IPR2014-00207, No. 2004 Exhibit - Exhibit 2004 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015)

Presentation of Patent Owner
`ArendiS.A.R.L.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,496,854
`
`IPR 2014-00206 (Ex. 2005)
`IPR 2014-00207 (Ex. 2004)
`
`1
`
`

`Independent claims of the ‘854 patent
`
`2
`
`

`The patent contemplates word processing, information
`management, and database programs for its
`“application programs”
`
`‘854 patent, col. 9, line 64-col. 10, line 10
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 12
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 13
`
`3
`
`

`Claim 1 –“document created using a first
`application program”
`
`‘854 patent, col. 5, line 58-col. 6, line 3
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 12
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 13
`
`4
`
`

`• Examples 2-6 also use the WORD™ word
`processor as their starting point
`– Example 2: col. 6, lines 6-17
`– Example 3: col. 6, lines 40-51
`– Example 4: col 6, line 61-col. 7, line 6
`– Example 5: col. 7, lines 25-37
`– Example 6: col. 8, lines 9-21
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 12
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 13
`
`5
`
`

`Examples in the patent include other
`independently executable “application
`programs”
`
`‘854 patent, col. 8, lines 52-63
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 12
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 13
`
`6
`
`

`Common features that define
`application programs
`
`Declaration of John Levy, PhD
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 14
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 15
`
`7
`
`

`Subsidiary programs do not execute independently
`
`Declaration of John Levy, PhD
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 14
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 15
`
`8
`
`

`Petitioners’ evidence presented to
`construe “application program”
`
`9
`
`

`Petitioners’ expert finds correspondence
`between second application program and
`database program
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Declaration of Daniel Menasce, PhD
`
`10
`
`

`Hachamovitch
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 42
`
`11
`
`

`IPR 2014-00206 and IPR 2014-00207:
`Prior art issues
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,085,206 to Domini
`• All independent claims challenged in these
`IPRs require first and second application
`programs
`– Domini fails to disclose a second application
`program
`– Therefore all claims are patentable over Domini
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, Table of Contents
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, Table of Contents
`
`12
`
`

`Domini
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`FIG. 7, block 720 –SEND SPELLING DATA TO APPLICATION
`“The present invention satisfies the above described needs by providing
`an improved system and method for spell checking and grammar checking
`an electronic document.” Col. 3, l. 15-17
`“The step of checking the spelling of the words in the sentence also can
`include calling a spell checker program module …” Col. 3, l. 62-64
`“The CSAPI is designed to make it easy for programmers to write
`applications that can utilize the spell checking program module while
`being independent of the underlying spell checker program module.” Col.
`9, l. 13-16
`• Claim 1. “In an electronic word processing system for creating and editing
`a document…checking the spelling…checking the grammatical
`composition…”
`
`•
`
`13
`
`

`Domini’s preferred application program
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“…a computer-implemented process that is carried out by the computer
`in response to input from the user and instructions provided by the
`preferred application program module, the preferred spell checker
`program module, and the preferred grammar checker program module.”
`Col. 15, l. 25-30
`“The preferred application program module then sends a word of the
`sentence to the spell checker program module.” Col. 17, l. 4-6
`“Preferably, the spell checker program module verifies the accuracy of the
`spelling of the word at step 715 in response to a CSAPI function from the
`preferred application program module.” Col. 17, l. 38-41
`“The preferred application program module receives the spelling data
`from the spell checker program module.” Col. 17, l. 49-51
`
`14
`
`

`Domini
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 27
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 32
`
`15
`
`

`The Petition
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Petition, page 30
`
`16
`
`

`The Petition equates a spell checker program
`with the second application program
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Petition, page 30
`
`17
`
`

`Domini describes a unitary word processing
`environment with functional submodules
`
`18
`
`

`Independently executable application programs are
`distinct from subsidiary programs
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 12
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 12
`
`19
`
`Declaration of John Levy PhD
`
`

`Independently executable application programs are
`distinct from subsidiary programs
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 25
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 31
`
`20
`
`Declaration of John Levy PhD
`
`

`Independently executable application programs are
`distinct from subsidiary programs
`
`Declaration of John Levy PhD
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 25
`
`21
`
`

`Independently executable application programs are
`distinct from subsidiary programs
`
`Declaration of John Levy PhD
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 25
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 35
`
`22
`
`

`Domini’s “stand alone” spell checkers cannot
`perform other functions required by the claims
`
`Domini, col. 1, lines 56-66
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 29
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 35
`
`24
`
`

`Domini’s “stand alone” spell checkers cannot
`perform other functions required by the claims
`
`Declaration of John Levy, PhD
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 30
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 36
`
`25
`
`

`Domini describes the word processor with its
`program modules in unitary and distributed
`computing environments
`
`Domini, col. 5, lines 12-22
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, pages 27-28
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, pages 33-34
`
`27
`
`

`On a personal computer, the module is activated
`from within the word processor
`
`Domini, col. 16, lines 12-18
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 28
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 33
`
`28
`
`

`In a distributed computing environment, the
`word processor still controls the module
`
`Declaration of John Levy PhD
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 28
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 33
`
`29
`
`

`In a distributed computing environment, the
`word processor still controls the module
`
`Declaration of John Levy PhD,
`paragraph 20
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 29
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 34
`
`30
`
`

`In a distributed computing environment, the
`word processor still controls the module
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 28
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 34
`
`31
`
`Declaration of John Levy, PhD
`
`

`Claims of the ‘854 patent
`Claims of the ’854 patent
`
`1. A method for information handling within a document
`created using a first application program comprising the step s
`of;
`
`entering a first information in the firs—
`rnarking Without user intervention the first information to
`alert the user that the first information can be utilized in
`
`a Second— and
`responding to a user selection by inserting a second infor-
`mation into the document, the second information asso-
`ciated with the first information from a second-
`
`1 The method of claim 1, wherein the step of inserting the
`second information into the document further comprises the
`steps of:
`initializing the second—
`searching, using the second— for the
`second information associated with the first informa-
`
`tion; and
`retrieving the second information.
`
`32
`32
`
`

`IPR 2014-00206: Prior art issues
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,085,206 to Domini
`
`• Claims 23-24, 29-30, 61-62, and 77-78 dependent on claims
`22, 28, 60, and 76
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, pages 34-35
`
`33
`
`

`IPR 2014-00206: Prior art issues
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,085,206 to Domini
`• Domini fails to disclose or teach the operation
`of “entering additional data into a database”,
`subject to the requirements of the
`independent claims
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, pages 34-35
`
`34
`
`

`IPR 2014-00206: Dependent claim 22,
`with independent claim 19
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, page 35
`
`35
`
`

`IPR 2014-00206: “first information”, “second information”,
`and “operation related to a second information”
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Petition, page 31
`
`36
`
`

`IPR 2014-00206: “first information”, “second information”,
`and “operation related to a second information”
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Petition, page 32
`
`37
`
`

`IPR 2014-00206: “operation related to a second
`information” -> adding data to a database
`• Adding misspelled word relates to the “first
`information” (e.g., words entered into the word
`processor), not the “second information” (e.g.,
`suggested corrections for misspelled words)
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Petition, page 33, and Patent Owner Response, page 36
`
`38
`
`

`The ‘854 Patent
`
`The ’854 Patent
`
`33 ”MW Contact's Address
`
`E—E-g-
`
`The contact: Hadley, Alte
`already exists in the acute at register with the fattening address:
`
`Home address:
`222 222 5'“ Ave.
`
`New York, NY tfiflzfl
`
`This is another eantaet. I will:
`I Add a new eentact with the same name
`
`This is the same eentact. I will:
`
`0 Qhange the eunent address in the eantaet register
`
`I use the above address in my Ward {tenement
`
`I Edd a new address to the enntsct
`
`
`
`Use address type: —I: 54
`
`56
`
`5B
`
`60
`
`FIG. 9
`
`39
`39
`
`

`IPR 2014-00207: Prior art issue
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,377,965 to Hachamovitch
`• All independent claims challenged in this IPR
`require first and second application programs
`– Hachamovitchfails to disclose a second
`application program
`– Therefore all claims are patentable over
`Hachamovitch
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, pages iii, 41, and 44
`
`40
`
`

`Hachamovitch
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 42
`
`41
`
`

`In Hachamovitch, word completion may be a utility module
`integrated into a host application program
`
`Hachamovitch, col. 7, lines 62-67
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 42
`
`42
`
`

`The Petition omits Hachamovitch’s
`discussion of the role of the utility
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Petition, page 38
`
`43
`
`

`In Hachamovitch, word completion may be a utility module
`integrated into a host application program
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 43, referencing
`paragraph 31 of the Declaration of John Levy, PhD, which cites this
`figure in Hachamovitch
`
`44
`
`

`In Hachamovitch, word completion may be a utility module
`integrated into a host application program
`
`Declaration of John Levy, PhD,
`paragraph 28
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 42
`
`45
`
`

`In Hachamovitch, word completion may be a utility module
`integrated into a host application program
`
`Declaration of John Levy, PhD,
`paragraph 29
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 42
`
`48
`
`

`In Hachamovitch, “stand-alone” word completion systems
`are capable of integrating with any number of application
`programs, not independently executable
`
`Hachamovitch, col. 7, lines 62-67
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, pages 42-43
`
`50
`
`Hachamovitch, col. 8, lines 6-14
`
`

`In Hachamovitch, “application independence” is the ability
`to execute within any number of application programs, not
`the ability to execute independently of the same
`
`Declaration of John Levy, PhD,
`paragraph 30
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 42
`
`51
`
`

`In Hachamovitch, “application independence” is the ability
`to execute within any number of application programs, not
`the ability to execute independently of the same
`
`Declaration of John Levy, PhD,
`paragraph 31, referring to col. 8,
`lines 6-14 of Hachamovitch
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 43
`
`52
`
`

`Hachamovitchfails to describe how “stand-alone” word
`completion systems would insert words into a document
`
`Declaration of John Levy, PhD
`
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, page 44
`
`53
`
`

`Construction of “The second information associated with the
`first information from the second application program”
`
`• “associated” requires “an association
`between” the first information and the second
`information such that the second information
`can be found as the result of a search using
`the first information
`
`54
`
`

`Claims 1 and 3 inform the meaning of the
`term “associated”
`
`55
`
`

`Claims 57 and 64 inform the meaning of
`the term “associated”
`
`56
`
`

`Claims 85 and 96 inform the meaning of
`the term “associated”
`
`57
`
`

`What the POSITA would understand from claims 3,
`64, 85, 96, which include the “searching” step
`
`Declaration of John Levy, PhD,
`paragraph 48
`
`58
`
`

`The specification supports this meaning of
`the term “associated”
`
`‘854 patent, col. 5, line 58-col. 6, line 3
`See also, Examples 2-7
`
`59
`
`

`The specification supports this meaning of
`the term “associated”
`
`FIG. 1
`
`60
`
`

`Domini uses Word and a spell checker that
`operates from within
`
`Domini, col. 8, lines 12-18
`
`61
`
`

`Domini’s spell checker module operates
`within the word processing application
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 16, page 27
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 16, page 32
`62
`
`

`The patent contemplates separate
`application programs
`
`‘854 patent, col. 2, lines 14-34
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 16, page 25
`63
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 16, page 30
`
`

`In a distributed computing environment, the
`word processor still controls the module
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 16, page 29, and IPR 2014-
`00207, Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 16, page 34 –both referencing paragraph
`64
`50 of the Declaration of John Levy, PhD, which cites to this figure in Domini
`
`

`In a distributed computing environment, the
`word processor still controls the module
`
`Domini, col. 17, lines 58-67
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 16, page 29, and IPR 2014-
`00207, Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 16, page 34 –both referencing paragraph
`50 of the Declaration of John Levy, PhD, which cites to this passage in Domini 65
`
`

`In a distributed computing environment, the
`word processor still controls the module
`
`Declaration of John Levy, PhD
`
`IPR 2014-00206, Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 16, page 29
`IPR 2014-00207, Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 16, page 35
`66
`
`

`ONE BUTTON CONTACT AND AOOFI ESS INVENTION FLOW 'OHART
`
`
`START
`IN PRINCIPLE: ExAcT IMPLEMENTATION MAT AAIAT
`meme IIIHAT
`USER HITS BUTTON
`DATABASE INTERACTION a
`TIIIIIIIIJHEERUZIIIZHUSILEETED
`
`
`II'I WORD PROCESSOR
`14
`
`3
`”AH
`[OER UP
`
`
`ERFHETABLE
`"IT
`AAAAAAAAA A mm
`TEL. NDORDTHEFI'
`(BREWER?
`
`GWfiiIbEafiGE
`
`Iflfgfi
`
`ADD EAA
`Fauna
`”W”
`
`
`
`AAMEIAI DATABASE
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,496,854
`U.S. Patent No. 7,496,854
`
`4
`
`FDIJND MAME
`AAIJAIJEIAEAA
`mm A
`FUUHDN'W'E
`UADISPIATDATA
`
`”mmfiESé
`FUR USER £an
`
`AAA
`AAA
`
`AUNE-HME
`
`USERFGR DECISION
`0“”me
`AND AAAIEw
`HDACTIDM
`
`
`APAAIAAAIATEAAITAII
`
`momsHEAm
`
`AAA‘IPAAIP
`15
`
`HIE]
`
`24
`
`AAA
`i—CDI'ITAGT
`WITH
`SMIIE NAME
`
`AAAA
`
`FUUHDMURE
`TI-IAAIDAEFAIAAIAIA
`CUNTACTI'ADDRESS
`MATCH
`
`FUUHDUNEMATCH
`EXACTL‘IZIEGNEDDNTACT
`wTrH‘cIAEAnIIAEAA
`
`-'
`AMA AAAAAAA'
`
`AHAAAEAIIDAEAA
`
`III mmAEAIT
`
`THISISADDIHUMM
`THEAIAIATAATAAA
`AAAIAEAAAAA
`AMATHIAIA
`nAIAAAIIrAcT
`THEHEWADDRESS
`AA i
`AA ..
`23 i
`REPLACE AAA-Eur
`INSERTADDRESS
`
`
`AAAA AAAA AAAAAAWAS]
`”Amiga
`
`III DATABASE
`
`WITHTI-IENEWDHE
`
`FURUUHTHFT
`
`AILIIT
`
`FIG. 1
`
`67
`67
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Or .

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

Supplemental Search

Search for PTAB Motions

PTAB Analytics

TTAB Analytics

Basic Search

Filters

Party Search

Advanced

Selected Courts

Recently Selected Courts

Find PTAB Decisions

PTAB Analytics

Special PTAB Alerts

Orange Book

Directly Search Federal Courts

Search Trademark ...

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

Still Working On It

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

This document could not be displayed.

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.

One Moment Please

Your document is on its way!

Sealed Document

We are redirecting youto a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

We are unable to display this document.

STEP 2 of 2

Choose your membership type

Flat-Fee

Pay-As-You-Go

Add your payment information

Login or Join

Enter your corporate Email

Thousands of your peers are saving time and gaining a competitive advantage with Docket Alarm.

Join Docket Alarm to perform smarter legal research.

Download this document and millions of others instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join Docket Alarm and start performing smarter legal research.

Start tracking this docket instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join thousands of your peers and start performing smarter legal research.

STEP 1 of 2

Millions of Documents | 15 Seconds to Signup

Hi !

Welcome to Docket Alarm

Welcome to Docket Alarm!

Explore Litigation Insights andManage Your Cases

Reset Password

What is PACER?

Why do I need it?

What will I be charged?

Do other courts have fees?

Basic Free Access

Welcome

Thank you

Check Firm Account

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Explore Litigation Insights and
Manage Your Cases