`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`Filed: June 14, 2005
`Issued: September 23, 2008
`Inventor(s): Doktor, Karol
`Assignee: Financial Systems
`Technology (Intellectual Property) Pty.
`Ltd.
`Title: EASILY EXPANDABLE DATA
`PROCESSING SYSTEM AND
`METHOD
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissions for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`
`Attorney Docket No:
`
`
`
`Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. STANLEY B. ZDONIK UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. RE40,520
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 4
`
`III. Understanding of Patent Law .......................................................................... 6
`
`IV. Background on the ’520 Patent ....................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Invention ..................................................................... 8
`
`Summary of the Relevant Prosecution History ................................... 13
`
`V.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art .................................................. 14
`
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 15
`
`VII. Detailed Analysis of the Challenged Claims ................................................. 16
`
`A. Obviousness Analysis ......................................................................... 17
`
`B.
`
`Claims 10–13 and 15–16 are Obvious in View of James P.
`Davis, et al., EDICT – An Enhanced Relational Data
`Dictionary: Architecture and Example. ............................................... 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 10 is Invalid in View of Davis. ...................................... 19
`
`Claim 11 is Invalid in View of Davis. ...................................... 26
`
`Claim 12 is Invalid in View of Davis. ...................................... 27
`
`Claim 13 is Invalid in View of Davis. ...................................... 30
`
`Claim 15 is Invalid in View of Davis. ...................................... 32
`
`Claim 16 is Invalid in View of Davis. ...................................... 33
`
`C.
`
`Claims 10–13 and 15–16 are Obvious in View of Stephanie
`Cammarata, et al., Extending a Relational Database with
`Deferred Referential Integrity Checking and Intelligent Joins. .......... 35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 10 is Invalid in View of Cammarata. ............................. 36
`
`Claim 11 is Invalid in View of Cammarata. ............................. 46
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 12 is Invalid in View of Cammarata. ............................. 48
`
`Claim 13 is Invalid in View of Cammarata. ............................. 51
`
`Claim 15 is Invalid in View of Cammarata. ............................. 52
`
`Claim 16 is Invalid in View of Cammarata. ............................. 54
`
`D.
`
`Claims 10–13 and 15–16 are Obvious in View of U.S. Patent
`No. 4,868,733 to Fujisawa, et al. ........................................................ 56
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 10 is Invalid in View of Fujisawa. ................................. 57
`
`Claim 11 is Invalid in View of Fujisawa. ................................. 65
`
`Claim 12 is Invalid in View of Fujisawa. ................................. 67
`
`Claim 13 is Invalid in View of Fujisawa. ................................. 69
`
`Claim 15 is Invalid in View of Fujisawa. ................................. 71
`
`Claim 16 is Invalid in View of Fujisawa. ................................. 73
`
`VIII. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ........................................... 74
`
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 77
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`I, Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of International Business
`
`Machines Corporation (“IBM”) for the above-captioned Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. RE 40,520 (“the ’520 Patent”). I
`
`am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at my
`
`standard consulting rate of $750 per hour. My compensation is not affected
`
`by the outcome of this matter.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the challenged
`
`claims of the Patent are invalid as anticipated or would have been obvious to
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`3.
`
`The ’520 Patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,826,259 (“the ’259
`
`Patent”), which issued on October 20, 1998. (Ex. 1014, ’520 Patent.) The
`
`’259 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/862,176 (“the ’176
`
`Application”), filed on May 22, 1997. (Id.) The ’176 Application was filed
`
`as a continuation of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/439,207, filed on May 11,
`
`1995, now U.S. Patent No. 5,675,779, which is a divisional of U.S. Patent
`
`Appl. No. 08/083,861, filed on June 28, 1993, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,604,899, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 07/526,424,
`
`filed on May 21, 1990, now abandoned. (Id.)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`4.
`
`FST filed an application for reissue of the ’259 Patent, U.S. Reissue Appl.
`
`No. 11/152,835 (“the ’835 Reissue Application”) on June 14, 2005. (Ex.
`
`1015.) On September 1, 2005, Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) filed
`
`Reexamination Request No. 90/007,707 (“the ’707 Reexamination”), a
`
`request for reexamination of the ’259 Patent. (Ex. 1016.) Oracle’s ’707
`
`Reexamination request was granted, and the ’835 Reissue Application and
`
`’707 Reexamination proceedings were merged. (Ex. 1017; Ex. 1018.) On
`
`May 9, 2007, Oracle filed Reexamination Request No. 90/008,648 (“the
`
`’648 Reexamination”), a second request for reexamination of the ’259
`
`Patent, given a filing date of June 11, 2007. (Ex. 1021; Ex. 1031) On
`
`September 23, 2008, the ’259 Patent was reissued as the ’520 Patent. (Ex.
`
`1005.)
`
`5.
`
`The face of the ’520 Patent names Karol Doktor as the purported inventor
`
`and identifies Financial Systems Technology (Intellectual Property) Pty. Ltd.
`
`(“FST”) as the purported assignee of the ’520 Patent. I have been asked to
`
`assume that the priority date of the alleged inventions recited in the ’520
`
`Patent is May 21, 1990.
`
`6.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’520 Patent, file histories
`
`related to the ’520 Patent, numerous prior art references, statements made by
`
`FST regarding the alleged meaning and scope of terms and phrases recited in
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`the ’520 Patent, and FST’s infringement contentions against IBM for the
`
`’520 Patent.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that the patent claims at issue in this IPR are to be construed
`
`based on the standard for claim construction applied in a court proceeding as
`
`set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp. I have been asked to apply the claim
`
`constructions proposed by FST.
`
`8.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`experience in the relevant field of the art and have considered the viewpoint
`
`of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art as of May 21, 1990. My
`
`opinions are based, at least in part, on the following references:
`
`Reference
`James P. Davis, et al., EDICT - An
`Enhanced Relational Data Dictionary:
`Architecture and Example (“Davis”).
`Stephanie Cammarata, et al., Extending
`a Relational Database with Deferred
`Referential Integrity Checking and
`Intelligent Joins (“Cammarata”).
`U.S. Patent No. 4,868,733 to Fujisawa,
`et al. (“Fujisawa”).
`U.S. Patent No. 5,206,951 to Khoyi, et
`al. (“Khoyi”).
`
`
`
`Date of Public Availability
`Davis was published in February 1988
`and is attached as Ex. 1006 to the IPR.
`
`Cammarata was published in June 1989
`and is attached as Ex. 1007 to the IPR.
`
`Fujisawa was filed on March 26, 1986,
`and is attached as Ex. 1008 to the IPR.
`Khoyi is a continuation of U.S. Patent
`Appl. No. 88,622, filed on August 21,
`1987, and is attached as Ex. 1009 to the
`IPR.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`9.
`I am an expert in the field of databases, and have been an expert in the field
`
`since prior to 1990. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my
`
`training, knowledge and experience in the relevant art. A copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae is provided as Appendix A to this Declaration and provides
`
`a comprehensive description of my academic and employment history.
`
`10.
`
`I have over thirty years of experience in the computer science field. I am
`
`currently a tenured professor of Computer Science at Brown University. In
`
`that capacity, I have supervised dozens of graduate and undergraduate
`
`students on their thesis research. All of these projects were related to
`
`database management systems.
`
`11.
`
`I have five (5) degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`
`(MIT): two Bachelor’s degrees (one in Computer Science and the other in
`
`Industrial Management); one Master’s degree in Computer Science and
`
`Electrical Engineering; the degree of Electrical Engineer; and a Ph.D. in
`
`Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, with a specialty in database
`
`management.
`
`12. My work on database management systems has been published in over one
`
`hundred and thirty peer-reviewed papers in the top-tier venues in the field,
`
`and I have acted as a consultant to over thirty organizations with respect to
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`issues involving database management. I have given many lectures,
`
`research seminars, and tutorials on database management and related topics.
`
`I am the editor of the following university-level book: Readings in Object-
`
`Oriented Database Systems, which was the standard reference on object-
`
`oriented systems in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
`
`13.
`
`I have conducted research on, and developed, several database management
`
`system research prototypes. Two such systems were Aurora/Borealis, which
`
`became the startup company StreamBase Systems, and C-Store, which
`
`became the startup company Vertica. StreamBase Systems makes a
`
`Complex Event Processing (CEP) system that processes with low latency
`
`user-supplied business rules.
`
`14.
`
`I have also collaborated with researchers at universities, institutes, and
`
`research organizations in the United States and Europe, including the
`
`University of St. Andrews, Scotland, IBM, Xerox, and DEC. Because of my
`
`expertise in computer science and database management systems, I have
`
`held Visiting Professorships at MIT and Brandeis.
`
`15.
`
`I am a recognized member of the Association for Computing Machinery
`
`(“ACM”), and was named an ACM Fellow in 2006. I have also served on
`
`the Board of Trustees of the VLDB (Very Large Databases) Endowment, a
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`non-profit organization incorporated for the purpose of promoting and
`
`exchanging scholarly work in databases.
`
`16.
`
`In addition, I was co-founder of two successful database software start-up
`
`companies, StreamBase Systems and Vertica. Vertica was acquired by HP
`
`in 2011.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`17.
`I understand that prior art includes patents and printed publications in the
`
`relevant art that predate May 21, 1990, for the subject matter claimed in the
`
`’520 Patent.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged in the
`
`reference as in the claim. Obviousness of a claim requires that the claim be
`
`obvious from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art at the time the invention was made.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill brought to bear in
`
`evaluating the pertinent art.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`20.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the obviousness
`
`of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include, among
`
`other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected
`
`results of the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was
`
`satisfied by the invention, the failure of others to make the invention, praise
`
`of the invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus
`
`between any such secondary considerations and the invention. I also
`
`understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`21.
`
`I further understand that a claim is obvious if it unites old elements with no
`
`change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere substitution
`
`of one element for another known in the field and that combination yields
`
`predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`combination, no rigid requirement of finding a teaching, suggestion or
`
`motivation to combine is required. When a product is available, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
`
`same field or different one. If a person having ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`art can implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve
`
`one device and a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
`
`it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
`
`obvious. Indeed, I understand that a claim may be obvious if common sense
`
`directs one to combine multiple prior art references or add missing features
`
`to reproduce the invention recited in the claims.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND ON THE ’520 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the Invention
`22. The ’520 Patent is directed to a data processing system. This system uses
`
`certain defined tables, including an Entity Definition Table, Relation
`
`Definition Table, Entity Instance Tables, and Relation Instance Tables, to
`
`store certain information regarding real data stored in the database. The data
`
`stored in these tables is used to retrieve real data from a relational database.
`
`23. The ’520 Patent describes a framework where defined Entity Types (e.g.,
`
`“Customer,” “Address,” “Account”) are related by defined Relation Types
`
`(“’s business,” “’s owner,” “’s statement mailing”) to provide meaning to a
`
`relationship between entities. (Ex. 1005 at claim 10, Figs. 5 and 6A.) The
`
`’520 Patent explains that in prior art systems, “implied” relations between
`
`entities could not be discerned by simply inspecting data in a table because
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`the relationship could be one of a large number of possibilities. (Ex. 1005 at
`
`5:46–6:10.)
`
`24. Claim 10 recites:
`
`10. A relational database processing system comprising:
`
`[a] an entity definition table containing a first entity type
`record defining a first entity type;
`
`[b] a first entity instance table associated with said first
`entity type;
`
`[c] a plurality of entity instance records stored in said
`first entity instance table;
`
`[d] a relation definition table containing a first relation
`type record defining a provided relation type;
`
`[e] a first relation instance table associated with said
`provided relation type; and
`
`[f] a first relation instance record of said provided
`relation type, said first relation instance record relating a
`desired entity in one of said entity instance records to a
`provided entity.
`
`(Ex. 1005 at claim 10.)
`
`25. The ’520 Patent explains that the Entity Type is defined by an Entity Type
`
`Record. Entity Type Records are contained in an Entity Definition Table.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`Entity Type Records can also identify an associated Entity Instance Table.
`
`Figure 5 of the ’520 Patent shows a block diagram of the Entity Definition
`
`Table (ENT.DEF).
`
`Entity Definition Table
`
`Entity Type Record
`
`
`Entity Type Name
`
`Entity Instance
`Table Name
`
`
`26. Similarly, the ’520 Patent explains that a Relation Type is explicitly defined
`
`
`
`by a Relation Type Record. Relation Type Records are contained in a
`
`Relation Definition Table. Relation Type Records can also identify an
`
`associated Relation Instance Table. Figure 6A of the ’520 Patent shows a
`
`block diagram of the Relation Definition Table (REL.DEF).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`Relation Definition Table
`Relation Type Record
`Relation Type Name
`
`
`Relation Instance
`Table Name
`
`27. According to the ’520 Patent, an Entity Instance Table contains records of
`
`
`
`entity instances. Figure 7-2 of the ’520 Patent shows two Entity Instance
`
`Tables.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`Entity Instance Tables
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28. The ’520 Patent explains that a Relation Instance Table contains records that
`
`explicitly define relationships between instances of a primary (head) entity
`
`and secondary (tail) entity. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 of the ’520 Patent show a
`
`Relation Instance Table.
`
`Relation Instance Table
`
`29. These four tables are used to process retrieval requests from a database.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`Summary of the Relevant Prosecution History
`
`B.
`In a March 5, 1998, Office Action, the Examiner allowed what issued as
`
`30.
`
`claims 1–18 without any rejections. The Examiner stated that the prior art of
`
`record did not disclose “retrieving a specific relation instance record
`
`defining a relation of said provided relation type between said provided
`
`entity and said desired entity from a relation instance table and retrieving a
`
`desired entity type record containing said desired entity type from an entity
`
`definition table.” (Ex. 1013, 3/5/98 Office Action at 003, ¶ 1.) My review
`
`of the issued claims shows that the elements stated in the Examiner’s
`
`statement are found only in claim 1 of the ’520 Patent, and are not found in
`
`challenged claims 10–13 and 15–16.
`
`31. During Oracle’s first reexamination, the Examiner allowed the claims after
`
`finding that the Munz reference, relied on by Oracle to anticipate the claims,
`
`would not qualify as a “relational database.” (Ex. 1020, 2/20/08 Notice of
`
`Allowability at 009, ¶ 10.)
`
`32. During Oracle’s second reexamination, the Examiner allowed the claims
`
`after finding that the prior art of record did “not explicitly teach a relational
`
`database processing system comprising an entity definition table containing
`
`a first entity type record defining a first entity type, a first entity instance
`
`table associated with said first entity type, and a relation definition table
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`containing a first relation type record defining a provided relation type, in
`
`combination with the remaining elements or features of the claimed
`
`invention.” (Ex. 1026, 9/18/09 Notice of Allowance at 004–007.)
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART
`33.
`I have been advised that there are multiple factors relevant to determining
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including the educational level
`
`of active workers in the field at the time of the invention, the sophistication
`
`of the technology, the type of problems encountered in the art and the prior
`
`art solutions to those problems.
`
`34. There are likely a wide range of educational backgrounds in the technology
`
`field pertinent to the ’520 Patent. In this field, the educational backgrounds
`
`for active workers at the time of invention (i.e., in 1990) would typically
`
`include either a Bachelor of Science or Master of Science degree in
`
`Computer Science.
`
`35. The ’520 Patent provides a Description of Related Art that describes the
`
`sophistication of the technology, the types of problems encountered in the
`
`art, and the prior art solutions to those problems. (Ex. 1005 at 1:41–6:52.)
`
`36. Considering this information, it is my opinion that a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art at the time of invention (i.e., in 1990) is a person with
`
`either a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science and two years of
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`industry experience in database design, or a Master of Science degree in
`
`Computer Science.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`37.
`I understand that FST has proposed that the phrase “entity definition table”
`
`should be construed as a “relational database table that defines one or more
`
`entity types and stores one or more entity type records.” (Ex. 1010, Ex A.)
`
`My analysis applies this construction.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that FST has proposed that the phrase “entity type record”
`
`should be construed as a “record in an entity definition table, said record
`
`containing, as two separate attributes, an entity type and a table identifier of
`
`an entity instance table.” (Ex. 1010, Ex A.) My analysis applies this
`
`construction.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that FST has proposed that the phrase “relation definition table”
`
`should be construed as a “relational database table that defines one or more
`
`relation types and stores one or more relation type records.” (Ex. 1010, Ex
`
`A.) My analysis applies this construction.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that FST has proposed that the phrase “relation type record”
`
`should be construed as a “record in a relation definition table, said record
`
`containing, as two separate attributes, a relation type and a table identifier of
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`a relation instance table.” (Ex. 1010, Ex A.) My analysis applies this
`
`construction.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that FST has proposed that the phrase “entity instance table”
`
`should be construed as a “relational database table that stores one or more
`
`entity instance records.” (Ex. 1010, Ex A.) I further understand that FST
`
`has proposed that the phrase “entity instance record” should be construed as
`
`a “record in an entity instance table, said record constituting an instance of
`
`an entity type.” (Ex. 1010, Ex A.) My analysis applies these constructions.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that FST has proposed that the phrase “relation instance table”
`
`should be construed as a “relational database table that stores one or more
`
`relation instance records.” (Ex. 1010, Ex A.) I further understand that FST
`
`has proposed that the phrase “relation instance record” should be construed
`
`as a “record in a relation instance table, said record constituting an instance
`
`of a relation type, said instance containing, as two separate attributes, an
`
`identifier of a first entity and an identifier of a second entity, and where said
`
`first and second entities are stored in tables separate from the relation
`
`instance table.” (Ex. 1010, Ex A.) My analysis applies these constructions.
`
`VII. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`43.
`I have been asked to provide an opinion as to whether the challenged claims
`
`of the ’520 Patent are invalid in view of the prior art. The discussion below
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`provides a detailed analysis of how the prior art references identified in
`
`Section I invalidate the challenged claims.
`
`A. Obviousness Analysis
`44. As part of my obviousness analysis, I have considered the scope and content
`
`of the prior art and whether any differences between the alleged invention
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, which I took to be the priority date of the application leading to
`
`the ’520 Patent. I have also considered the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art. Having considered these factual inquiries, it is my opinion that
`
`the alleged inventions of claims 10–13 and 15–16 of the ’520 Patent would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date.
`
`45.
`
`I describe in detail below the scope and content of the prior art, as well as
`
`any differences between the alleged invention and the prior art, on an
`
`element-by-element basis for each challenged claim of the ’520 Patent. The
`
`prior art discloses relational database systems that use a set of tables to
`
`define types of entities (referred to as “entity sets,” “concepts,” and
`
`“relations” in the identified prior art) and types of relationships (referred to
`
`as “relationship sets,” “relationships,” and “interlinks” in the identified prior
`
`art). A separate table then relates individual instances of entities, such that a
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`provided type of relationship relates a provided instance of an entity type to
`
`a desired instance of an entity type.
`
`46. There are minimal, if any, differences between the identified prior art and
`
`the alleged inventions recited in the challenged claims of the ’520 Patent.
`
`The main difference is that in certain references, there is not a separate
`
`attribute that identifies the type name and table name in the “entity type
`
`record” (of the “entity definition table”) and the “relation type record” (of
`
`the “relation definition table”). This difference is not substantial, and is
`
`trivial when the type name and table name are one and the same, as is often
`
`the case in the identified prior art.
`
`B. Claims 10–13 and 15–16 are Obvious in View of James P. Davis, et
`al., EDICT – An Enhanced Relational Data Dictionary:
`Architecture and Example.
`47. Davis was published in February 1988 as part of the Proceedings of the
`
`Fourth International Conference on Data Engineering. (Ex. 1006 at Cover.)
`
`Davis describes an enhancement to “an integrated relational data dictionary
`
`in order to capture and faithfully present . . . high-level enterprise schema in
`
`a form which can be incorporated directly into the relational database
`
`system.” (Ex. 1006 at 184.)
`
`48.
`
`It is my opinion that Davis, in combination with the knowledge of one
`
`having ordinary skill in the art, renders claim 10 obvious. The combination
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`of elements as claimed in dependent claims 11–13 and 15–16 are also
`
`rendered obvious either by Davis in view of one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art or by the combination of Davis and Khoyi.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 10 is Invalid in View of Davis.
`(1) Davis
`discloses
`processing system.”
`49. Davis discloses a relational database processing system, as can be clearly
`
`a
`
`“relational
`
`database
`
`seen from the extensive example.
`
`50. EDICT, the system described in Davis, is “a multilayered architecture for
`
`facilitating the development and management of information in a relational
`
`DBMS . . ..” (Ex. 1006 at 185.) EDICT defines enhancements to existing
`
`data dictionaries “through the definition of additional schemata which are
`
`integrated into the dictionary proper.” (Ex. 1006 at 186.) The additional
`
`schemata, referred to as the enterprise schema throughout Davis, “exists as
`
`data in the enterprise meta-schema tables of the supporting relational
`
`DBMS.” (Ex. 1006 at 186.)
`
`51. Additional evidence supporting my opinion that Davis discloses this
`
`preamble is found in the claim chart for Ground 1 included in the body of
`
`the IPR.
`
`(2) Davis suggests [a] “an entity definition table
`containing a first entity type record defining a
`first entity type.”
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`52. Davis suggests an entity definition table containing a first entity type record
`
`defining a first entity type.
`
`53. Davis discloses an entity definition table: “ENTITY_SETS.” (Ex. 1006 at
`
`189.) As demonstrated, the “ENTITY_SETS” table stores entity type
`
`records. A record in the “ENTITY_SETS” table defines a first entity type:
`
`“eset_name” = “suppliers.” (Ex. 1006 at 189.) The “suppliers” entity type
`
`is defined as a “regular entity set.” (Ex. 1006 at 189.) The value in the
`
`“eset_name” column of each record in the “ENTITY_SETS” table, for
`
`example, “eset_name” = “suppliers,” is also a table identifier of an entity
`
`instance table: “SUPPLIERS.” (Ex. 1006 at 189.)
`
`54.
`
`In Davis, the name of the entity type and the name of the associated entity
`
`
`
`instance table are the same. One having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize that using the same column (“eset_name”) to store both values is
`
`likely an effort by Davis to conserve memory space and make the example
`
`more readable. This kind of overloading of names was in common use at the
`
`time of the patent. It certainly would have been obvious to include a
`
`separate column in the “ENTITY_SETS” table to separately store the name
`
`of an entity type and the name of an entity instance table. One would be
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Stanley B. Zdonik Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,520
`
`motivated to do so based on basic database principles and common sense, so
`
`that one could potentially give different names to the entity type and
`
`associated entity instance table in the same record, or have the flexibility to
`
`change the name of one but not the other. The inclusion of a separate
`
`column to store the table name is a trivial design choice that could have been
`
`easily included by one having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`55. Additional evidence supporting my opinion that Davis suggests this element
`
`is found in the claim chart for Ground 1 included in the body