UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, GOOGLE INC. AND APPLE INC.
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.
`alleged Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,306,993
`Issue Date: Nov. 6, 2012
`Title: METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR
`ADDRESSING HANDLING FROM AN OPERATING SYSTEM
`_______________
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DENNIS R. ALLISON
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC. 1002
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................. 5 
`SUMMARY OF OPINION ............................................................................. 7 
`II. 
`III.  UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW .............................................................. 8 
`IV.  RELEVANT TIMEFRAME FOR OBVIOUSNESS .................................... 10 
`V. 
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 11 
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF THE '993 PATENT SPECIFICATION ............................ 19 
`A.  SIMILARITY OF CLAIM SETS ............................................................... 28 
`VII.  CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM TERMS ...................................................... 29 
`A.  Contact Database ......................................................................................... 29 
`B. 
`Initiating Electronic Communication .......................................................... 30 
`C.  Allowing the User to Make a Decision Whether to Store… or to Update . 31 
`D. 
`Input Device ................................................................................................ 33 
`E.  Button .......................................................................................................... 34 
`VIII.  FIRST AND SECOND GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY: BONURA,
`MAGNANELLI, AND GIORDANO ...................................................................... 34 
`A.  DISCLOSURE OF BONURA AND MILLER ARTICLE ......................... 34 
`1.  Claim 1: Computer Implemented Method ............................................... 36 
`2.  Claim 1: Contact Database, Separately Accessible and Editable ............ 36 
`3.  Claim 1: Contact Database Entry Fields .................................................. 38 
`4.  Claim 1: Analyzing Text to Identify Contact Information ...................... 39 
`5.  Claim 1: Nature and Content of Text Identified ...................................... 40 
`6.  Claim 1: Initiating Search of the Contact Database ................................. 41 
`7.  Claim 1: Displaying Second Contact Information ................................... 42 
`8.  Claim 1: Nature and Content of Second Contact Information ................. 42 
`9.  Claim 1: Initiating Electronic Communication ........................................ 43 
`10. Claim 1: Storing Contact Information in the Database ............................ 44 
`11. Claim 1: Execute Command Causing the Performing ............................. 44 
`12. Claim 2: Method Embodied in a Client ................................................... 46 
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`13. Claim 3: Name, address and computer .................................................... 46 
`14. Claim 4: First information is a telephone number ................................... 47 
`15. Claim 6: Menu .......................................................................................... 47 
`16. Claim 7: Button ........................................................................................ 47 
`17. Claim 8: Email address ............................................................................ 47 
`B.  DISCLOSURE OF MAGNANELLI ARTICLE ........................................ 48 
`18. Claim 1: Method of Information Handling .............................................. 49 
`19. Claim 1: Contact Database, Separately Accessible and Editable ............ 50 
`20. Claim 1: Nature of First Contact Information .......................................... 50 
`21. Claim 1: Analyzing Text to Identify Contact Information ...................... 50 
`22. Claim 1: No User Designation of Portion to Analyze ............................. 51 
`23. Claim 1: Allowing a User to Choose Whether to Update a Contact ....... 52 
`24. Claim 2: Client Computer ........................................................................ 53 
`C.  Disclosure of Giordano ............................................................................... 53 
`D.  OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, AND 22-24 OVER
`BONURA IN VIEW OF MAGNENLLI ............................................................. 54 
`E.  OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 5, 13 AND 21 OVER BONURA,
`MAGNANELLI AND GIORDANO ................................................................... 62 
`IX.  THIRD AND FOURTH GROUND FOR INVALIDITY: LUCIW, BATES
`AND GIORDANO ................................................................................................... 64 
`A.  DISCLOSURE OF LUCIW PATENT ........................................................ 64 
`25. Claim 1: Information Handling ................................................................ 65 
`26. Claim 1: Contact Database, Separately Accessible and Editable ............ 66 
`27. Claim 1: Contact Database Entry Fields .................................................. 69 
`28. Claim 1: Analyzing Text to Identify Contact Information ...................... 70 
`29. Claim 1: Document Configured to be Stored for Later Retrieval ............ 71 
`30. Claim 1: No User Designation of Portion to Analyze ............................. 71 
`31. Claim 1: Nature and Content of Contact Information Identified ............. 72 
`32. Claim 1: Initiating Search of Contact Database ....................................... 72 
`33. Claim 1: Displaying Second Contact Information ................................... 74 
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`34. Claim 1: Nature and Content of Second Contact Information ................. 75 
`35. Claim 1: Allowing a user to make a decision whether to store…or
`[whether to] update ........................................................................................ 76 
`36. Claim 1: Execute Command Causing the Performing ............................. 76 
`37. Claim 2: Method Embodied in a Client ................................................... 77 
`38. Claim 3: Types of Contact Information; Use of Computer ..................... 78 
`39. Claim 4: Other Types of Contact Information ......................................... 78 
`40. Claim 6: Menu .......................................................................................... 79 
`41. Claim 7: Button ........................................................................................ 80 
`42. Claim 8: Sending E-mail .......................................................................... 80 
`43. Claim 9: Non-transitory Computer Readable Medium ............................ 81 
`44. Claim 17: Apparatus – Processor and Memory ....................................... 81 
`B.  ANTICIPATION BY LUCIW .................................................................... 81 
`C.  DISCLOSURE OF BATES PATENT ........................................................ 81 
`45. Claim 1: Contact Database, Separately Accesible and Editable .............. 82 
`46. Claim 1: Adding and Updating Database Contacts ................................. 83 
`D.  FURTHER DISCLOSURE OF GIORDANO PATENT ............................ 85 
`47. Claim 1: Analyzing Text to Identify Contact Information ...................... 86 
`48. Claim 1: Creating a New Contact ............................................................ 86 
`49. Claim 1: Nature and Content of Second Contact Information ................. 87 
`50. Claim 5: Using a Phone number With a Cell Phone Client ..................... 87 
`E.  OBVIOUSNESS OVER LUCIW IN VIEW OF BATES AND
`GIORDANO ........................................................................................................ 88 
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I.
`I, Dennis R. Allison, make this declaration in connection with the
`
`1.
`
`petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,306,993 ("the '993 patent";
`
`Exhibit 1001 to the petition). All statements made herein made of my own
`
`knowledge are true. I am over the age of 18 and otherwise competent to make this
`
`declaration. Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing this
`
`declaration, the opinions herein are my own, and I have no stake in the outcome of
`
`the inter partes review or any related litigation.
`
`2.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 1008 is my curriculum vitae. As shown in my
`
`CV, I have an A.B. from the University of California, Berkeley in Physics (1961).
`
`Since 1975, I have been a Lecturer at Stanford University in the Computer Systems
`
`Laboratory, Electrical Engineering Department. At Stanford, I have taught
`
`graduate and upper division courses in Computer Architecture, Advanced
`
`Computer Architecture, Software Engineering, Software Projects, and Computer
`
`Programming.
`
`3.
`
`From 1962-1972, I worked as a Physicist at the Radio Physics
`
`Laboratory of SRI International (aka Stanford Research Institute).
`
`4.
`
` Since 1972, I have been a consultant in the computer industry. I
`
`have worked with a diverse client base with an equally diverse project base
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`including programming language design and implementation, operating systems
`
`design, distributed system architectures, microprocessor architecture, memory
`
`management systems architecture, DSP architecture, architectural evaluation,
`
`benchmark studies and comparative evaluation, network hosted micro-payment
`
`systems design, electronic money systems design, financial cryptography,
`
`multimedia education curriculum development, web site design, media encryption
`
`risk evaluation, special purpose client server system design reviews, technical
`
`writing and review, patent preparation and prior art search, and litigation support.
`
`5.
`
`Some of my current projects involve support systems for drug
`
`development, social networking, emerging cellular telephone systems, computer
`
`gaming, reliable computing, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 support tools, programming
`
`language compilation for distributed sensor networks, website framework
`
`development, and hardware acceleration in monolithic application-oriented
`
`supercomputer systems. My current research includes restructuring classical
`
`economic theory for use in modeling, modeling emergent systems, decision
`
`support, programming parallel systems, exploring the conceptual framework of
`
`programming languages, exploring mobile enterprise architectures for investment
`
`banking and venture finance, defining the architecture for large scale, energy
`
`efficient server clusters, architecture and software support for embedded low-
`
`power embedded computers, architecture of accelerators for high performance
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`computing clusters using FPGAs and GPGPUs, concurrent programming
`
`languages and parallel systems, artificial intelligence, neuroscience based
`
`interfaces, very high speed computing, the semantic web, and design tools for
`
`FPGAs.
`
`6.
`
`I believe that I can competently testify from the perspective of the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant timeframe (defined in ¶18, below).
`
`II. SUMMARY OF OPINION
`Based on my analysis discussed herein, I am of the opinion that
`
`7.
`
`claims 1-24 are invalid for anticipation and/or obviousness, as detailed below.
`
`8.
`
`Specifically, I am of the opinion that claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, and 22-
`
`24 are invalid as obvious over the combination of the Bonura article and the
`
`Magnanelli article.
`
`9.
`
`I am further of the opinion that claims 5, 13 and 21 are invalid over
`
`the combination of Bonura article and the Magnanelli article, in further view of the
`
`Giordano patent.
`
`10.
`
`I am of the opinion that claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 14-15, 17-18 and 22-23
`
`are invalid as anticipated by Luciw. I am also of the opinion that claims 1-24 are
`
`invalid as obvious over the combination of the Luciw patent, the Bates patent and
`
`the Giordano patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`I have been informed about certain aspects of patent law that are
`
`11.
`
`relevant to my analysis and opinions.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that a claim term in an inter partes review is to be
`
`interpreted according to broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears. I understand that a claim term can
`
`be expressly defined by the specification, but absent such an express definition, the
`
`claim should be construed a broadly as a person of ordinary skill would reasonably
`
`have done in light of the specification.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid because of anticipation when every
`
`element of the claim is described in a single prior art reference, such that the
`
`elements are arranged as required by the claim. I further understand that the
`
`description of a claim element in a prior art reference can be express or inherent.
`
`For a prior art reference to describe a claim element inherently, the claim element
`
`must necessarily be present. Probabilities are not sufficient to establish inherency.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that a claim can be invalid for obviousness even if it is
`
`not anticipated. I understand that a claim is obvious if the differences between the
`
`claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious. I understand that the evaluation of obviousness must be carried out from
`
`the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claims
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`pertain. I will describe the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art in ¶¶19-37,
`
`below. I further understand that the obviousness evaluation is made at the "time
`
`the invention was made". I will describe this timeframe in §IV, below.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that when evaluating obviousness, I must consider the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claimed invention, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and any secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`16.
`
`I further understand that secondary considerations include evidence of
`
`real-world events that can shed light on the obviousness or non-obviousness of a
`
`claim. For example, evidence of commercial success of a product embodying a
`
`claim can provide evidence tending to show that the claim is not obvious. This
`
`evidence will be stronger or weaker depending on the causal connection (nexus)
`
`between one or more claim elements not found in a single prior art reference and
`
`the commercial success, and the presence of one or more other factors (such as
`
`market power, advertising or other desirable features of the product) that could
`
`explain the commercial success. The product having commercial success must be
`
`reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claim, but need not incorporate all
`
`embodiments of the claims. Other examples of secondary considerations that
`
`could lead to evidence of non-obviousness include attempts at copying a
`
`commercial product of the patent owner, attempts to make a product embodying a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`claim without success, a long-felt need in the industry without a solution before the
`
`claimed invention, and praise of the claimed invention.
`
`17.
`
`I further understand that a claim is likely to be obvious where it
`
`represents the combination of familiar elements according to known methods and it
`
`does no more than yield predictable results. I further understand that when a work
`
`is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can
`
`prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
`
`ordinary skill can implement a predictable claim, the claim is likely obvious.
`
`Likewise I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
`
`devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
`
`application is beyond ordinary skill.
`
`IV. RELEVANT TIMEFRAME FOR OBVIOUSNESS
`18. Obviousness must be considered from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. In this case, the
`
`earliest possible filing date (anywhere in the world) for the application leading to
`
`the '993 patent is September 3, 1998. I have not analyzed whether the '993 patent
`
`is entitled to that filing date, but have analyzed obviousness as of that date or
`
`somewhat before. I may refer to this timeframe as "the relevant timeframe". My
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`testimony relates to the relevant timeframe, even if it may occasionally be phrased
`
`in tenses other than past tense.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to
`
`19.
`
`the '993 patent in the relevant timeframe would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`Computer Science or Electrical Engineering or related discipline and about two
`
`years' experience designing applications that use databases.
`
`20. The next few paragraphs provide a few examples of the kinds of skills
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed, without intending to
`
`state every such skill. My opinions regarding these skills has been formed from
`
`my own experience in the industry during the relevant timeframe, the teachings in
`
`the prior art and the '993 patent's assumption throughout the specification that the
`
`background level of ordinary skill was sufficient to design and build the high-level
`
`software functionality described in the '993 patent.
`
`21. The person of ordinary skill would have obtained, through education
`
`or experience, facility with common programming languages, algorithms, data
`
`structures, and programming logic (decision trees, control flow, etc.) sufficient to
`
`enable him or her to develop tools to interact with these end-user applications, or
`
`improve existing tools designed for this purpose.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`22. The person of ordinary skill would have understood how to design
`
`and code the common elements of a graphical user interface, to modify a user's
`
`interaction with a system. This would include the ability to add graphical control
`
`elements, such as buttons, menus, checkboxes, radio buttons, text fields and boxes,
`
`graphical panes, etc., into the components of the graphical user interfaces that
`
`applications use (windows, frames, panels, etc.). The person of ordinary skill
`
`would have known how to link executable code to specific GUI actions, and how
`
`to design such code so that it ran in a stable and error-free fashion.
`
`23. Furthermore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood how to take advantage of inter-application and inter-process
`
`communication. Such communication allows different system applications to
`
`communicate with one another. For example, a person of ordinary skill would
`
`have known how to access a system database from an application, using or
`
`designing the necessary Application Programming Interfaces ("APIs") to do so. A
`
`person of ordinary skill would have been able to cause an application program to
`
`access a database, in order to send the database a particular read-query and then to
`
`receive and use the information returned, or to query the database to add records or
`
`update existing records.
`
`24. A person of ordinary skill would also have had familiarity with the
`
`most common electronic communication methods, including email messaging,
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`telephone calling (e.g. through the Telephony API), HTTP messages (POST or
`
`GET, for example), FTP, and FAXing. A person of ordinary skill would have
`
`known how to interface general application programs with application programs
`
`that provide the functionality for these kinds of communications.
`
`25. A person of ordinary skill would further have been familiar with text
`
`recognition systems. Such systems evaluated text in a document, looking for
`
`useful structures. Once a useful structure was found, the system would allow a
`
`user to do something with it by executing code. The mechanism for allowing the
`
`user to execute an associated function was often accomplished by means of a
`
`context-dependent graphical user interface element, such as a context menu or a
`
`pop-up window. The user's selection from the user interface element would lead to
`
`a specific code module being executed, to do something useful with the
`
`information.
`
`26. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,859,636 to Pandit (Ex. 1009), filed at the
`
`end of 1995, describes a text recognition system that identifies useful information
`
`and presents the user with options to take certain actions. Ex. 1009, Fig. 2,
`
`Abstract. The Abstract of Pandit states:
`
`"Text of a predetermined class is recognized in a body of
`text. After recognition, operations relevant to the
`recognized text may be performed. For example, text
`such as telephone numbers, telefax numbers, and dates
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`can be recognized in a body of text. Options are provided
`for selecting and running operations and programs
`relevant to the recognized text."
`
`27. Pandit shows in Fig. 1f, for example, how a telephone number can be
`
`recognized, and the user presented with options to make a call, send a FAX, or add
`
`the number to a contact database. Figure 1f is shown below:
`
`
`28. Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 5,644,735 to Luciw (Ex. 1010), first-filed as
`
`early as 1993, shows how text representing a first name can be entered into a
`
`document can be recognized, and suggestions for the full name presented in a
`
`context menu. Figures 6a and 6b of Luciw, showing this functionality, are
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`29. As another example, the article entitled "Drop Zones, an extension to
`
`LiveDoc", by Thomas Bonura and James R. Miller ("Bonura") describes how text
`
`structures (such as phone numbers and email addresses) can be recognized in a
`
`document and associated with actions that can be performed on that text:
`
`"Various kinds of recognizers, including context-free
`grammars, are used to describe the structures to be found;
`these structures can be made up of either a single lexical
`term (either a variable structure like a phone number, or a
`collection of static strings, like company names) or
`multiple terms (for instance, a meeting can be defined as
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`a combination of date, time, and venue structures). Small
`pieces of code can then be associated with each structure
`to instruct applications to carry out specific user actions
`on the discovered structures- perhaps to tell a telephony
`application to "Dial this phone number." These actions
`can then be offered to users by visually highlighting the
`discovered structures and attaching pop-up menus to the
`highlights." Ex. 1006, p. 59, left column, Introduction.
`
`30. A person of ordinary skill would further have been familiar with
`
`contact databases or address books for storing information about people, including
`
`information about how to reach people. Such contact databases ("address books")
`
`were in widespread use in the relevant timeframe. In that timeframe, it was typical
`
`to store names, postal addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, FAX
`
`numbers, and notes about a person in such databases. It was also typical to provide
`
`contact databases or address books that could be accessed by other applications.
`
`Of course, people had also long been using paper-based address books and manual
`
`processes to do exactly the same sorts of things described in the '993 patent. In this
`
`sense, the '993 patent represents no more than the automation of long-known
`
`processes.
`
`31. For example, the Pandit, Luciw and Bonura references discussed
`
`above all show interaction with a contact database. The article entitled
`
`"ACADEMIA: An Agent-Maintained Database based on Information Extraction
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`from Web Documents" by Magnanelli, et al. ("Magnanelli", Ex. 1007), likewise
`
`showed how an application program can interact with a contact database in Fig. 1.
`
`In Fig. 1, reproduced below, the contact database is called the "Academia
`
`Database" and holds information about people, including contact information.
`
`
`32. Contact databases (address books) in the relevant timeframe had
`
`extensive functionality. This included querying, scripting, indexing, etc. Such
`
`functionality allowed a user to add new contacts and edit existing contacts, exactly
`
`as one would expect. Contact databases (address books) also generally included
`
`Application Programming Interfaces ("APIs") to allow the address book to be
`
`accessed by different application programs, so that the contact data could be used,
`
`entered or updated by other programs.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`33. Several examples of the advanced state of contact databases are
`
`provided in exhibits 1009 - 1012. Exhibit 1011, U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,306
`
`("Taylor"), originally filed in 1993, describes an integrated communications
`
`system (ICU) having a "communications address book" (CAB). As Taylor notes:
`
`"The purpose of the CAB is to organize in a data base a
`collection of names, telephone numbers, and other
`relevant data on the electronic mail, fax, or host computer
`systems at the recipients (or "destinations") of
`communications. As illustrated in FIG. 3 above, the CAB
`supports other components of the ICU by supplying
`information to these components in a convenient
`manner." Ex. 1011, col. 10, ll. 29-34).
`
`34. As described in Taylor, data can be edited and entered by a user (Ex.
`
`1011, col. 10, l. 44 – col. 11, l. 9), and the CAB can be accessed and manipulated
`
`by other software running on the system. (Ex. 1011, col. 21, ll. 5-12; col. 10, ll.
`
`29-34; col. 11, ll. 10-20). The functionality of the address book is extensive (Ex.
`
`1011, col. 9, l. 55 – col. 23, l. 51).
`
`35. Likewise, Exhibit 1012, U.S. Pat. No. 5,790,532 ("Sharma"),
`
`originally filed in 1993, describes personal communications system for telephony,
`
`FAX, email and multimedia communications. Sharma describes its address book
`
`function as follows:
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`"The address book function of the present system is a
`versatile database that is built by the user and operates
`in conjunction with the other components of the
`present system to dial and establish communication links
`with remote sites to enable data communication, voice
`mail, facsimile, file transfer all in an automated mode
`without user intervention." Ex. 1012, col. 2, ll. 38-43
`(emphasis added).
`
`36. As Sharma teaches, the address book (contact database) can be
`
`accessed by all other system components Ex. 1012, Ex. 1012, col. 7, ll. 52-64.
`
`37. This level of education and experience would have provided extensive
`
`opportunities to use, write software for and otherwise interact with end-user
`
`applications themselves, including graphical operating systems such as Windows
`
`95 and the Macintosh OS, word-processing programs such as MS Word and
`
`WordPerfect, e-mail programs such as Lotus Notes and Microsoft Outlook, and
`
`Web browsers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE '993 PATENT SPECIFICATION
`38. The '993 patent is directed to a method for "address handling," Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:22. The "address" in "address handling", at least in terms of the claims of
`
`the '993 patent, refers to "contact information", such as a person's name or mailing
`
`address. Ex. 1001 at 1:35-36. The contact information is "handled" by a system
`
`that works with a processing program coupled to a database program. Ex. 1001 at
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`1:24-30. The interaction is probably best shown with references to Figures 3 and 4
`
`of the '993 patent. Figure 3 is shown below:
`
`
`39. Figure 3 of the '993 patent shows a screen shot of a word processing
`
`window, having a word processing document open. Ex. 1001 at 2:64-67. The
`
`word processor has a name entered into the document. Ex. 1001 at 6:23-25.
`
`According to the '993 patent, the user presses the "OneButton" 42 in the menu bar.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 6:25-26. This causes the system to "retrieve the name 40 from the
`
`document" and "search[] a database for the name….". Ex. 1001 at 6:26-28.
`
`Assuming that the search finds an address associated with the name, the system
`
`then inserts the address into the word processing document. Ex. 1001 at 6:28-30. I
`
`note that the specification is quite vague about what gets returned to the document,
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`and how it gets selected. The ultimate result is found in the screen shot from Fig.
`
`4, which is shown below:
`
`
`40. The '993 patent discusses a number of other things that could be done
`
`with contact information located in a document. Ex. 1001 at Figs. 1-2 and
`
`Examples 1-7. The specification of the '993 patent, however, is directed to a
`
`description of what the software system does, but does not teach how to
`
`accomplish it. The '993 patent assumes that a person of skill in the art in the
`
`relevant timeframe (see ¶18, above), will have the requisite skill to implement any
`
`system function that described. Ex. 1001 at 11:38-13:2.
`
`41. For example, the '993 patent does not disclose any computer source
`
`code to implement its methods. Rather, the person of ordinary skill is correctly
`
`assumed to have the requisite skill to create software from the ground up (or the
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`equivalent hardware) without any guidance from the specification except for the
`
`desired functionality. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 11:38-68. Algorithmically, the '993
`
`patent discloses flowcharts (Figs. 1, 2, and 16), but these are also limited to high-
`
`level and general descriptions of the desired functionality. The reader is left to
`
`implement the software.
`
`42. Likewise, the '993 patent only discusses its methods with respect to
`
`known word processing programs, known databases, known operating systems,
`
`and known, commodity computer hardware, all of which were already well
`
`established and widely commercially available at the time of the '993 patent’s
`
`filing. Moreover, the '993 patent uses these known, existing technologies in
`
`ordinary, predictable ways to achieve merely the expected results, such as typing
`
`and otherwise processing text in a word processor; storing data to and retrieving
`
`data from a database; running graphical application interfaces on end-user
`
`operating systems; and performing all of the above functions on ordinary
`
`commodity hardware (such as processors, memory, storage devices, displays, and
`
`input devices).
`
`43. The '993 patent relies on the use of existing, known word processing
`
`programs, asserting simply that "[i]n recent years, with the advent of programs,
`
`such as word processors, spreadsheets, etc. (hereinafter called ‘word processors’),"
`
`users may desire the functionality that Hedloy claims to have invented in the '993
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`patent. Ex. 1001 at 1:31-35. The specification specifically recites known word
`
`processing tools including "WORD™, NOTEPAD™, EXCEL™, WORDPAD™,
`
`WORDPERFECT™, QUATROPRO™, AMIPRO™, etc." Ex. 1001 at 1:44-46,
`
`and does not claim to have invented a novel word processing program.
`
`Furthermore, the '993 patent employs methods humans had used for years prior at
`
`the very least manually. For example, it was well-known to have a name entered
`
`into a word processing document, to have a database application with address book
`
`data, to use the name to look up a corresponding address in the database, and to
`
`paste the address into the word processing document. The '993 patent is describing
`
`no more than an increase in the level of automation of this fundamentally known
`
`process.
`
`44. The figures of the patent representing word processing tools for use
`
`with the claimed method also reflect commodity end-user word processors and
`
`spreadsheets, including Figs. 3, 4, 5, 14, and 15 in Ex. 1001. In fact these figures
`
`go so far as to label the application windows with "Microsoft Word®" and
`
`"Microsoft Excel®," which were known commercial end-user applications of the
`
`type called "word processors" in the patent specification. From my work in the
`
`industry during the relevant timeframe, I can recognize those figures as depicting
`
`the respective Microsoft products (i.e., Word® and Excel®) approximately as they
`
`existed at that time.
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`45. The '993 patent relies on the use of known, existing database
`
`programs, such as "ACCESS™, ORACLE™, DBASE™, RBASE™,
`
`C