Patent No. 7,496,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,496,854
`Issue Date: February 24, 2009
`Title: METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR
`ADDRESSING HANDLING FROM A COMPUTER PROGRAM
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL A. MENASCÉ, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 1
`
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,496,854
`Issue Date: February 24, 2009
`Title: METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR
`ADDRESSING HANDLING FROM A COMPUTER PROGRAM
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL A. MENASCÉ, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Daniel A. Menascé, make this declaration in connection with the
`
`proceeding identified above.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Apple Inc. (“Apple”) as a
`
`technical expert in connection with the proceeding identified above. I submit this
`
`declaration in support of Petitioners’ Petitions for Inter Partes Review of United
`
`States Patent No. 7,496,854 (“the '854 patent”). The claims of the '854 patent may
`
`be divided into two groups: (1) claims directed to performing an operation, such
`
`as updating a database with an address; and (2) claims directed to inserting
`
`information into the document, such as an address. This declaration addresses the
`
`first set of claims (i.e., claims 19-35, 57-85, 96, and 99).
`
`2.
`
`I am being paid at an hourly rate for my work on this matter. I have
`
`no personal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I am a University Professor of Computer Science at George Mason
`
`University (“Mason”) in Fairfax, Virginia. This is the highest rank conferred by
`
`Mason’s Board of Visitors to “its faculty women and men of great national and
`
`international reputation. The rank of University Professor is reserved for such
`
`eminent individuals.” (See Section 2.2.5 of Mason’s Faculty Handbook, available
`
`
`
` 1
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 2
`
`
`
`
`at www.gmu.edu/resources/facstaff/handbook/GMU_FACULTY_HANDBOOK
`
`_1-1-2009.pdf.) Only a very select group of Full Professors at Mason becomes
`
`University Professors.
`
`4.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of
`
`California at Los Angeles (“UCLA”) in 1978. I obtained a Master of Science
`
`degree in Computer Science in 1975, as well as a Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering in 1974 from the Pontifical Catholic University in Rio de
`
`Janeiro, Brazil (“PUC-Rio”).
`
`5.
`
`Prior to joining Mason, I was Professor of Computer Science and
`
`Chair of the Computer Science Department at PUC-Rio. I have held visiting
`
`faculty positions at the University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer
`
`Studies (UMIACS) and the University of Rome, Italy. From 1981 to 1991, I was
`
`the co-founder and CEO of Tecnosoft, a software company that specialized in the
`
`development of large software projects and database management systems
`
`projects for companies such as Brazilian oil company Petrobras and Brazilian
`
`telecommunications company Embratel.
`
`6.
`
`At my former company, Tecnosoft, I personally developed two
`
`database management systems for PCs. These systems were based on a
`
`sophisticated and fault-tolerant B*-tree access method that I developed and
`
`
`
` 2
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 3
`
`
`
`
`published about. (See “Dynamic Crash Recovery of Balanced Trees,” D.A.
`
`Menascé and O.E. Landes, Proc. IEEE Symp. Reliability in Distributed Software
`
`and Database Systems, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, July 21-22, 1981.)
`
`7. While at Tecnosoft, I designed and personally directed the
`
`development of various large information systems for various customers,
`
`including the Brazilian Oil Company (Petrobras) and the Brazilian
`
`Telecommunications Company (Embratel).
`
`8.
`
`I have devoted the past 39 years of my professional career to the area
`
`of computer science and in particular to the fields of electronic commerce, web-
`
`based systems, operating systems, database design and management, secure
`
`computer systems, autonomic computing, performance modeling and analysis,
`
`and software performance engineering. My field of expertise includes the study
`
`and comparison of computer-based systems and software architectures for
`
`commercial applications, including information systems in a variety of settings,
`
`from PCs to secure networked and Web-based environments.
`
`9.
`
`I have been a Professor of Computer Science at Mason since 1992. I
`
`was the lead designer of Mason’s Executive Master of Secure Information
`
`Systems, the Founding Director of its Master of Science in E-commerce program,
`
`and the founding co-Director of Mason’s E-Center for E-Business.
`
`
`
` 3
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`10. From 2005 to 2012, I was the Senior Associate Dean of the Volgenau
`
`School of Engineering at Mason (“School of Engineering”). As Senior Associate
`
`Dean, I was in charge of research, graduate programs, graduate admissions,
`
`promotion and tenure of the faculty, and Web information systems for the entire
`
`School of Engineering.
`
`11. As Senior Associate Dean of the School of Engineering, I was also
`
`the director of the school’s Ph.D. degree program in Information Technology. In
`
`that role, I attended all doctoral dissertation defenses to make a final
`
`determination whether the doctorate should be awarded before appending my
`
`signature.
`
`12.
`
`I am the author of more than 225 peer-reviewed technical papers that
`
`have appeared in journals and conference proceedings. My publications have
`
`received more than 7,650 citations, and my h-index is 42. (The h-index is an
`
`index that attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of the published
`
`work of a scientist or scholar. The index is based on the set of the scientist’s most
`
`cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other
`
`publications.) I am the chief author of several books, including:
`
` “Performance by Design: Computer Capacity Planning by Example,”
`published by Prentice Hall in 2004;
`
` “Capacity Planning for Web Services: Metrics, Models, and Methods,”
`
`
`
` 4
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`published by Prentice Hall in 2002 and translated into Russian and
`Portuguese;
`
` “Scaling for E-business: Technologies, Models, Performance, and
`Capacity Planning,” published by Prentice Hall in 2000 and translated
`into Korean;
`
` “Capacity Planning for Web Performance,” published by Prentice Hall
`in 1998;
`
` “Capacity Planning and Performance Modeling: From Mainframes to
`Client-Server Systems,” published by Prentice Hall in 1994.
`
`13. All of my books come with accompanying software that can be used
`
`by the readers to solve the mathematical models for queuing theory discussed in
`
`the books. My 1994 book contained software on a 3½-inch floppy disk, my 1998
`
`book contained software on a CD, and the other books provided a link from which
`
`readers could download the software. In most cases, the software that came with
`
`my books consisted of Excel spreadsheets that contained Visual Basic code that I
`
`wrote. The user of these spreadsheets would enter input parameters on specific
`
`cells of the spreadsheet and push a button on the spreadsheet. This button
`
`activates a Visual Basic program that takes the inputs entered by the user, runs the
`
`mathematical model, and populates specific cells of the spreadsheet with output
`
`results of the model.
`
`14.
`
`I have received several lifetime–achievement awards and
`
`recognitions, including elevation to the rank of Fellow of the Institute of Electrical
`
`
`
` 5
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 6
`
`
`
`
`and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)1 for “contributions to research and education in
`
`performance evaluation of computer systems,” induction as a Fellow of the
`
`Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) for “fundamental contributions to
`
`education and practice of computer networks and performance evaluation, and
`
`material contributions to the establishment of a strong computing industry in
`
`Brazil”; the 2001 A.A. Michelson Award, a lifetime achievement award given by
`
`the Computer Measurement Group, for my contributions to computer metrics; the
`
`2009 Outstanding Research Faculty award by the Volgenau School of Engineering
`
`at Mason; the 2000 Teaching Excellence award from Mason; the 1999
`
`Outstanding Teaching award from the Volgenau School of Engineering at Mason;
`
`and several best paper awards. In April 2013, George Mason University selected
`
`me to represent the university in the statewide 2014 Outstanding Faculty Award
`
`competition.
`
`15. My research has been funded by the United States Department of
`
`Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the United States
`
`National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science
`
`Foundation (NSF), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Approved by the IEEE Board of Directors on November 2013, effective January
`1, 2014.
`
`
`
` 6
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 7
`
`
`
`
`National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Dominion Virginia
`
`Power, Virginia’s Center for Innovative Technology (CIT), OPNET
`
`Technologies, TRW, Hughes Applied Information Systems, the Embratel, the
`
`Brazilian Research Council (CNPq), the Brazilian Ministry of Science and
`
`Technology, and IBM Brazil.
`
`16.
`
`I have consulted for many government organizations and private
`
`companies, including the U.S. Army, NASA, the U.S. Mint, the Defense
`
`Information Systems Agency (DISA), the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization,
`
`the National Institutes of Health, IBM, SABRE (travelocity.com), United Online
`
`(netzero.com), Lockheed Martin, Capital One, and the Inter-American
`
`Development Bank.
`
`17.
`
`I have experience with the design of complex data-intensive
`
`distributed information systems in the commercial arena through Tecnosoft, the
`
`company I founded and managed from 1981 to 1991, and in the scientific domain
`
`where I helped NASA design the federated architecture of its Earth Orbiting
`
`System Data and Information System (EOSDIS). For the latter work, I received
`
`the outstanding paper award from the IEEE International Conference on
`
`Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, Southern Florida, USA, November
`
`
`
` 7
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 8
`
`
`
`
`6-10, 1995, for the paper “A Performance-Oriented Design Methodology for
`
`Large-Scale Distributed Data Intensive Information Systems.”
`
`18.
`
`I have been invited to give keynote addresses at several conferences
`
`and companies around the world. Examples include:
`
` “On the Use of Performance Models in Autonomic Computing,”
`Congress of the Brazilian Computer Society, Curitiba, Brazil, July 18,
`2012;
`
` “Self-Architecting Software Systems,” University at Buffalo, September
`20, 2011;
`
` “Virtualization and the On-Demand Data Center,” Green Computing
`Summit, Washington, DC, December 3, 2008;
`
` “Achieving QoS in Complex Distributed Systems through Autonomic
`Computing,” Alcatel Technical Academy, Antwerp, Belgium, October
`3, 2005;
`
` “Quality of Service Challenges for Web Based Systems and E-
`commerce,” E-Quality Research Center, University of Twente, The
`Netherlands, September 30, 2005;
`
` “On the Use of Online Performance Models in Autonomic Computing,”
`IBM Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, NY, July 15, 2004;
`
` “QoS Challenges and Directions for Large Distributed Systems,”
`Workshop on Quality of Service for Geographically Distributed
`Systems, Rome, Italy, June 9, 2004;
`
` “Self-Managing E-commerce Sites,” WWW/Internet 2003 IADIS
`International Conference, November 6, 2003, Algarve, Portugal;
`
` “Software, Performance, or Engineering?,” Third
`International
`Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2002), July 24-26,
`2002, Rome, Italy;
`
`
`
` 8
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 9
`
`
`
`
`
` “QoS Issues in Web and E-commerce Services,” Distinguished Lecturer
`Series, Computer Science and Engineering Division, University of
`Michigan, October 25, 2001;
`
` “Using Performance Models to Dynamically Control E-Commerce
`Performance,” 2001 Aachen
`International Multiconference on
`Measurement, Modeling, and Evaluation of Computer-Communication
`Systems, Aachen, Germany, September 12, 2001; and
`
` “Understanding Workloads in E-Business,” Microsoft Research, Seattle,
`WA, May 1, 2001.
`
`19.
`
`I was the General Chair of ACM’s 2007 Federated Computing
`
`Research Conference (FCRC) held in June 2007 in San Diego. This is the largest
`
`and most prestigious research event in the computer science field and includes
`
`sixteen co-located conferences and many workshops with a total attendance of
`
`more than 2,000 researchers.
`
`20.
`
`I am a member of the editorial board of ACM’s Transactions on
`
`Internet Technologies and of Elsevier’s Performance Evaluation journal. I was an
`
`Associate Editor of ACM’s Transactions on the Web (TWEB) journal, an
`
`Associate Editor of Elsevier’s Electronic Commerce Research and Applications
`
`journal, and a member of the Editorial Board of IEEE’s Internet Computing for
`
`many years.
`
`21. During my academic career I have been the dissertation advisor of 23
`
`Ph.D. students and 52 MS students.
`
`22.
`
`I have an active U.S. top-secret security clearance.
`
`
`
` 9
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`23. My detailed educational history and work experience are set forth in
`
`my résumé and curriculum vitae, attached hereto as Appendix A. Included in my
`
`résumé and curriculum vitae is a listing of all of my publications. In addition, I
`
`am the co-inventor of a U.S. patent entitled “Meta-Protocol” and of two pending
`
`U.S. patent applications entitled “System and Method for Managing Insider
`
`Security Threats” and “Server Allocation Mechanism.” I have listed the issued
`
`patent and the pending applications in my curriculum vitae, which is attached as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`24.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed, among other things,
`
`the following materials: (a) the '854 patent and its prosecution history; and (b)
`
`news articles on Spell Catcher™ (attached as Appendix B); (c) Plaintiff’s opening
`
`brief in support of its proposed claim construction dated August 10, 2009 (Case
`
`No. 1:09-cv-119-LPS (D. Del.), ECF No. 46) (“Plaintiff’s August 2009 Opening
`
`Claim Construction Brief”) (attached as Appendix C); (d) August 25, 2009 (Case
`
`No. 1:09-cv-119-LPS (D. Del.), ECF No. 57) (“Plaintiff’s August 2009
`
`Answering Claim Construction Brief”) (attached as Appendix D); (e) January 21,
`
`2011 (Case No. 1:09-cv-119-LPS (D. Del.), ECF No. 285) (“Plaintiff’s January
`
`2011 Supplemental Claim Construction Brief”) (attached as Appendix E); (f)
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`10
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 11
`
`
`
`
`February 4, 2011 (Case No. 1:09-cv-119-LPS (D. Del.), ECF No. 292)
`
`(“Plaintiff’s February 2011 Supplemental Answering Claim Construction Brief”)
`
`(attached as Appendix F); (g) U.S. Patent No. 6,085,206 to Domini et al.; (h) the
`
`SIGCHI Bulletin (April 1998) having two sequential articles entitled “From
`
`Documents to Objects: An Overview of LiveDoc” and “Drop Zones: An
`
`Extension of LiveDoc”; (i) U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 to Miller et al.; (j) U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,644,735 to Luciw et al.; and (k) U.S. Patent No. 5,963,964 to
`
`Nielsen.
`
`IV. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claims are construed from
`
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, and that during inter partes review, claims are to be given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed and 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 requied by the claim. I have
`
`been informed and understand 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
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`11
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 12
`
`
`
`
`element inherently, the claim element must be necessarily present. Probabilities
`
`are not sufficient to establish inherency.
`
`27.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that the subject matter of a
`
`patent claim is obvious if the differences between the subject matter of the claim
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which the subject matter pertains. I have also been informed that the
`
`framework for determining obviousness involves considering the following
`
`factors: (i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claimed subject matter; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`and (iv) any objective evidence of non-obviousness. I understand that the claimed
`
`subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if, for
`
`example, it results from the combination of known elements according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results, the simple substitution of one known element
`
`for another to obtain predictable results, use of a known technique to improve
`
`similar devices in the same way or applying a known technique to a known device
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results. I have also been informed that
`
`the analysis of obviousness may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`12
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 13
`
`
`
`
`sense available to the person of ordinary skill in the art that does not necessarily
`
`require explication in any reference.
`
`28.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the
`
`'854 patent at the relevant date discussed below would have at least a Bachelor’s
`
`degree in Computer Science or Electrical Engineering or related discipline and
`
`approximately two years experience designing applications using databases.
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed that the relevant date for considering the
`
`patentability of the claims of the '854 patent is November 10, 1998, which is the
`
`earliest U.S. filing date. I have not analyzed whether the '854 patent is entitled to
`
`this filing date, but I have analyzed obviousness as of that date or somewhat
`
`before. I may refer to this time frame as the “relevant date” or the “relevant time
`
`frame.” Based on my education and experience in the field of Computer Science
`
`set forth above, I believe I am more than qualified to provide opinions about how
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art by the relevant date in 1998 would have interpreted
`
`and understood the '854 patent and the prior art discussed below.
`
`30.
`
`I set forth a few examples of the kinds of skills one of ordinary skill
`
`would have at the relevant data, without intending to list every such skill. Such a
`
`person would have understood (and been able to design) applications that access
`
`databases to obtain data from the database or to add data to the database.
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`13
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`31. Also, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar
`
`with contact databases (also called address books) for storing information about
`
`people.
`
`V. THE '854 PATENT
`
`32. The claims of the '854 patent are directed to methods, systems, and
`
`computer readable media for providing a functional button (e.g., a key, button,
`
`icon, or menu) tied to a user operation in a computer, whereby a click on the
`
`functional button in a program initiates retrieval of information (e.g., name and
`
`addresses and/or other person or company related information), while the user
`
`works simultaneously in another program (e.g., a word processor or spreadsheet).
`
`The click on the functional button initiates a program connected to the button to
`
`search a database or file containing the person, company, or address related data,
`
`in order to look up data corresponding to what the user typed or partly typed (e.g.,
`
`name and/or address, the correct data from the database, data related to the typed
`
`data). The results of the search are displayed back to the user if one or more
`
`matches are found in the database. The user can select one of the choices
`
`retrieved from the database and/or enter new information related to what the user
`
`first typed. This new information is used to update the database.
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`14
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`It is important to note that a person of ordinary skill in the art at least
`
`by the relevant time frame would understand a database as a structured set of data
`
`held in a computer that is accessible in various ways. Database operations such as
`
`searching for data/information in the database, entering/adding data/information
`
`into the database, removing data/information from the database, or changing the
`
`data/information in the database are very well known in the art and were within
`
`the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time frame. In fact,
`
`as shown by the prior art discussed below, these operations were known methods
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art and the results of these operations were
`
`predictable at the relevant time frame.
`
`34. The specification of the patent describes exemplary embodiments of
`
`the invention in which hitting the button in a program, such as a word processor or
`
`a spreadsheet, starts an analysis to determine what the user has typed. The
`
`analysis looks for information such as a name (or part thereof), a name and
`
`address, an email address, and telephone number. (See '854 Patent, Figs. 1 and 2
`
`and corresponding text.) If any of the predetermined types of information are
`
`found by the analysis, a database lookup using that information is started to search
`
`for another piece of information (called “second information” in the claims) that is
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`15
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 16
`
`
`
`
`associated with the information used to do the search (called “first information” in
`
`the claims).
`
`35. A variety of actions may occur depending on the result of the
`
`database lookup. For example, if one address is found corresponding to the name,
`
`it may be inserted into the document. If more than one address is found, the user
`
`is prompted to select one of them. If no address is found, the user is prompted to
`
`enter an address. If any of the displayed addresses are incorrect, the user is given
`
`the opportunity to correct it. Actions related to insertion into a document are
`
`shown on the left side of Figs. 1 and 2, whereas actions relating to adding
`
`information to a database are shown on the right side of Figs. 1 and 2.
`
`36. All the embodiments disclosed in the specification of the '854 Patent
`
`require that the analysis for the determination of the type of the first information
`
`be started when the user hits a button. Also, all embodiments disclosed in the '854
`
`Patent require that there is a predetermined set of types of the first information as
`
`well as a predetermined set of actions that result from a database lookup based on
`
`the first information.
`
`37. The '854 patent discloses the use of well-known and commercially
`
`available components such as word processors (e.g., “WORD™, NOTEPAD™,
`
`WORDPAD™, WORDPERFECT™, AMIPRO™), spreadsheets (e.g., Excel™,
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`16
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 17
`
`
`
`
`QUATROPRO™), and database management systems (e.g., “ACCESS™,
`
`OUTLOOK™, ORACLE™, DBASE™, RBASE™, CARDFILE™) (See '854 at
`
`9:65-10:10). These elements are used in the specification in conventional ways to
`
`obtain predictable results.
`
`38. The following are examples provided in the specification describing
`
`various operations, with the involved steps highlighted.
`
`39. Example 1: Retrieving an Existing Address from the Database
`
`(Figs. 3 and 4)
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`7)
`
`
`
`40. Example 2: Adding a New Contact to the Database (Figs. 5, 6, and
`
`
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`18
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`19
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`41. Example 3: Try to Retrieve Existing Address, But Contact is not in
`
`Database (Figs. 3 and 8)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`42. Example 4: Adding a New Address for an Existing Contact (Short
`
`Version) (Figs. 4 and 9)
`
`
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`21
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`43. Example 5: Selecting Between Several Possible Matching Addresses
`
`(Figs. 3, 10, and 11)
`
`
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`23
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 24
`
`
`
`
`
`44. Example 6: Adding a New Address for an Existing Contact (Long
`
`Version) (Figs. 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`la-1231737
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`45. The independent claims of the '854 Patent can be classified into three
`
`groups: method claims (claims 1, 19, 36, 57, 85, 86, and 93), computer readable
`
`medium claims (7, 25, 43, 73, 96, 97, and 98), and computer system claims (13,
`
`31, 50, 79, 99, 100, and 101). The method, computer readable medium, and
`
`computer system claims are parallel claims in the order listed above. For
`
`example, claims 1, 7, and 13 are parallel claims and so are claims 19, 25, and 31.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`46.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion on a number of claim terms
`
`by discussing what one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent filing
`
`would regard as the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`25
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 26
`
`
`
`
`specification. In each case, my opinion agrees with the position taken in the
`
`Petitioners’ Petition for Inter Partes Review filed with this declaration.
`
`47.
`
`I also understand and have been informed that when a claim uses the
`
`word “means” and there is no definite structure corresponding to the function of
`
`the claim limitation, then the claim is presumed to be “means-plus-function”
`
`language under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`48.
`
`I understand and have been informed that the first step in construing
`
`a means-plus-function limitation is to identify the function recited in the claim,
`
`which includes construing any terms in the recited function. The next step is to
`
`identify the corresponding structure set forth in the written description that is
`
`clearly linked to and necessary to perform the particular function set forth in the
`
`claim because the means-plus-function term will cover only the corresponding
`
`structure, material, or acts in the specification and equivalents thereof. For
`
`corresponding structure involving computer algorithm, I understand and have
`
`been informed that the specification must at least disclose some algorithms to
`
`perform the recited function (not just a discussion of the end result) and it is
`
`insufficient to rely solely on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`provide such algorithm.
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`26
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 27
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`“Marking … the first information to alert the user”
`
`49. Claims 1, 7, 13, 19, 25, and 31 of the '854 patent contain the phrase
`
`“marking without user intervention the first information to alert the user that
`
`the first information can be utilized in a second application program.” (Emphasis
`
`added). The term “marking” does not appear anywhere in the specification of the
`
`'854 Patent. Therefore, I would give the term “marking” its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the claimed invention would construe “marking” to mean make visible for
`
`identification (e.g., drawing attention to or highlighting).
`
`50.
`
` As I noted, the term “marking” does not appear in the specification,
`
`and the specification does not disclose any such marking of the information, for
`
`example, the name on the screen in Fig. 3 or name and address in Fig. 5. It only
`
`shows information in a separate dialog box, such as in Fig. 6. For example, the
`
`specification discloses that “[t]his screen [FIG. 6] includes a message 50
`
`informing the user that the new contact does not exist in the database, a message
`
`52 including the address retrieved from the document, an address type selection
`
`54, such as home, business, etc., and ‘OK,’ ‘Details,’ and ‘Cancel’ buttons 56, 58,
`
`and 60, respectively. At this point, the user can cancel the operation by
`
`commanding the Cancel button 60, ask the program to store data in the database
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`27
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 28
`
`
`
`
`and return the document by commanding the OK button 56.” (See '854 patent,
`
`6:18-23, emphasis added.) Because this separate dialog box is the only possible
`
`disclosure of marking to alert in the speciation, I will therefore construe for this
`
`proceeding the “marking … to alert the user” limitation to encompass both direct
`
`marking (e.g., highlighting or a pop-up at the information being marked) and
`
`presentation of the information in a separate dialog box.
`
`51. Accordingly, I agree with Petitioners’ proposed construction.
`
`B.
`
`“Performing an operation related to second information”
`
`52. Claims 19, 25, 31, 57, 73, 79, 85, 96, and 99 of the '854 patent
`
`contain the term “performing an operation related to second information.” The
`
`broadest reasonable construction of this term, consistent with the specification and
`
`other claims, would encompass numerous operations relating to either already-
`
`existing information or the entry of new information, whether it is second
`
`information itself or other information related to second information.
`
`53. As an example, the operation in claim 19 should be construed to
`
`encompass both preexisting data and newly entered data. Specifically, dependent
`
`claim 22 recites the operation as entering additional data into a database. In
`
`dependent claim 23, this additional data is entered by a user, which, for example
`
`could be done by the user typing new information (i.e., second information) into
`
`la-1231737
`
`
`28
`
`Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
`Exhibit 1002 - page 29
`
`
`
`
`the database. This is described in column 6, lines 28-33 in connection with Fig. 7
`
`(the user can review and edit data) and numerous other examples. In contrast, in
`
`claim 24, the additional data is located within the document. This corresponds, for
`
`example, to Fig. 6, where the data from the document already exists and is directly
`
`entered into the database.
`
`C. Claim 31 of the '854 Patent
`
`1.
`
`“means for entering a first information in the first
`application program”
`
`54.
`
`I am informed by counsel that this is a means-plus-function
`
`limitation. I concur that this limitation is a means-plus-function limitation.
`
`55. The recited function is: “entering a first information in the first
`
`application program.”
`
`56. The corresponding structure to perform the recited function is
`
`keyboard 206 (Fig. 16) along w
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
