether such differences are relevant to the claims at issue. Dystar
`
`Textilfarben, 464 F.3d at 1364 n.2 (finding the only difference between the cited references and
`
`the claimed invention to be “irrelevant”). If the differences between the prior art and the claims
`
`
`
`10
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 10
`
`

`

`do not “result in a different function or give unexpected results,” such differences are simply an
`
`obvious matter of “design choice.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`Various sources may be used to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue, such as interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present
`
`in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418; see also Rothman v. Target Corp., 556 F.3d 1310,
`
`1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (applying KSR analysis and affirming jury verdict of obviousness). Thus,
`
`“in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
`
`together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 420; In re Translogic, 504 F.3d at
`
`1259.
`
`The third Graham factor—level of ordinary skill in the art—includes consideration of the
`
`knowledge and motivation a person of ordinary skill in the art would have in determining whether
`
`to combine references. See Dystar Textilfarben, 464 F.3d at 1370. “Persons of varying degrees
`
`of skill not only possess varying bases of knowledge, they also possess varying levels of
`
`imagination and ingenuity in the relevant field, particularly with respect to problem-solving
`
`abilities.” Id.
`
`As the Supreme Court has explained, a “person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person
`
`of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 421; In re Translogic, 504
`
`F.3d at 1260. Accordingly, the suggestion or motivation to combine elements may come from
`
`“common knowledge, or common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art, without any
`
`specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.” Rentrop v. Spectranetics Corp., 550 F.3d
`
`1112, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In fact, it is error to fail “to take account of ‘the inferences and
`
`
`
`11
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 11
`
`

`

`creative steps,’ or even routine steps, that an inventor would employ.” Ball Aerosol & Specialty
`
`Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Thus,
`
`small logical gaps between the prior art and the claims can be “closed by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art ‘pursu[ing] known options within his or her technical grasp.’” Scanner Techs. Corp. v.
`
`Icos Vision Sys. Corp. N.V., 528 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing In re Translogic, 504
`
`F.3d. at 1262).
`
`The fourth Graham factor—secondary considerations—must also be considered, if
`
`appropriate evidence is presented. See e.g., In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1351-53 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007) (Board erred by not considering evidence of secondary considerations). Secondary
`
`considerations include such things as commercial success; failure of others; long felt need;
`
`movement of the skilled in a different direction; skepticism of technical personnel; copying; and
`
`unexpected results. See Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1569 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1987); see also, e.g., Ortho-McNeil Pharm. 520 F.3d at 1365. There must be a nexus between the
`
`evidence of secondary considerations and the patented invention. See, e.g., Asyst Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming obviousness where evidence of
`
`commercial success related to features found in prior art, but not to novel features). Moreover,
`
`considerable evidence of secondary considerations does not necessarily overcome a strong prima
`
`facie case of obviousness. Rothman, 556 F.3d at 1321-22 (affirming jury finding of obviousness
`
`even in light of evidence of secondary considerations).
`
`The Supreme Court dealt with the circumstances under which references may be combined
`
`to show that the combination is obvious. “[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would
`
`have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way
`
`the claimed new invention does.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 419. “The combination of familiar
`
`
`
`12
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 12
`
`

`

`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results.” Id. at 416. In evaluating obviousness, “a court must ask whether the
`
`improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions.” Id. at 417. A combination is likely to be obvious where it “‘simply arranges old
`
`elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no
`
`more than one would expect from such an arrangement.” Id. (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.,
`
`425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). One of the ways in which a patent’s claimed subject matter will be
`
`obvious is “if there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an
`
`obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419.
`
`Not surprisingly, “discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is
`
`usually obvious.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In
`
`re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In other words, selecting among known and
`
`clearly suggested parameters is no more than routine optimization within the capabilities of one
`
`skilled in the art. Pfizer, 480 F.3d at 1371. Such optimization is likely the result of routine
`
`experimentation, yielding expected results; it is not invention. Id. at 1368; see also In re Geisler,
`
`116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that unexpected results due to optimizing a
`
`variable must be supported by factual evidence). Moreover, where claims recite specific
`
`dimensions not expressly disclosed in the prior art, but the claimed invention would not perform
`
`any differently than the prior art, the claims are invalid as obvious under § 103. See Gardner v.
`
`TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1345-49 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Chu, 66 F.3d at 299 (analyzing
`
`whether claimed structure functioned differently than prior art).
`
`In cases involving claims that recite ranges of values, prior art ranges have been found to
`
`anticipate such claims or render such claims as obvious.
`
`
`
`13
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 13
`
`

`

`The First Graham Factor: Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`
`The first Graham factor covers the nature of the problem to be solved. The prior art
`
`references teach on-line solutions that address the primary tasks completed in a typical lease
`
`transaction, including identification of a property matching a potential tenant’s requirements. See,
`
`e.g., Broerman, 1:30-31 (“Typical buyers are at a similar disadvantage in finding and purchasing
`
`real property such as a home.”); Donahue, 1:44-49 (“Various web-based listing services have
`
`sprung up in recent years to service the real estate needs of companies looking for space, including
`
`sales, leases, and auctions. Companies … provide brokerage and listing services in an attempt to
`
`facilitate real estate transactions over the Internet.”); Lee (“[T]he purchaser or lessee visits a real
`
`estate brokerage and asks whether there is a sale or lease … check the details of the property …
`
`after which then they select the property they need.”); Ingraham, ¶ 4 (“Renters and purchasers have
`
`now also begun using listing services available via Internet web sites to locate prospective rental
`
`units and properties. However, these listing services web sites only ease the first step, that is,
`
`identifying available properties.”); Tornetta, 1:19-21 (“This computer-stored [real estate] listing
`
`may be accessed through terminals for retrieval of specific information relating to a given
`
`property.”); Gale, 1:45-47 (“While the use of websites for merchandising has proved successful,
`
`the information exchange capacity of Internet websites far exceeds current usage.”).
`
`The prior art references also teach on-line solutions that address site visit and space
`
`calculations in a typical lease transaction. See, e.g., Lee (“[T]he purchaser or lessee visits a real
`
`estate brokerage and asks whether there is a sale or lease … check the details of the … area of the
`
`property…”); Ingraham, ¶ 4 (“The difficulties in setting an appointment to view units or properties
`
`and communicating with the property owner, leasing agent or property manager are not
`
`ameliorated by using listing services web sites.”); Keithley, 1:56-62 (“The details are generally on
`
`
`
`14
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 14
`
`

`

`a single sheet at best, and include the number of rooms, occasionally size of rooms, number of
`
`bathrooms, land size, and any out-buildings such as barns. The properties chosen for review must
`
`then be physically shown, so Real Estate Agents then drive potential buyers around showing
`
`properties, which wastes both time and money.”); Keithley, 2:17-23 (“Extensive information
`
`regarding comparable rents, vacancy rates, and similar properties is often the norm. Obtaining this
`
`information is often difficult and once received, it is limited in scope.”); Mini, 1:40-50 (“[B]ecause
`
`of the high level of complexity, remote online facilitation of real estate transactions is a challenging
`
`endeavor. That is, in order to facilitate a residential real estate transaction from beginning to end,
`
`the conservative players in the industry must be made to work in a coordinated way and, in some
`
`cases, against their own perceived interests, to make the home selling and buying process
`
`understandable and user friendly.”).
`
`The prior art references also teach on-line solutions that address lease term negotiations in
`
`a typical lease transaction. See, e.g., Broerman, 1:60-62 (“Attempting to avoid the high
`
`commission of real estate agents means difficulty in negotiating the purchase contract.”); Donahue,
`
`1:49-52 (“[Various web-based listing] services primarily focus on listing properties, and do little
`
`to facilitate the negotiation or consummation of real estate deals.”); Lee (“[I]t is necessary to make
`
`an offer for sale or lease to a real estate seller or a real estate agent by directly visiting many sellers
`
`(lessors) or buyers (lessees).”); Ingraham, ¶ 5 (“Although [an apartment finding service, a house
`
`locator service, or a real estate agent] is supposed to make the process easier, it may cost more
`
`money than many renters and purchasers want to spend, and may add a level of complexity to the
`
`process by having to coordinate with the agent or service.”); Mini, 2:7-30 (“Even on the few sites
`
`that allow buyers to submit initial bids online, once the bid is submitted, the transaction proceeds
`
`offline in the traditional manner, typically including several rounds of offer and counteroffer
`
`
`
`15
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 15
`
`

`

`before both parties agree. That is, a bid that is accepted must still follow the traditional non-
`
`internet procedures of writing an offer which is then submitted to the seller.”).
`
`Accordingly, the nature of the problem to be solved would have led inventors to look at
`
`the prior art references in Exhibits 1 through 14 relating to possible solutions to this problem. Ruiz
`
`v. AB Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The motivation to combine may be
`
`implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases,
`
`from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366-1368 (“[A]n implicit motivation to
`
`combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when
`
`the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a
`
`product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner,
`
`faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial
`
`opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have
`
`held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent
`
`any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is
`
`whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining
`
`the prior art references.”).
`
`The Second Graham Factor: Differences between the Prior Art and the Claimed Invention
`
`The second Graham factor covers the express, implied, and inherent teachings of the prior
`
`art. U.S. Patent No. 6,594,633 to Broerman teaches, for example, an apparatus and method for
`
`“assist[ing] in the automated and efficient provision of real estate services, particularly in the area
`
`of facilitating real estate sales transactions.” Broerman, 2:10-15. Broerman continues to teach
`
`“[a] real estate computer network 10 facilitates a real estate transaction between a buyer 13 and a
`
`seller 12 by electronically communicating between the parties 12, 13 and third parties such as a
`
`
`
`16
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 16
`
`

`

`real estate facilitating entities 24 (e.g., lawyer, mortgage provider, title provider) over a network
`
`14, such as or including the Internet 16.” Broerman, Abstract, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`Further, Broerman teaches “negotiation during a transaction [which] includes electronically
`
`generating an offer by revising an electronic form under the direction of … either the seller or
`
`buyer” and “execution of the transaction.” Broerman, 2: 25:44. Accordingly, a POSITA would
`
`look to the teachings of Broerman for, at least, its solution for on-line searching, matching,
`
`negotiation, and execution of a real estate transaction.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,024,397 to Donahue teaches, for example: “a method and apparatus that
`
`facilitates a structured lease negotiation between two parties to a real estate transaction”
`
`“[a]dditional steps of completing the lease transaction.” Exhibit 2, Abstract, 2:17-29. Donahue
`
`continues to teach: “[A] prospective tenant operates a computer 101 to negotiate a real estate lease
`
`with a prospective landlord, who operates a separate computer 102. The parties negotiate the lease
`
`through a computer 100 that implements a structured transaction. Computer 100 may comprise a
`
`web site that stores and generates web pages accessible over the Internet to both parties, each of
`
`
`
`17
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 17
`
`

`

`whom may be located in different countries and time zones. Additionally, one or more vendor
`
`computers 108 may also communicate with computer 100 as described in more detail herein.
`
`Alternatively, the functions associated with computer 100 can be implemented in computer 101 or
`
`102, or a combination of the two computers, such that no physical third computer is required.”
`
`Donahue, 3:58-4:4, Fig. 1A.
`
`
`
`Donahue also teaches the negotiation and execution of documents: “In step 701, the parties agree
`
`to require intervention by LSPs (e.g., lawyers) if necessary. In step 702, a draft contract (lease) is
`
`generated by the computer on the basis of the negotiated information that was “locked in” by
`
`agreement of the parties. This step can be done using a document template populated with
`
`information from lease database 104. In step 703, the parties review and resolve the contract,
`
`including mediation if necessary. In step 704, the parties agree upon lease attachments such as a
`
`detailed description of office space, final plans and specifications. In step 705, a lease agreement
`
`
`
`18
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 18
`
`

`

`is prepared. The result of the fifth phase is a lease that the parties agree on (but which has not yet
`
`been executed).” Donahue, 15:52-65, Fig. 7.
`
`
`
`Further, Donahue teaches: “In step 801, information summaries are prepared. If a corporate
`
`approval summary is required, a standard corporate approvals form is generated using information
`
`from the lease database. If a financial analysis is required, a standard financial analysis form is
`
`generated. In step 802, corporate approvals are obtained by each party. This includes steps of
`
`submitting the forms and information for internal approvals, obtaining signatures of local
`
`subsidiaries if required; and obtaining management signatures on the approval forms. In step 803,
`
`the legal documents are executed. This may include steps of identifying authorized signatories;
`
`transmitting original signature documents by e-mail, fax or express mail, and obtaining the actual
`
`signatures. In step 804, the parties exchange documents, pay required deposits, and exchange keys
`
`or other entrance mechanisms (security codes, etc.). The outcome of this phase is that all legal
`
`documents are executed and access is granted to the premises.” Donahue, 15:66-16:19, Fig. 8.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would look to the teachings of Donahue for, at least, its solution for
`
`
`
`19
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 19
`
`

`

`generating a real estate transaction contract based on negotiated information and executing the
`
`contract.
`
`
`
`Korean Patent No. KR 2000-0049894 to Lee teaches, for example, “an electronic real estate
`
`brokerage system and its brokerage method wherein it allows to freely and easily acquire real
`
`estate sales information and rental information without regard to place or time on the homepage
`
`of the Internet, and at the same time, it is possible to obtain the sale and rental information of
`
`apartments at a low price at a lower brokerage fee.” Lee, Abstract. Further, Lee teaches the
`
`“viewing and signing of a contract of a such apartment property for rental.” Lee, Specification.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would look to the teachings of Lee for, at least, its solution for searching
`
`real estate properties and executing a lease agreement.
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2001/0037280 to Ingraham teaches, for example, “A system and
`
`method for facilitating renting and purchasing relationships. The method includes receiving at
`
`least one property profile from at least one responsible party. At least one transaction request from
`
`each of a plurality of responsible parties is received. The transaction requests are matched with
`
`the property profiles. The transaction requests are provided to the responsible parties of those
`
`properties that match the transaction request. In one embodiment, an offer received from at least
`
`
`
`20
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 20
`
`

`

`one of the responsible parties is provided to at least one of the requesting parties. The method may
`
`be executed on a computer connected to a network such as the Internet.” Ingraham, Abstract.
`
`Further, Ingraham teaches: “In one embodiment, the transaction center system may nearly instantly
`
`communicate matching properties to a renter, as shown in block 6. Providing this information to
`
`the renter may satisfy the renter that the system is taking action on the renter's behalf by displaying
`
`information about properties which may have available rooms. The transaction center system then
`
`provides rental requests to property owners having matching properties, as shown in block 8. In
`
`one embodiment, the transaction center system provides rental requests anonymously. Property
`
`owners receive rental requests that match units specified in property profiles, and decide whether
`
`to present an offer to a renter. The property owner may submit an offer to be sent to a renter via
`
`the transaction center system. Upon receipt of rental offers from property owners, the transaction
`
`center system then provides rental offers from property owners to the renter, as shown in block 9.”
`
`Ingraham, ¶ 17, Fig. 1. Accordingly, a POSITA would look to the teachings of Ingraham for, at
`
`least, its solution for identifying a matching property and electronically negotiating terms through
`
`an offer and acceptance between a renter and a property owner.
`
`
`
`21
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687 to Grosser teaches, for example, a system that “enable[s]
`
`consumer purchases in a non-tactile purchasing environment such as, but not limited to, those
`
`encountered in web-based or on-line sales transactions.” Grosser, 1:51-54. Grosser also teaches:
`
`“exemplary applications of an on-line home buying purchase decision assistance system.”
`
`Grosser, 2:66-3:1. Further, Grosser teaches: “transaction frames for handling payment and price
`
`negotiation associated with purchasing, for referring a user to another electronic network or system
`
`in order to consummate a purchase.” Grosser, 7:63-66. Accordingly, a POSITA would look to
`
`
`
`22
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 22
`
`

`

`the teachings of Grosser for, at least, its solution for searching for real estate and price negotiations
`
`of real estate.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,202 to Raveis teaches, for example: “A system and method for
`
`managing real estate transactions is provided. The method includes the steps of receiving and
`
`storing data relating to a plurality of contacts including buyers and sellers of real estate, receiving
`
`and storing data relating to a plurality of vendors each associated with at least one phase of a real
`
`estate transaction, accessing vendor data based upon occurrence of a particular phase of the real
`
`estate transaction and communicating data relating to the vendors to a contact upon occurrence of
`
`the particular phase of the real estate transaction. The system includes means for conducting each
`
`of these steps.” Raveis, Abstract. Accordingly, a POSITA would look to the teachings of Raveis
`
`for, at least, its solution for matching buyers and sellers of real estate.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,404 to Good teaches, for example: “A method for managing real
`
`estate brokerage referrals in which the referrals are made by a broker for residential real estate. A
`
`geographically categorized real estate list is created and reviewed by a potential tenant. From this
`
`list the potential tenant makes a selection of a desired apartment complex. An individual referral
`
`fee agreement is generated which is specific to the potential tenant and to the specific desired
`
`apartment complex. The agreement that is generated is provided to the potential tenant who
`
`delivers the agreement to the agent for the desired apartment complex for acceptance by that agent.
`
`A broker computer system stores a database of real estate rental listings and is programmed for
`
`generating an online brokerage referral fee agreement specific to the potential tenant and the
`
`apartment complex when the potential tenant makes a selection of a specific complex from a
`
`database. The generated agreement is processed for transfer to a potential tenant computer data
`
`processor which provides the brokerage referral fee agreement to the tenant for presentation to the
`
`
`
`23
`
`KARYA EXHIBIT 2004
`Resman, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`CBM2020-00020, Page 23
`
`

`

`agent for the apartment complex for acceptance.” Accordingly, a POSITA would look to the
`
`teachings of Good for, at least, its solution for brokering real estate to potential tenants.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,584,025 to Keithley teaches, for example: “An information processing
`
`system for acquiring and displaying information relating to a specific industry or interest, the
`
`example herein being real estate and related goods and services.” Keithley, Abstract. Keithley
`
`also teaches: “[t]he commercial real estate market is almost identical to the residential market in
`
`regard to how properties are reviewed and chosen.” Keithley, 2:11-13; see also id., Fig. 9 (showing
`
`both “LEASE” and “PURCHASE”).
`
`
`
`Further, Keithley teaches: “End User--The p