UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290
`___________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CORY PLOCK IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 1
`
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290
`___________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CORY PLOCK IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 1
`
`
`
`I, Cory Plock, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`PERSONAL BACKGROUND
`1.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration,
`
`am of legal age, and am otherwise competent to testify.
`
`2. My name is Cory Plock. I have been retained as a consultant by
`
`Freitas Angell and Weinberg LLP on behalf of B.E. Technology, L.L.C. to provide
`
`professional opinions in the Inter Partes Review of United States Patent 6,771,290
`
`(“the ’290 patent”) initiated by petitioner Microsoft Corporation. Specifically, I
`
`have been asked to provide my opinion on whether U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 (the
`
`“’290 patent”) is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by WO
`
`97/09682 to Kikinis (“Kikinis”).
`
`3.
`
`I have approximately nineteen (19) years of software engineering and
`
`software development background in both academic and commercial settings.
`
`Over the years, I have participated in the design, development, testing,
`
`deployment, support, and ongoing maintenance of software projects of various
`
`sizes across several industries.
`
`4.
`
`As a result of my extensive experience and work in both academia and
`
`industry, I have personal knowledge concerning certain technologies and art
`
`relevant to this case. I currently serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of
`
`Prolifogy Inc., a software technology firm based in Danbury, Connecticut. The
`
`- 2 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`primary functions of the business are software consulting and software
`
`development. Most of my current software development work has involved my
`
`personal hands-on involvement with web based software technology.
`
`5. My academic background is primarily in the field of computer
`
`science. I hold a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in computer science from Western
`
`Connecticut State University, where I graduated Summa Cum Laude. I also hold a
`
`Master of Science (MS) degree in computer science from Rensselaer Polytechnic
`
`Institute. I also hold a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in computer science
`
`from the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University. My
`
`area of research study includes formal requirements languages, embedded systems,
`
`and synthesis of executable code from requirements.
`
`6. My academic background in computer science includes, among other
`
`things, coursework and hands-on experience with programming languages,
`
`computer architecture, software engineering, assembly programming, operating
`
`systems, compilers, and programming languages such as Java, PHP, and C#.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently an Adjunct Assistant Professor at New York University
`
`where I teach graduate courses in programming languages and web application
`
`development.
`
`8.
`
`I served as a full-time consultant to Microsoft Research Ltd. for
`
`approximately two (2) years, where I worked with researchers and programmers to
`
`- 3 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`design and implement a software framework known as an execution engine for a
`
`publically available research tool used in biological modeling.
`
`9.
`
`I was employed as a Specialist and then later as a consultant for the
`
`Information Technology (IT) department of PepsiCo Inc. I was also employed at
`
`various times by Boehringer Ingelheim and Yoh Scientific in the capacities of
`
`intern, employee, and consultant, where I worked with web technology.
`
`10.
`
`I have also served as a Teaching Assistant for several undergraduate
`
`and graduate courses including Programming Languages, UNIX Tools, and
`
`Machine Learning at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and New York University. I
`
`have received recognition by the New York University Computer Science
`
`department for my work as a teaching assistant.
`
`11.
`
`I have additionally served as a Research Assistant at various times
`
`throughout my course of study at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and New York
`
`University. Topics of research have included a programming concept known as
`
`garbage collection, machine learning, software modeling, verification, and
`
`synthesis.
`
`12. My education, history of employment, listing of all publications,
`
`listing of all prior testimony, and additional qualifications are set forth in my
`
`curriculum vitae, attached to this report. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and
`
`correct copy of my curriculum vitae.
`
`- 4 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated at my customary rate of $495.00 per hour for
`
`all work I perform in the current matter, including reasonable out-of-pocket
`
`expenses. The compensation is not dependent on the outcome of the matter.
`
`14. The opinions I provide herein are my own, and are based on my
`
`research in this matter and on the education, experience, training, and skill that I
`
`have accumulated in the course of my approximately nineteen (19) years working
`
`in this field. In connection with my analysis, I have reviewed the following: (1)
`
`the ’290 patent (Ex. 1001), (2) Microsoft’s Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper
`
`1), (3) the Board’s Institution Decision (Paper 12), and (4) Kikinis (Ex. 1005). I
`
`have also read the declaration and deposition testimony of Dr. Henry Houh (Exs.
`
`1003 and 1017).
`
`15. All of the opinions I express in this declaration have been made from
`
`the standpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter of the
`
`’290 patent. It is my opinion that at the time the ’290 patent application was filed,
`
`July 16, 1999, a person of ordinary skill in the art (hereafter, “POSITA”) in the
`
`subject matter of the ’290 patent would have education and/or experience with the
`
`World Wide Web, Common Gateway Interface (CGI), server side programming
`
`languages, databases, networking, and client/server architecture. The education
`
`component could be satisfied with a bachelor’s degree in computer science (or
`
`related field such as computer engineering) or at least two (2) years of industry
`
`- 5 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`experience in web development.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that, from a patentability perspective, a proper analysis
`
`compares the claims of the patent to the teachings of the alleged prior art reference.
`
`A discussion of the relevant sections of the references based on my analysis
`
`appears below.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review, claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, unless the
`
`inventor sets forth special meaning to a term.
`
`II. OPINIONS
`18.
`I have been asked by counsel to provide expert opinions on certain
`
`topics and questions presented below.
`
`A. Claim 1 of ’290 Patent
`1.
`“A graphical user interface comprising an application
`window separated into a number of regions;” wherein “a
`first one of said regions” includes “a number of graphical
`objects, at least some of which are each representative of a
`different software application;” and “a second one of said
`regions” includes “a number of user-selectable items, at
`least some of which are each associated with a different data
`set.”.
`19. Claim 1 of the ’290 patent requires “an application window separated
`
`into a number of regions,” wherein:
`
`a first one of said regions includes a number of graphical-
`
`objects, some of which are representative of a different software
`
`- 6 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`application; and
`
`a second one of said regions includes a number of user-
`
`selectable items, some of which are associated with a different
`
`data set.
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1.
`
`20.
`
`I understand the Microsoft contends that Kikinis discloses an
`
`“application window separated into a number of regions,” as required by claim 1 of
`
`the ’290 patent. See Ex. 1003, ¶ 139 (“The individual home page is separated into
`
`a number of regions that include ‘active selection areas’ that are selectable by the
`
`home page owner.”). Microsoft attempts to exemplify this position by citing
`
`Figure 3 of Kikinis, shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3.
`
`- 7 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`21. Although Microsoft does not provide a construction of “region,” its
`
`expert, Henry Houh, did offer a definition during his deposition. Dr. Houh stated a
`
`“region” is “just an area on the screen.” Ex. 1027 at 136:13-22. In other words,
`
`according to Dr. Houh, a “region” is any arbitrary geographic area of the screen
`
`with or without visual elements contained therein. According to Dr. Houh, the
`
`regions may be “nonoverlapping or overlapping” such that one button can belong
`
`to two regions. Id. at 134:2-13.
`
`22.
`
`I disagree. A POSITA understands that regions of a graphical user
`
`interface are clearly defined and non-overlapping, and consist of demarcation, such
`
`as borders, boxes, brackets, or color barriers. In addition, regions of a graphical
`
`user interface are characterized by uniform items, icons or fonts and common
`
`features and functions. The ’290 patent describes a Windows™ version of the user
`
`interface. Ex. 1001, Col. 13:42-43. The interface is “separated into a number of
`
`regions.”
`
`- 8 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Each region is separate or distinct from the other regions and each region is
`
`characterized by related features or functions. For example, the pull-down menu
`
`70 is described as one region. Ex. 1001, Col. 13:48-49. The pull-down menu
`
`consists of a horizontal row of one-word items in the same font, with initial,
`
`underlined, capital letters. The region is distinct from the others. In addition, the
`
`menu icons are characterized by related basic features. Id., Col. 14:1- (“Pull-down
`
`menu 70 contains the basic commands available to the user, including launching
`
`applications, accessing basic editing commands, changing the display of the user
`
`interface, adding and removing applications and bookmark category icons,
`
`changing window views, and obtaining help.”)
`
`23. The menu-icons 72 are described as another region. Id., Col. 13:48-
`
`50. This region is distinct from the other regions because it includes similarly
`
`sized small icons, in a horizontal row, bounded by thin lines on above and below
`
`- 9 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`the icons. “Menu icons 72 contain a number of icons that permit quick access to
`
`some of the more common commands contained in menu 70.” Id., Col. 14:38-40.
`
`The menu icons, therefore, have related features and functionality.
`
`24.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would construe “region” (in the current
`
`context) as “a non-overlapping a part of an application window that is distinct or
`
`separate from other parts of the application window wherein each part is
`
`characterized by the presence of related functions or features that are different from
`
`the functions or features of another part.” In Figure 3 of Kikinis, shown above,
`
`the spinning top belongs to one region, the horizontal row of buttons across the top
`
`of the window belongs to a second region, and the vertical column of buttons on
`
`the left side belongs to a third region.
`
`25. As mentioned above, claim 1 of the ’290 patent requires an “an
`
`application window separated into a number of regions,” wherein “a first one of
`
`said regions” includes “a number of graphical objects, at least some of which are
`
`each representative of a different software application;” and “a second one of said
`
`regions” includes “a number of user-selectable items, at least some of which are
`
`each associated with a different data set.” Ex. 1001, Claim 1.
`
`26. Nothing in Kikinis discloses that the region of the spinning top in
`
`Figure 3 is representative of a different software application or is associated with a
`
`different data set. There is no disclosure in Kikinis that the region is even user-
`
`- 10 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`selectable. There is no disclosure that would inform a POSITA that the region of
`
`the spinning top meets the requirements of claim 1 of the ’290 patent.
`
`27. Figure 3 shows several rectangles labeled “ABC,” “XYZ,” “V-Mail,”
`
`“E-Mail,” “FAX-Mail” and “Other E-DOX.” Kikinis discloses that these are
`
`buttons that provide “software links to various lower-order data bases maintained
`
`by electronic document server 69.” Ex. 1005, Col. 6:36-7:1. Kikinis further
`
`discloses that the “lower-order data bases are an e-mail data base 89, a fax data
`
`base 91, a voice mail data base 93, and other electronic documents in data base
`
`95.” Id., Col. 7:2-4. In addition, Kikinis explains that “[h]ome page 73 is created
`
`with hypertext markup language (HTML), as are other home pages, and provide
`
`access to data bases 89, 91, 93, and 95 as described below through software links.”
`
`Id., Col. 7:4-7; see also id., Col. 7:13-16 (“Each link uses a common gateway
`
`interface (CGI) to translate HTML into a particular data base language. Shown in
`
`Fig. 2 are CGIs 77, 78, 80, and 82 leading to programs 79, 81, 85, and 87, which in
`
`turn access data bases 89, 91, 93, and 95 respectively.”).
`
`28. This region of vertical buttons appears to include “a number of
`
`graphical objects,” some of which are “representative of a different software
`
`application,” and “a number of user-selectable items,” some of which are
`
`“associated with a different data set.” Ex. 1001, Col. 38:42-56. In order to meet
`
`the claim limitation, however, there must be two regions; one with graphical
`
`- 11 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`objects representative of different software applications and the other with user-
`
`selectable items associated with different data sets. The vertical column of
`
`software links disclosed in Figure 3 of Kikinis represents only one region and
`
`therefore does not teach the two regions claimed in the ’290 patent. Kikinis
`
`therefore must disclose another region that includes “a number of graphical
`
`objects,” some of which are “representative of a different software application,” or
`
`“a number of user-selectable items,” some of which are “associated with a different
`
`data set.”
`
`29. Figure 3 of Kikinis discloses a third region that a POSITA would
`
`understand, based upon the disclosure of the software link buttons on the left-hand
`
`side of the window, to be a row of similarly sized buttons across the top of the
`
`application window. Ex. 1005, Fig. 3. There is no disclosure regarding the
`
`function of the buttons within this region. While a POSITA would conclude that
`
`the buttons are user-selectable, there is no disclosure or teaching in Kikinis that
`
`would enable a POSITA to conclude that the buttons are “representative of a
`
`different software application,” or are “associated with a different data set.” Ex.
`
`1001, Col. 38:42-56. Therefore, it is my opinion that a POSITA would not
`
`conclude that Kikinis discloses “an application window separated into a number of
`
`regions;” wherein “a first one of said regions” includes “a number of graphical
`
`objects, at least some of which are each representative of a different software
`
`- 12 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`application” and “a second one of said regions” includes “a number of user-
`
`selectable items, at least some of which are each associated with a different data
`
`set.” Ex. 1001, Claim 1, Col. 38:39-56.
`
`2.
`
`“A program stored on said non-volatile data storage device
`in a computer-readable format;” “wherein said program is
`operable in response to selection of at least one of said items
`to provide the user with access to its associated data set.”
`
`30.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’290 patent claims “a program stored on said non-
`
`volatile data storage device in a computer-readable format;” “wherein said
`
`program is operable in response to selection of at least one of said items to provide
`
`the user with access to its associated data set.” Ex. 1001, Claim 1. I understand
`
`that Microsoft contends that Kikinis discloses such a program. See Petition at 11.
`
`31.
`
`I disagree. In my opinion, a POSITA would not understand Kikinis to
`
`disclose “a program stored on said non-volatile data storage device in a computer-
`
`readable format;” “wherein said program is operable in response to selection of at
`
`least one of said items to provide the user with access to its associated data set,”
`
`because Kikinis utilizes remotely stored programs to access associated data sets—
`
`not the program stored on “said non-volatile data storage device.” As depicted in
`
`Figure 2 of Kikinis, the web server communicates with various programs using a
`
`technology known as the Common Gateway Interface (“CGI”).
`
`- 13 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“A path is provided from Web server 67 to data bases 89, 91, 93, and 95 by means
`
`of software links programmed into a client’s home page. Each link uses a common
`
`gateway interface (CGI) to translate HTML into a particular data base language.
`
`Shown in Fig. 2 are CGIs 77, 78, 80, and 82 leading to programs 79, 81, 85, and
`
`87, which in turn access data bases 89, 91, 93, and 95 respectively.” Ex. 1005,
`
`Col. 7:11-16.
`
`32.
`
`A POSITA would know that with CGI, a web browser sends a request
`
`for a resource, to which the web server responds by executing a program. The
`
`program, once executing, may perform various computations and access system
`
`resources, such as databases. The program then sends output, which the web
`
`- 14 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`server forwards back to the browser in the response. This cycle repeats for each
`
`individual request. A POSITA would therefore know that CGI is a server-side
`
`technology in which programs reside and execute on the remote server, not the
`
`client computer. As a result, Kikinis does not disclose a program stored on the
`
`client computer that accesses associated data sets.
`
`33.
`
`Relatedly, I understand that Microsoft alleges that the “program” that
`
`meets the “said program” limitation is “a Web-browser 65 and PPP or SLIP
`
`communication software.” It is my opinion that a POSITA would not conclude
`
`that a browser and PPP or SLIP communication software satisfy the “said
`
`program” limitation of the ’290 patent, for at least the following reasons:
`
`34.
`
`First, PPP or SLIP communication software is not “operable in
`
`response to selection of at least one of said items to provide the user with access to
`
`its associated data set” since a POSITA would know that PPP or SLIP
`
`communication software does not have any user interface, nor serves any user
`
`interface related function, and therefore cannot respond to a selection of any items
`
`by the user. PPP or SLIP communication software would take the form of a driver,
`
`which a term used in the art to describe software that allows a computer to
`
`communicate with hardware and devices.
`
`35.
`
`Second, a POSITA would understand that a web browser is not
`
`“operable in response to selection of at least one of said items to provide the user
`
`- 15 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`with access to its associated data set” because the function of providing the user
`
`with access to its associated data set is performed by a program which is stored on
`
`the web server, not the web browser.
`
`36.
`
`In order to provide access to a data set according to Kikinis, a
`
`program on the server must first execute. Once executing, the program may query
`
`the database to obtain the said data set, then transmit the data set back to the web
`
`browser.
`
`3.
`
`“Following execution of said login module,” the program is
`operable “to receive from the server a user profile.”
`
`37.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’290 patent requires that the claimed “program”
`
`include “a login module that is operable upon execution to identify the user of the
`
`computer,” and that “following execution of said login module,” the program is
`
`operable “to receive from the server a user profile.” Ex. 1001, Col. 38:57-62. I
`
`understand that Microsoft contends that the home page of Kikinis discloses the
`
`user profile claimed in the ’290 patent and that the security protocol of Kikinis
`
`discloses the login module claimed in the ’290 patent. Petition at 12. It is my
`
`opinion that a POSITA would not understand that the home page described in
`
`Kikinis is received after the login module executes because Kikinis teaches that a
`
`“security protocol” is executed after the user has already accessed the home page.
`
`38.
`
`Kikinis discloses that the “active selection area” on the home page
`
`“launches control routines connecting the user through an on-screen window to an
`
`- 16 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`electronic data base containing documents addressed specifically to the home page
`
`owner.” Ex. 1005, Col. 3:7-9. “A software routine, embedded in each of the
`
`various electronic document programs 79, 81, 85, and 87 (Fig. 2) may determine
`
`the validity of an entered password.” Ex. 1005, Col. 8:24-27. That is, the password
`
`is validated by a program—after the user has selected it from the home page.
`
`Kikinis teaches that the user is required to “practice a security protocol to activate
`
`the on-screen window providing access to the specifically-addressed electronic
`
`documents.” Ex. 1005, Col. 3:12-14. For these reasons, a POSITA would not
`
`understand that Kikinis discloses a “login module” that executes before a “home
`
`page” is received.
`
`B. Claim 2 of ’290 patent.
`1.
`“A program stored on said non-volatile data storage
`device;” wherein “said program further being operable in
`response to selection by a user of one of the user links to
`access the file associated with the selected user link.”
`
`39.
`
`Claim 2 of the’290 patent claims, in part, “a non-volatile data storage
`
`device;” “a program stored on said non-volatile data storage device in a computer-
`
`readable format;” “said program being operable upon execution to receive from
`
`server one of the user profiles and to display a user-selectable item for user links
`
`contained within the user profile, said program further being operable in response
`
`to selection by a user of one of the user links to access the file associated with the
`
`selected user link from the user library associated with the received user profile.”
`
`- 17 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 2.
`
`40.
`
`As explained above in Section II.A.2, a POSITA would not
`
`understand that Kikinis discloses “a program stored on said non-volatile data
`
`storage device” that is “operable in response to selection by a user of one of the
`
`user links to access the file associated with the selected user link from the user
`
`library.” Kikinis utilizes remotely stored programs to access data bases—not the
`
`program stored on “said non-volatile data storage device.” Ex. 1005, Col. 7:11-16
`
`(“A path is provided from Web server 67 to data bases 89, 91, 93, and 95 by means
`
`of software links programmed into a client’s home page. Each link uses a common
`
`gateway interface (CGI) to translate HTML into a particular data base language.
`
`Shown in Fig. 2 are CGIs 77, 78, 80, and 82 leading to programs 79, 81, 85, and
`
`87, which in turn access data bases 89, 91, 93, and 95 respectively.”).
`
`41. My opinion is confirmed by Microsoft’s contention that “the
`
`program” claimed in claim 2 is a web browser. See Petition at 13 (“Web-browser
`
`65 and PPP or SLIP communication software”). A POSITA would not understand
`
`the “program” disclosed in the ’290 patent to be a “web browser and PPP or SLIP
`
`communication software” because a web browser and PPP or SLIP communication
`
`software cannot access files without the additional programs on the web server
`
`described in Kikinis. A POSITA would understand that a web browser makes
`
`requests to a web server and receives responses from the web server, the contents
`
`- 18 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`of which are subsequently displayed in the browser window to the user. A
`
`POSITA would also understand that a web browser cannot “access [a] file”
`
`without the web server, since the web server must execute programs to download
`
`the file to the browser, or otherwise format and render the file in a format suitable
`
`for display on the web browser.
`
`42.
`
`As depicted in Figure 2 of Kikinis, the web server communicates with
`
`various programs using a technology known as the Common Gateway Interface
`
`(“CGI”). With CGI, the web browser sends a request for a resource, to which the
`
`web server responds by executing a program. The program, once executing, may
`
`perform various computations and access system resources, such as databases. The
`
`program then sends output, which the web server forwards back to the browser in
`
`the response. This cycle repeats for each individual request. A POSITA would
`
`therefore know that CGI is a server-side technology in which programs reside and
`
`execute on the web server—not the client computer.
`
`2.
`
`“[S]aid program further being operable in response to
`selection by a user of one of the user links to access the file
`associated with the selected user link from the user library
`associated with the received user profile.”
`
`43.
`
`Claim 2 of the’290 patent claims “said program being operable upon
`
`execution to receive from server one of the user profiles and to display a user-
`
`selectable item for user links contained within the user profiles, said program
`
`further being operable in response to selection by a user of one of the user links to
`
`- 19 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`access the file associated with the selected user link from the user library
`
`associated with the received user profile.” Ex. 1001, Claim 2.
`
`44. Microsoft contends that Kikinis teaches this claim limitation. I
`
`disagree. It is my opinion that a POSITA would not understand Kikinis to teach
`
`these claim elements of claim 2 because the claim requires a “file associated with
`
`[a] selected user link.” Ex. 1001, Col. 40:8. Kikinis discloses, at most, user links
`
`associated with databases. Ex. 1005, Col. 6:35-7:4 (A single data base of set 71
`
`includes a home page 73, individualized to a specific client, that provides software
`
`links to various lower-order data bases maintained by electronic document server
`
`69. Examples of such lower-order data bases are an e-mail data base 89, a fax data
`
`base 91, a voice mail data base 93, and other electronic documents in data base
`
`95.”).
`
`45.
`
`A POSITA would understand that “data bases” are not synonymous
`
`with “files.” A “file” is defined in the ’290 patent as “[a]ny digital item, including
`
`information, documents, applications, audio/video components, and the like, that
`
`are stored in memory and are accessible via a file allocation table or other pointing
`
`or indexing structure.” Ex. 1001, Col. 4:25-28. A database, on the other hand, is
`
`understood by a POSITA as a storage system with a means of organizing data and
`
`a means of inserting, removing, or updating data, typically with a query language
`
`such as SQL. In the context of the Kikinis invention, which could potentially serve
`
`- 20 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`tens of thousands of simultaneous users, such a database would also likely have
`
`standard features such as transaction processing, which permit multiple clients to
`
`query the database simultaneously in an isolated and consistent manner. Files have
`
`no such mechanisms.
`
`46.
`
`Although “files” can be programs, the programs disclosed in Kikinis
`
`are not stored in a user library. In addition, the Kikinis programs are not a
`
`specified individual user’s program. The Kikinis programs operate to the benefit
`
`of all users.
`
`“User profile.”
`
`3.
`Claim 2 of the ’290 patent claims a “user profile.” Ex. 1001, Claim 2.
`
`47.
`
`The ’290 patent defines “profile” as “[u]ser-specific information relating to an
`
`individual using a computer.” Ex. 1001, Col. 4:52-53. Microsoft contends that the
`
`home page shown in Kikinis discloses a “user profile.” I disagree. In my opinion,
`
`a POSITA would not understand that the home page disclosed in Kikinis is a “user
`
`profile.”
`
`48.
`
`There is no indication of “user specific information” within the
`
`Kikinis home page. Figure 3 shows an embodiment of the home page.
`
`- 21 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3. Figure 3 contains the phrases “Web Browser,” “Home Page,”
`
`“ABC,” “XYZ,” “V-Mail,” “E-Mail,” “FAX-Mail,” and “Other E-DOX.” None of
`
`these terms indicate to a POSITA that the home page itself contains “user-specific
`
`information relating to an individual using a computer.” Kikinis does not describe
`
`the home page in a manner that would provide any information to a POSITA about
`
`the content of the home page or the presence of any user-specific information.
`
`And while Kikinis states that the home page is “individualized to a specific client,”
`
`there is not disclosure sufficient to inform a POSITA that information contained
`
`within the home page is “user-specific information relating to an individual using a
`
`computer.”
`
`49.
`
`I understand that Microsoft contends that because the home page
`
`contains buttons that link through CGI and software programs to the lower-order
`
`data bases that contain electronic documents “‘specifically-addressed’ to the user,”
`
`- 22 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 22
`
`
`
`the home page is a user profile. Ex. 1003 1] 161-62; Petition at 14.
`
`It is my opinion
`
`that a POSITA would not consider these software links to be “user—specific
`
`information relating to an individual using a computer,” because they are links to
`
`software that are utilized by all users of the Kikinis system. The software
`
`applications that permit access to lower-order databases do not exist for only one
`
`user, nor are they used exclusively by any one particular user. These programs are
`
`server—side software that may be accessed by any number of users ofthe Kikinis
`
`system who seek to obtain access to the lower-order data bases. For this reasons, a
`
`POSITA would not understand the home page disclosed in Kikinis as containing
`
`“user-specific information relating to an individual using a computer.”
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 9, 2014 in
`
`Danbury, CT.
`
` 63%,,
`
`Cory Plock
`
`2'1
`
`Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 23
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 23
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is certified that copies of the DECLARATION OF DR. CORY PLOCK
`
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION have
`
`been served on Petitioner as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) via electronic mail
`
`transmission addressed to the persons at the address below:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Scott M. Border
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`sborder@sidley.com
`
`Date: July 9, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jason S. Angell
`Jason S. Angell
`Reg. No. 51408
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`- 24 -
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. - Exhibit 2001, Page 24
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
