IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Hanaman et al.
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,963,826 Attorney Docket No.: 30651-0047IP1
`Issue Date:
`Nov. 8, 2005
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/668,476
`Filing Date:
`Sept. 22, 2003
`Title:
`PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZER SYSTEM AND METHOD
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,963,826
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`In re Patent of: Hanaman et al.
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,963,826 Attorney Docket No.: 30651-0047IP1
`Issue Date:
`Nov. 8, 2005
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/668,476
`Filing Date:
`Sept. 22, 2003
`Title:
`PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZER SYSTEM AND METHOD
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,963,826
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ........................................... 1
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ......................................... 1
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................................. 1
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................. 1
`D. Service Information ........................................................................................... 1
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................................ 1
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 ........................................ 2
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ........................................ 2
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ....................... 2
`C. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ...................................... 3
`THE ’826 PATENT .................................................................................................... 13
`A. Description of the ‘826 Patent ........................................................................ 13
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘826 Patent .............................. 17
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE
`’826 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .......................................................................... 20
`MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH
`INTER PARTES REVIEW IS REQUESTED ............................................................. 22
`A.
`[GROUND 1] – Claim 1 is anticipated by Kimball ......................................... 22
`B.
`[GROUND 2] – Claim 1 is rendered obvious over Kimball in view of Joshi 38
`VII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 39
`
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`i
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`
`COM-1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,963,826 to Hanaman et al. (“the ’826 patent”)
`
`COM-1002 Prosecution History of the ‘826 Patent (“the Prosecution History”)
`
`COM-1003 Declaration of Ronald Scott Smith (“The Smith Declaration”)
`
`COM-1004 Kimball, R. and Merx, R., The Data Webhouse Toolkit -- Building Web-
`enabled Data Warehouse, New York, Wiley Computer Publishing, 2000
`(“Kimball”)
`
`COM-1005 Karuna P. Joshi, Anupam Joshi, Yelena Yesha, and Raghu Krishnapuram.
`1999. Warehousing and mining Web logs. In Proceedings of the 2nd interna-
`tional workshop on Web information and data management (WIDM '99), Cy-
`rus Shahabi (Ed.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 63-68 (“Joshi”)
`
`
`
`COM-1006 Claim Construction Order, comScore, Inc. v. Moat, Inc., Docket No.
`2:12cv00351 (E.D. VA.), July 25, 2013
`
`COM-1007 Library of Congress catalog entry for Kimball, http://lccn.loc.gov/99055652.
`
`COM-1008 ACM web page for Joshi, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=319792,and Li-
`brary of Congress catalog entry for Proceedings of the 2nd international
`workshop on Web information and data management,
`http://lccn.loc.gov/2001268731
`
`COM-1009
`
` Transactional, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House,
`Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transactional (accessed: August
`13, 2013) and Transaction, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Ran-
`
`ii
`
`
`
`dom House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transaction (ac-
`cessed: August 13, 2013)
`
`COM-1010 Usage, Dictionary.com, Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged
`10th Edition, HarperCollins Publishers.
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/usage (accessed: August 13, 2013)
`
`COM-1011 Technology, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House,
`Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/technology (accessed: August 13,
`2013)
`
`COM-1012 Surveillance, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House,
`Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surveillance (accessed: August
`13, 2013)
`
`COM-1013 Data entry, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc.
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data entry (accessed: August 13,
`2013)
`
`COM-1014 Aggregate, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc.
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggregate (accessed: August 13,
`2013)
`
`COM-1015 Presenting, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc.
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/presenting (accessed: August 13,
`2013)
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`comScore, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “comScore”) petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,963,826
`
`(the ’826 patent). As explained in the following, there exists a reasonable likelihood that
`
`comScore will prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in this petition.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`A.
`Petitioner, comScore, Inc., is the real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`B.
`Petitioner is not aware of any disclaimers or reexamination certificates for the ’826
`
`patent. The ‘826 patent is involved in comScore, Inc. v. Moat, Inc., Docket No. 2:12cv00351
`
`(E.D. VA.).
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`C.
`Petitioner designates W. Karl Renner (Reg. No. 41,265) as lead counsel and Kevin
`
`E. Greene (Reg. No. 46,031) as backup counsel.
`
`Service Information
`D.
`Please address all correspondence and service to counsel at 3200 RBC Plaza, 60
`
`South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Petitioner also consents to electronic service
`
`by email at IPR30651-0047IP1@fr.com.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`II.
`The Petitioner authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge Deposit Ac-
`
`count No. 06-1050 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and further author-
`
`1
`
`
`
`izes payment for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104
`
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`A.
`Petitioner certifies that the ’826 patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`B.
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claim 1 of the ’826 patent on the grounds
`
`set forth in the table below and requests that claim 1 be found unpatentable. An explana-
`
`tion of how this claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified below, including
`
`the identification of examples of sections where each element can be found in the cited prior
`
`art and relevance of that prior art, is also provided below. Additional explanation and sup-
`
`port for each ground of rejection is set forth in Exhibit COM-1003, the Declaration of Ronald
`
`Scott Smith (“the Smith Declaration”).
`
`Ground
`Ground 1
`
`1
`
`’826 Patent Claims
`
`Ground 2
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Basis for Rejection
`Anticipated under § 102 by Kimball, R. and
`Merx, R., The Data Webhouse Toolkit -- Build-
`ing Web-Enabled Data Warehouse, New York,
`Wiley Computer Publishing, 2000 (“Kimball”).
`In the alternative, obvious under § 103 over
`Kimball in view of Karuna P. Joshi, Anupam
`Joshi, Yelena Yesha, and Raghu Krishnapu-
`ram. 1999. Warehousing and mining Web
`logs. In Proceedings of the 2nd international
`workshop on Web information and data man-
`agement (WIDM '99), Cyrus Shahabi (Ed.).
`ACM, New York, NY, USA, 63-68 (“Joshi”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`The ‘826 patent issued from Application No. 10/668,476, which was filed on Sept.
`
`22, 2003. Accordingly, claim 1 of the ’826 patent has a filing date of Sept. 22, 2003. Kim-
`
`ball and Joshi each qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C § 102(b). Specifically, Kimball was
`
`published in 20001, which is more than one year prior to Sept. 22, 2003, and therefore quali-
`
`fies as prior art under 35 U.S.C § 102(b). Joshi was published in 19992, which is also more
`
`than one year prior to Sept. 22, 2003, and therefore also qualifies as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C § 102(b).
`
`Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`C.
`A claim subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner submits,
`
`for the purposes of this proceeding only, that the claim terms are presumed to take on their
`
`
`1 This is demonstrated by both the copyright page of Kimball as well as the Library of Con-
`
`gress catalog entry for Kimball, which is included as Exhibit COM-1007.
`
`2 This is demonstrated by the ACM web page for Joshi, which indicates it was published in
`
`the Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Web information and data manage-
`
`ment, as well as the Library of Congress catalog entry for the proceedings, both of which
`
`are included as Exhibit COM-1008.
`
`3
`
`
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification of the ‘826 patent.3 Accord-
`
`ingly, Petitioner submits, for purposes of this proceeding only, constructions for the following
`
`terms, and submits that all remaining terms should be given their plain meaning.
`
`1. Transactional information
`
`
`
`The District Court declined to construe this term. Claim Construction Order, com-
`
`Score, Inc. v. Moat, Inc., page 15, Docket No. 2:12cv00351 (E.D. VA.), July 25, 2013. For
`
`this proceeding, the Petitioner submits that “transactional information” should be construed
`
`applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to include “information related to conducting
`
`business or negotiations.” This interpretation is consistent with the ‘826 patent specification
`
`and it is not inconsistent with the meaning generally ascribed to this term by those of skill in
`
`the art. Smith Declaration, paragraph 52. Without an explicit definition of transactional in-
`
`formation established in the ‘826 patent specification, and because “transactional infor-
`
`mation” is not a term of art, dictionary definitions were consulted to inform the broadest rea-
`
`sonable interpretation of this term. Smith Declaration, paragraph 52. The term “transac-
`
`tional” refers to “the act of transacting,” and “transact” refers “to carry on or conduct busi-
`
`ness, negotiations, etc.” Transactional, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Ran-
`
`dom House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transactional (accessed: August 13,
`
`3 Because the standards of claim interpretation applied in litigation differ from PTO proceed-
`
`ings, any interpretation of claim terms in this IPR is not binding upon Petitioner in any litiga-
`
`tion related to the subject patent. See In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`4
`
`
`
`2013); transaction, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc.
`
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transaction (accessed: August 13, 2013). Strictly
`
`applying this definition, transactional information should be interpreted to include information
`
`related to carrying on or conducting business, negotiations, etc. This is also consistent with
`
`the language of claim 2, which, in narrowing claim 1, specifies that the “transactional infor-
`
`mation [is] related to at least one of sales contacts and sales calls.” Indeed, because sales
`
`contacts and calls are related to conducting business or negotiations, claim 2 also supports
`
`petitioner’s proposed construction. The ‘826 patent also supports the proposed construc-
`
`tion, as it states that “transactional data [is] received from sales representatives in the field”
`
`and that such data is directed to “sales contacts, sales calls and the like” and includes “e.g.,
`
`call detail, fulfillment.” The ‘826 Patent, col. 2, lines 24-26; col. 2, lines 45-50, col. 12, 61-
`
`62; col. 15, lines 25-26. These examples are consistent with the transactional information
`
`including information related to conducting business or negotiations. Smith Declaration,
`
`paragraph 52.
`
`
`
`2. Usage information
`
`
`
`The District Court declined to construe this term. Claim Construction Order, com-
`
`Score, Inc. v. Moat, Inc., page 15, Docket No. 2:12cv00351 (E.D. VA.), July 25, 2013. For
`
`this proceeding, the Petitioner submits that “usage information” should be construed apply-
`
`ing the broadest reasonable interpretation to include “information about the act or manner of
`
`using something.” This interpretation is consistent with the ‘826 patent specification and it is
`
`5
`
`
`
`not inconsistent with the meaning generally ascribed to this term by those of skill in the art.
`
`Smith Declaration, paragraph 53. Without an explicit definition of usage information estab-
`
`lished in the ‘826 patent specification, and because “usage information” is not a term of art,
`
`dictionary definitions were consulted to inform the broadest reasonable interpretation of this
`
`term. The term “usage” refers “the act or manner of using.” Usage, Dictionary.com, Collins
`
`English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition, HarperCollins Publishers.
`
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/usage (accessed: August 13, 2013). Strictly applying
`
`this definition, usage information should be interpreted to include “information about the act
`
`or manner of using something.” Smith Declaration, paragraph 53. This is consistent with
`
`the specification’s description of software that “generate[s] data records that represent sales
`
`representative usage of a CRM/SFA system.” The ‘826 Patent, col. 10, lines 26-28.
`
`3. Statistical methodology
`
`The District Court construed “statistical methodology” as “mathematical concept.”
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding, the Petitioner does not believe that this term needs to
`
`be construed. But to the extent the Board believes a construction is useful, the Petitioner
`
`submits that the District Court’s interpretation is not inconsistent with the broadest reasona-
`
`ble interpretation and submits that this construction should be adopted. Smith Declaration,
`
`paragraph 54.
`
`4. Statistical analysis information
`
`
`
`The District Court declined to construe this term. Claim Construction Order, com-
`
`6
`
`
`
`Score, Inc. v. Moat, Inc., page 15, Docket No. 2:12cv00351 (E.D. VA.), July 25, 2013. For
`
`the purposes of this proceeding, the Petitioner does not believe that this term needs to be
`
`construed. But to the extent the Board believes a construction is useful, the Petitioner sub-
`
`mits, for the purposes of this proceeding, that “statistical analysis information” should be
`
`construed applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as including “the infor-
`
`mation that results from application of a statistical methodology.” This interpretation is con-
`
`sistent with the term’s usage in independent claim 1, which overtly requires statistical analy-
`
`sis information to be provided through the application of at least one statistical methodology.
`
`See claim 1 ( “applying at least one statistical methodology . . . to provide statistical analysis
`
`information.”). This also is not inconsistent with the term’s normal usage. Smith Declara-
`
`tion, paragraph 55.
`
`5. Technology
`
`
`
`The District Court construed “technology” as “any devices that are capable of send-
`
`ing or receiving data across a communication network.” Yet, nothing in the ‘826 patent or
`
`prosecution history explicitly defines the term “technology” in the manner construed by the
`
`District Court. Without such an explicit definition, one of skill in the art would view this as a
`
`narrow construction of “technology.” Smith Declaration, paragraph 56. In view of this, the
`
`Petitioner submits that the District Court’s construction is too narrow under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard. For this proceeding, applying the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard, the Petitioner submits that “technology” should be construed to in-
`
`7
`
`
`
`clude “a scientific or industrial process, invention, method, or the like.” The Petitioner’s pro-
`
`posed construction is consistent with the ‘826 patent’s specification and the meaning that
`
`one of skill of the art would ascribe to this term. Smith Declaration, paragraph 56. As men-
`
`tioned, there is no explicit definition of “technology” in the ‘826 patent, and technology is not
`
`a term of art. A dictionary was therefore consulted to inform the broadest reasonable con-
`
`struction. Technology refers to “a scientific or industrial process, invention, method, or the
`
`like.” Technology, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc.
`
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/technology (accessed: August 13, 2013). The ‘826
`
`patent does not use the term “technology” in any manner inconsistent with this definition.
`
`Smith Declaration, paragraph 56. Accordingly, for the purposes of this proceeding, in con-
`
`sideration of this applicability of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the Peti-
`
`tioner submits that there is no legitimate reason to diverge from or narrow this definition
`
`when construing “technology;” rather, it should be construed as “a scientific or industrial
`
`process, invention, method, or the like.”
`
`6. Performing surveillance
`
`
`
`For this proceeding, “performing surveillance” should be construed applying the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard to include “monitoring.” This interpretation is
`
`consistent with the ‘826 patent specification and it is not inconsistent with meaning generally
`
`ascribed to this term by those of skill in the art. Smith Declaration, paragraph 57. There is
`
`not an explicit definition of “performing surveillance” in the ‘826 patent, and it is not a term of
`
`8
`
`
`
`art. Smith Declaration, paragraph 57. Indeed, the claim language was added through
`
`amendment during original prosecution and the phrase “performing surveillance” is never
`
`even written in the ‘826 patent’s specification.4 Rather the ‘826 patent’s specification merely
`
`discusses software that “operates to monitor computing activity.” The ‘826 Patent, col. 4,
`
`lines 58-65; col. 10, lines 26-28. And, Petitioner notes that dictionary definition of surveil-
`
`lance is “a watch kept over a person, group, etc., especially over a suspect, prisoner, or the
`
`like,” which implies monitoring. Surveillance, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged,
`
`Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surveillance (accessed: August
`
`13, 2013). Because this claim language was added during prosecution, and because there
`
`was no meaningful discussion of the language by the patentee or the examiner, the Peti-
`
`tioner submits the phrase “performing surveillance” should be construed to include “monitor-
`
`ing.”
`
`7. Display Screen
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding, the Petitioner submits that “display screen”
`
`should be construed applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to include “a user inter-
`
`face.” This interpretation is consistent with the ‘826 patent specification and it is not incon-
`
`sistent with meaning generally ascribed to this term by those of skill in the art. Smith Decla-
`
`ration, paragraph 58. There is not an explicit definition of transactional information in the
`
`4 The Petitioner is aware that written description challenges are not permitted in this pro-
`
`ceeding, and does not intend to raise such a challenge.
`
`9
`
`
`
`‘826 patent, but the ‘826 patent uses “display screen” to reference a user interface. Smith
`
`Declaration, paragraph 58. For example, the ‘826 patent discusses the performance opti-
`
`mizer system being implemented as “a web-based system” that includes “convenient navi-
`
`gation between the display screens” in which “users can proceed from area to area without
`
`the need to ‘back track’ through a series of display screens.” The ‘826 Patent, col. 8, lines
`
`19-61. Likewise, the ‘826 patent discusses the sales representative navigating through dis-
`
`play screens of the CRM/SFA application. See, The ‘826 Patent, col. 10, lines 32-57. This
`
`navigation is a characteristic of a user interface. Smith Declaration, paragraph 58. Accord-
`
`ingly, the Petitioner submits that “display screen” should be construed applying the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation to include “a user interface.”
`
`8. Data Entry Display Screen
`
`
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding, the Petitioner submits that “data entry display
`
`screen” should be construed applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to include “a
`
`user interface in which data is able to be entered.” This interpretation is consistent with the
`
`‘826 patent specification and it is not inconsistent with meaning generally ascribed to this
`
`term by those of skill in the art. Smith Declaration, paragraph 59. There is not an explicit
`
`definition of this term in the ‘826 patent, but referring to a dictionary, the term “data entry”
`
`refers to “entering text or other data into a computer.” Data entry, Dictionary.com, Diction-
`
`ary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data entry
`
`(accessed: August 13, 2013). Taking into account this meaning of “data entry” and the con-
`
`10
`
`
`
`struction of display screen above, the Petitioner submits that, ender the broadest reasona-
`
`ble interpretation, a data entry display screen should be construed to include “a user inter-
`
`face in which data is able to be entered.” This is consistent with the ‘862 patent’s descrip-
`
`tion of the sales representative entering data in the CRM/SFA application. The ‘862 Patent,
`
`col. 1, lines 59-66; col. 2, lines 24-26.
`
`9. Aggregating
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding, the Petitioner submits that “aggregating” should
`
`be construed applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as at least encom-
`
`passing “bringing together; collecting.” This interpretation is consistent with the ‘826 patent
`
`specification and it is not inconsistent with meaning generally ascribed to this term by those
`
`of skill in the art. Smith Declaration, paragraph 60. There is not an explicit definition of this
`
`term in the ‘826 patent. Smith Declaration, paragraph 60. One meaning of “aggregate” re-
`
`fers to “to bring together; collect into one sum, mass, or body.” Smith Declaration, para-
`
`graph 60. Aggregate, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc.
`
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggregate (accessed: August 13, 2013). The usage
`
`within the specification makes it clear that “aggregate” in the ‘826 patent at least encom-
`
`passes “to bring together; collect.” Smith Declaration, paragraph 60. For example, the ‘826
`
`patent at col. 12, lines 34-65 discusses data being collected from multiple sources. Accord-
`
`ingly, the Petitioner submits that “aggregating” at least encompasses “bringing together; col-
`
`lecting.”
`
`11
`
`
`
`10. Data modeling
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding, the Petitioner submits that “data modeling”
`
`should be construed applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to include “the process
`
`of defining the structure of the data within an information system by defining the entities, the
`
`data elements, their formats, and the relationships between them.” This interpretation is
`
`consistent with the ‘826 patent specification and it is not inconsistent with meaning generally
`
`ascribed to this term by those of skill in the art. Smith Declaration, paragraph 61. The ‘826
`
`patent discusses creating a data model using, for example, dimensional modeling and illus-
`
`trates specific data models in figures 6A-6I and 8A. The ‘826 Patent, col. 13, line 25 to col.
`
`15, line 38; col. 17, lines 47-54. As understood by one of skill in the art, the data models
`
`shown in the ‘826 patent define the structure of the data within the data warehouse men-
`
`tioned by the ‘826 patent by defining the entities, the data elements, their formats, and the
`
`relationships between them. Smith Declaration, paragraph 61. Accordingly, one of skill in
`
`the art would appreciate that a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “data model-
`
`ing” would include the process of defining the structure of the data within a system by defin-
`
`ing the data elements, their formats, and the relationships between them. Smith Declara-
`
`tion, paragraph 61.
`
`11. Presenting
`
` For the purposes of this proceeding, the Petitioner submits that “presenting”
`
`should be construed applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to include “showing or
`
`12
`
`
`
`exhibiting.” This interpretation is consistent with the ‘826 patent specification and it is not
`
`inconsistent with meaning generally ascribed to this term by those of skill in the art. Smith
`
`Declaration, paragraph 62. There is not an explicit definition of this term in the ‘826 patent.
`
`Smith Declaration, paragraph 62. Consulting a dictionary to inform the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, “present” is defined as “to show or exhibit.” Presenting, Diction-
`
`ary.com, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc.
`
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/presenting (accessed: August 13, 2013). This is
`
`consistent with the ‘826 patent’s description of showing information in one or more reports.
`
`See, e.g., The ‘826 Patent at col. 16, lines 63 to col. 20, line 17; Smith Declaration, para-
`
`graph 62.
`
`IV.
`
`THE ’826 PATENT
`
`Description of the ‘826 Patent
`A.
`The ‘826 patent is directed to modeling and warehousing usage information and
`
`transactional information, as well as statistical analysis information derived from applying a
`
`statistical methodology to the usage information and transactional information. The ‘826
`
`Patent, col. 4, lines 36-43. The ‘826 patent discusses performing data modeling on this da-
`
`ta and storing the data in a data warehouse. See, e.g., The ‘826 Patent, Col. 1, lines 8-11;
`
`col. 4, lines 36-43. A data warehouse generally includes one or more databases that hold
`
`an enterprise’s data and may do so in a way that is designed to aid in both complex analysis
`
`of data and decision support. Smith Declaration, paragraph 13. Often, a data warehouse’s
`
`13
`
`
`
`primary purpose is to store the enterprise’s data, and present the data in a way that allows
`
`members of the enterprise to make business decisions. Smith Declaration, paragraph 13.
`
`For example, the data warehouse may store data from the enterprise’s marketing and sales
`
`system in a way that allows management to view reports related to that data, such as annu-
`
`al or quarterly sales comparisons or comparisons of marketing spend versus sales. Smith
`
`Declaration, paragraph 13.
`
`The data to be warehoused is typically extracted from the source systems and pro-
`
`cessed in a staging area before it is loaded into the databases of the data warehouse.
`
`Smith Declaration, paragraph 14. The processing in the staging area includes, for instance,
`
`cleaning the data (e.g., correcting misspellings, resolving conflicts in the data, handling
`
`missing data elements), deleting data not used in the data warehouse, and converting the
`
`data into a format acceptable for the data warehouse. Smith Declaration, paragraph 14.
`
`Once the processing in the staging area is completed, the data is loaded into the data
`
`warehouse. Smith Declaration, paragraph 14.
`
`End user applications can then access the data warehouse to retrieve and present
`
`data from the warehouse to a user. Smith Declaration, paragraph 15. For example, an end
`
`user application can query the data warehouse for particular data, and then present data
`
`yielded from their query in a report, graph, or some higher form of analysis to the user.
`
`Smith Declaration, paragraph 15. The end user application can be, for example, an ad-hoc
`
`query tool or a data mining or modeling application. Smith Declaration, paragraph 15.
`
`14
`
`
`
`When designing a data warehouse, data modeling is typically employed to create a
`
`data model for the data warehouse. Smith Declaration, paragraph 16. The data model can
`
`define the structure of the data within the data warehouse by defining the entities, data ele-
`
`ments, their formats, and the relationships between them. Smith Declaration, paragraph 16.
`
`When an information system uses one or more databases, for example, data modeling may
`
`entail defining the database structure to be used by the one or more databases to hold the
`
`data. Smith Declaration, paragraph 16. For instance, when relational databases are used
`
`to implement the data warehouse, data modeling may entail defining the tables in the rela-
`
`tional database used to store the data. Smith Declaration, paragraph 15.
`
`The ‘826 patent’s usage and transactional information is derived from a sales repre-
`
`sentative’s use of a customer relationship management (CRM) or sales force automation
`
`(SFA) application. See, for example, The ‘826 Patent, col. 1, lines 10-11; col. 4, lines 36-57.
`
`A sales representative uses a CRM/SFA application available through the representative’s
`
`computer to manage, access, and collect transactional information, such as information re-
`
`lated to sales contacts, sales calls, or fulfillment. The ‘826 Patent, col. 1, lines 59-63; col. 2,
`
`lines 24-26; col. 2, lines 45-50, col. 12, 61-62; col. 15, lines 25-26. In addition, software on
`
`a sales representative’s computer observes and records usage information about the repre-
`
`sentative’s use of the computer, including the representative’s use of the CRM/SFA applica-
`
`tion. The ‘826 Patent, col. 4, lines 58-61; col. 10, lines 25-35. For example, the software
`
`may monitor and track “the viewing of a particular display screen” or “the length of time a
`
`15
`
`
`
`particular display screen has been viewed.” The ‘826 Patent, col. lines 33-44.
`
`This information is uploaded, aggregated with other data, and stored in a data ware-
`
`house. The ‘826 Patent, col. 9, lines 33-46; col. 11, lines 58-63; col. 12, line 34 to col. 13,
`
`line 8. Statistical analysis is performed on the usage and transactional information stored
`
`in the data warehouse. The ‘826 Patent, col. 9, lines 46-55; col. 15, line 49 to col. 16, line
`
`55. To perform the statistical analysis, data is “extracted from the data warehouse and
`
`provided to a statistical engine where statistical analysis routines are performed on the da-
`
`ta.” The ‘826 Patent, col. 15, lines 54-56. The results of the analysis are “uploaded back
`
`into the data warehouse for presentation purposes.” The ‘826 Patent, col. 15, lines 56-58.
`
`The data warehouse employs a data model that resulted from data modeling on the
`
`usage information, the transactional information, and the results of the statistical analysis.
`
`The ‘826 Patent, col. 13, line 25 to col. 15, line 38; col. 17, lines 47-54. For example, di-
`
`mensional modeling was performed on the usage information, the transactional information,
`
`and the results of the statistical analysis to create the data model shown in figures 6A-6I
`
`and 8A. The ‘826 Patent, col. 17, lines 47-54. Figures 6A-6I shows aspects of the data
`
`model related to the usage information and transactional information. The ‘826 Patent, col.
`
`17, lines 47-54; figs. 6A-6I. Figure 8A shows aspects of the data model related to the re-
`
`sults of the statistical analysis. The ‘826 Patent, col. 17, lines 47-54; fig. 8A.
`
`The data stored in the data warehouse is employed to prepare reports and tables
`
`that provide “insights for management and upper management with respect to the effective-
`
`16
`
`
`
`ness of CRM/SFA systems and related data sources.” The ‘826 Patent, col. 18, lines 4-23.
`
`Figures 9B-9Q illustrate examples of reports or tables that are generated. The ‘826 Patent,
`
`col. 18, lines 18-23.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘826 Patent
`B.
`The ’826 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/668,476 (
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
