UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MICROGRAFX, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`Patent 5,959,633
`
`______________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MICROGRAFX, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`Patent 5,959,633
`
`______________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`The Board dedicated meaningful time to explain to Micrografx the
`requirements for a Motion to Amend ...................................................................... 1
`
`Micrografx Failed to follow the Board’s Guidelines for a Motion to Amend ....... 2
`
`Claim interpretation – "external shape template" .................................................. 4
`
`IV. Walton discloses "delegate the production of a graphical image of
`the external shape to the external capabilities using an external shape
`template.” ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Eick in view of Kruglinski discloses "delegate the production of a
`graphical image of the external shape to the external capabilities
`using an external shape template.” ......................................................................... 8
`
`The new features of proposed claims 29 and 30 were well known
`in the field of computer programming prior to filing of the ‘633 patent,
`and Micrografx failed to address any of it. ............................................................. 9
`
`VII. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`GOOGLE1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633 to McFarland et al. (“the ’633 patent”)
`
`GOOGLE1002
`
`Prosecution History of the ’633 patent (Serial No. 08/726,091)
`
`GOOGLE1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Anselmo Lastra
`
`GOOGLE1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,883,639 to Walton et al. (“Walton”)
`
`GOOGLE1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,564,048 to Eick et al. (“Eick”)
`
`GOOGLE1006
`
`Select portions of Inside Visual C++, Second Edition: Version 1.5 by
`David J. Kruglinski, September 1, 1994 (“Kruglinski”)
`
`GOOGLE1007
`
`Select portions of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
`Language (3rd ed. 1992)
`
`GOOGLE1008
`
`Micrografx, LLC, v. Google, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 3:13-cv-03595-N, Plaintiff Micrografx, LLC’s Preliminary
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions dated
`January 6, 2014
`
`GOOGLE1009
`
`Almeling Declaration In Support of Google's Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`GOOGLE1010
`
`Second Declaration of David S. Almeling in Support of Petitioners’
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`GOOGLE1011
`
`Second Declaration of Dr. Anselmo Lastra
`
`GOOGLE1012
`
`
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Mr. Garry Kitchen
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`GOOGLE1013
`
`Assignment history of the ‘633 patent
`
`GOOGLE1014
`
`Select portions of The C++ Programming Language, Second Edition
`by Bjarne Stroustrup, June 1993 (“Stroustrup”)
`
`GOOGLE1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,999,987 to O’Farrell et al. (“O’Farrell”)
`
`GOOGLE1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,923,877 to Berner et al. (“Berner”)
`
`GOOGLE1017
`
`PCT Pub. No. WO/1996/008765 to Foody et al. (“Foody”)
`
`GOOGLE1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,622,633 to Ceccon et al. (“Ceccon”)
`
`GOOGLE1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,475,817 to Waldo et al. (“Waldo”)
`
`GOOGLE1020
`
`European Patent Pub. No. EP0567699 A1 to Barman (“Barman”)
`
`GOOGLE1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,726,979 to Henderson et al. (“Henderson”)
`
`GOOGLE1022
`
`Reserved
`
`GOOGLE1023
`
`Patent Owner’s Response for IPR2014-00532 (NOT FILED)
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`
`Micrografx’s Motion to Amend under 37 CFR §42.121 is defective and should be
`
`denied for multiple reasons. First, Micorgrafx failed to follow each of the Board’s clear
`
`guidelines for submitting a motion to amend. Second, the additional recitations of the
`
`proposed new claims 29-30 are taught by the prior art references at issue in the current IPR
`
`proceeding. Third, the additional recitations of the proposed new claims 29-30 are taught by
`
`other prior art references (including predictable and ordinary textbooks) which, when viewed
`
`in light of the prior art references at issue in the current IPR proceeding, would render the
`
`proposed new claims obvious. When Micrografx’s Motion to Amend is read in the context of
`
`Micrografx’s Response (objecting to the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard),
`
`it becomes clear that Micrografx is essentially inviting a denial of its motion to amend as part
`
`of an (insincere) attempt to preserve its objection to the BRI standard. Such a motion should
`
`be scrutinized, not authorized.
`
`I.
`
`The Board dedicated meaningful time to explain to Micrografx the
`requirements for a Motion to Amend
`In a motion to amend, “[t]he burden is not on the petitioner to show unpatentability,
`
`but on the patent owner to show patentable distinction over the prior art of record and also
`
`prior art known to the patent owner.” IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 at 7; see also 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.20(c). The Board in the present case emphasized that “Patent Owner must show
`
`patentability over the prior art that is relevant to the substitute claims, and not just over the
`
`references applied by Petitioner against the original patent claims.” IPR2014-00532, Paper
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`20 at 3. The Board elaborated that “explaining patentability over references applied by
`
`Petitioner against the original patent claims is not the main issue” and that “[a] conclusory
`
`statement to the effect that the closest prior art are the references in the record is not
`
`meaningful.” Id. at 3-4; see also IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 at 8 (“A mere conclusory
`
`statement by counsel, in the motion to amend, to the effect that one or more added features
`
`are not described in any prior art, and would not have been suggested or rendered obvious
`
`by prior art, is on its face inadequate.”) (emphasis added).
`
`The Board also reminded Micrografx that “[t]he motion should provide sufficient
`
`underlying facts regarding any feature added by the proposed substitute claim . . .
`
`[including] whether the feature was previously known anywhere, in whatever setting, and
`
`whether or not the feature was known in combination with any of the other elements in the
`
`claim.” IPR2014-00532, Paper 20 at 3. As described in Section II, infra, Micrografx has
`
`failed to meet these requirements and the Motion to Amend should therefore be denied.
`
`II.
`
`Micrografx Failed to follow the Board’s Guidelines for a Motion to Amend
`Following a telephone conference on November 13, 2014 during which Micrografx
`
`expressed a desire to file a motion to amend, the Board provided written guidelines
`
`regarding “the mechanics and substance of a motion to amend claims under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.121.” See Paper 20. Despite both written and verbal reminders by the Board, Micrografx
`
`has chosen to boldly ignore the well-established guidelines for amending during an IPR
`
`proceeding. Micrografx’s willful disregard for these reasonable requirements becomes clear
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`when considered in light of Micrografx’s overall objection to the Board’s use of the BRI
`
`standard. See PO Resp. at 7-9.
`
`Most notably, Micrografx has neglected to include any “discussion of the ordinary
`
`skill in the art, with particular focus on the feature added to provide the basis of patentable
`
`distinction” but rather, against the direction of the Board, offered only “[a] conclusory
`
`statement to the effect that the closest prior art are the references in the record.” Id. at 4;
`
`Mot. to Amd. at 9. Micrografx spends several pages of the Motion to Amend discussing the
`
`teachings of Walton and Eick (but notably, not Kruglinski) with respect to the proposed claim
`
`amendments before including a conclusory statement of the type the Board cautioned
`
`against. Mot. to Amd. at 6-9. Specifically, Micrografx addresses only two of the three
`
`references used as grounds of rejection and no other references before stating “Walton and
`
`Eick apparently represent the closest art” without addressing any other references or
`
`indicating why Walton and Eick are considered the closest prior art for the proposed new
`
`feature which Petitioner has not previously addressed. Mot. to Amd. at 6-9. Micrografx also
`
`willfully neglected to include any “discussion of the ordinary skill in the art” outside of the
`
`claim construction section and certainly did not include the required “discussion of the
`
`ordinary skill in the art, with particular focus on the feature added to provide the basis of
`
`patentable distinction.” Paper 20 at 4. Micrografx’s failure to include any discussion of the
`
`“ordinary skill in the art” with respect to the use of templates is startling in light of its expert’s
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`admission that he was well aware of the use of templates in the mid-1990’s and yet
`
`performed no analysis with regard to the user of templates prior to the filing of the ‘633
`
`patent. See Ex. 1012 at 71:25-72:23.
`
`Micrografx proceeded to ignore several other requirements specified by the Board as
`
`the Motion to Amend includes no discussion of whether the proposed new feature “was
`
`previously known anywhere, in whatever setting, and whether or not the feature was
`
`known in combination with any of the other elements in the claim.” Paper 20 at 3 (emphasis
`
`added). As discussed further in sections IV-VI, infra, the proposed new features were well
`
`known in the relevant art of computer programming long before the filing of the ‘633 patent,
`
`yet Micrografx has completely neglected to address any relevant references or explain why
`
`the proposed new claims would be patentable over Walton, Eick, and Kruglinski (in light of
`
`the conventional knowledge of a POSITA regarding the proposed new features).
`
`III.
`
`Claim interpretation – "external shape template"
`Micrografx’s claim interpretation is overly narrow and should be rejected.
`
`Micrografx’s claim construction analysis is ambiguously confusing as Micrografx offers two
`
`definitions of the word “template” published long after the filing date of the ‘633 patent, and
`
`then later ignores these two definitions altogether. Mot. to Amd. at 5. The definitions offered
`
`by Micrografx indicated that a template is used to “construct an instantiated asset” or “create
`
`new objects of the same type,” yet the proposed construction for “external shape template”
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`includes no requirement that an external shape template is used to “construct” or “create”
`
`another external shape template. Id. at 4. Rather, Micrografx’s proposed construction
`
`defines a template as a “generic interface for accessing capabilities of an external shape,”
`
`but neither of the dictionary definitions offered by Micrografx includes the terms “generic,”
`
`“interface,” or “accessing” nor any terms that could reasonably be considered synonyms of
`
`the terms “generic,” “interface,” or “accessing.”
`
`Rather than resorting to misapplied dictionary definitions to import extraneous
`
`language, Petitioners point out that the inventor provided a less ambiguous, conventional
`
`explanation for the term “external shape template” in the ‘633 patent specification. In
`
`particular, the ‘633 patent explains that an “external shape template” simply “comprises
`
`pointers to shapes contained within shape library 124.” Ex. 1001 at 4:63-64. The ‘633
`
`specification further indicates that the “shapes contained within shape library 124” are
`
`external shapes. Id. at 5:31-35. Accordingly, the ‘633 patent uses the term “external shape
`
`template” in a manner that is consistent with its traditional plain meaning—“one or more
`
`pointers to an external shape,” especially when construed under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation station. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 44.
`
`IV. Walton discloses "delegate the production of a graphical image of the external
`shape to the external capabilities using an external shape template.”
`As covered in the Petition for IPR, Walton discloses external shapes in the form of
`
`graphical objects having both graphic elements and behavior elements. Petition at 22-27;
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`Ex. 1004 at 13:13-22; 8:16-21; 25:62-26:4; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 36-49. Micrografx
`
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Walton by claiming that the user code interacts with
`
`graphical objects using custom functions. Mot. to Amd. at 7-8. (arguing that the functions of
`
`Walton are not “generic interfaces” and therefore Walton does not teach “external shape
`
`templates”). This is a mischaracterization of Walton as the behavior functions of Walton’s
`
`graphical objects are not the “interface” used by the user code to access the graphical
`
`objects, but rather the behavior functions define how a graphic object will respond
`
`(graphically) in response to a received parameter value. Ex. 1004 at 13:26-40; 15:59-67; Ex.
`
`1011 at ¶ 45. Micrografx’s assumption that the “behavior functions” are the only component
`
`that can be compared to the “external shape templates” of the ‘633 patent is also not in line
`
`with the teachings of the ‘633 specification. Namely, Walton’s behavior functions are stored
`
`as part of the graphical objects, whereas the external shape template 330 of the ‘633 patent
`
`is included as part of the “computer graphics application 122” not as part of the external
`
`shapes. Ex. 1001 at 54-67; FIG. 3A. As laid out in the Petition (pp. 28-30), the behavior
`
`functions of Walton’s graphical objects serve as the claimed “external actions” of the ‘633
`
`patent, not as an interface for accessing external shapes. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 55-61.
`
`In reality, Walton separately teaches “pointers to shapes contained within [the
`
`graphical objects] library [320]” in the form of the disclosed generic “interprocess
`
`communications mechanism.” Ex. 1001 at 63-64; Ex. 1004 at 8:54-65 (“[t]he resulting
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`objects are then stored as objects in an object-oriented database system and connected to
`
`other objects or user code 120 in accordance with techniques commonly used in object-
`
`oriented systems . . . [t]he information so stored is accessed by the user code 120 . . .
`
`[using] an interprocess communications mechanism of a type known to those skilled in
`
`the art.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Walton further discloses that the user’s “application code . . . calls upon particular
`
`objects” to cause the objects to draw or redraw themselves and that such a call from the
`
`user code to the objects is made “in accordance with techniques commonly used in object-
`
`oriented systems.” Ex. 1004 at 25:62-26:4; 8:55-58. As indicated by Dr. Lastra, a POSITA
`
`would have recognized that the “techniques commonly used in object-oriented systems” for
`
`calling objects would include traditional pointers contained within the user code pointing to
`
`the graphical objects. Ex. 1011 at ¶¶ 45-46. This is supported by Walton’s disclosure that
`
`“the user program preferably includes an interface 230 for accessing this animation
`
`information and for calling the object and its associated behavior.” Ex. 1004 at 9:4-8; see
`
`also Id. at 5:18-21. Notably, Walton discloses that the user code does not include multiple
`
`different individual interfaces for each object called by the user code, but rather a single
`
`generic “interface 230” for accessing graphical objects. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 46; Ex. 1004 at 5:18-
`
`21 (disclosing a single interface used by “user defined source code” to access multiple
`
`“graphical objects.”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`
`Alternatively, even if Micrografx’s flawed construction of “external shape template” is
`
`adopted, the “behavior router 412” of Walton would read on such an “external shape
`
`template.” Ex. 1011 at ¶ 46. In particular, the behavior router serves as a generic interface
`
`for accessing Walton’s graphical objects. Ex. 1004 at 17:54-58 (“User code . . . send[s] out
`
`behavior events to the behavior router 412 [which] then sends the events to any objects or
`
`other VSE components registered for that particular behavior state name.”); 9:60-63.
`
`V.
`
`Eick in view of Kruglinski discloses "delegate the production of a graphical
`image of the external shape to the external capabilities using an external
`shape template.”
`As described in the Petition, Eick teaches external shapes in the form of classes that
`
`define graphical images. Petition at 40-46; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 89-92; 98-116. Eick further
`
`describes accessing these classes using pointers. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 47; Ex. 1005 at 6:42-44 (“a
`
`data member which is a pointer to an object whose class has inherited a functionality
`
`class 306.”); 7:39-42 (“Class 303 permits a Vz object which inherits the class to be wrapped
`
`around a native object. Data for the class is a pointer to the native object.”); 9:47-58 (“the
`
`argument (VzNativeObject w) is a pointer to a parent native object.”). Furthermore, a
`
`POSITA would have recognized that classes in an object-oriented programming language
`
`such as C++ were typically called using conventional pointers. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 47.
`
`Furthermore, Kruglinski teaches calling classes stored in DLLs using “symbolic
`
`names.” Ex. 1006 at 636 (“The client uses a symbolic name to call a DLL function, and
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`Windows matches calls to DLL function addresses when the DLL is loaded . . . [t]hey can
`
`select and load DLLs at run time, and they can call DLL functions without prior address
`
`resolution.”). These symbolic names serve as traditional “pointers” to the classes stored in
`
`the DLL and are generic in that the symbolic names are not resolved until runtime. Ex. 1011
`
`at ¶ 47. Thus, in the resulting combination of Eick and Kruglinski, these traditional pointers
`
`would point to the external shape, thereby providing the claimed “external shape templates.”
`
`VI.
`
`The new features of proposed claims 29 and 30 were well known in the field of
`computer programming prior to filing of the ‘633 patent, and Micrografx failed
`to address any of it.
`The use of templates for accessing code objects/classes was well known not just in
`
`the field of object-oriented programming, but specifically in the field of computer graphics
`
`programming long before the priority date of the ‘633 patent. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 48. This fact was
`
`readily admitted by Micrografx’s expert:
`
`Ex. 1012 at 72:12-23. Yet despite this admitted knowledge of the use of templates in
`
`computer graphics programming prior to the filing of the ‘633 patent, Mr. Kitchen “just didn’t
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`do the analysis” as to whether or why a POSITA would have been prompted to utilize or not
`
`utilize templates in implementing the systems described in the prior art references of record.
`
`Id. at 72:9-11. This is because, as explained in greater detail below, a POSITA would have
`
`found numerous advantages to using templates in Walton’s system or the system resulting
`
`from the combination of Eick and Kruglinski. Ex. 1011 at ¶¶ 48-49.
`
`One example of the widespread use and knowledge of templates prior to the filing of
`
`the ‘633 patent is found in a traditional programming manual titled The C++ Programming
`
`Language, Second Edition by Bjarne Stroustrup, the creator of the C++ programming
`
`language (refer to Ex. 1011 at ¶ 48), which includes an entire chapter dedicated to the use
`
`of such templates in C++. See Ex. 1014 at 255-292. Stroustrup explains that “templates
`
`allow generic functions . . . to be defined once for a family of types.” Id. at 255. Stroustrup
`
`indicates that templates provide “a powerful model for composition of code from separate
`
`parts.” Id. at 276. The use of templates means that “the source code of the implementation
`
`[of the example class] need not be available to a user” which allows for “a separation
`
`between an interface and its implementation so that re-implementation without requiring
`
`recompilation of user code becomes possible.” Id. at 261 In use, a programmer can use
`
`function templates to call other functions such that when the user’s program is executed, the
`
`program “[l]ook[s] for a function template from which a function that can be called with an
`
`exact match can be generated.” Id. at 278. Stroustrup teaches that “[a] function template
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`defines a family of functions in the same way a class template defines a family of classes.”
`
`Ex. 1014 at 270. Micrografx’s newly added language in claims 29-30 recites nothing more
`
`than a traditional C++ feature described in standard textbooks. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 48.
`
`Here, a POSITA would have been prompted to apply Stroustrup’s teachings
`
`regarding templates to the VSE system taught by Walton to provide “a powerful model for
`
`composition of code from separate parts” and to “allow generic functions . . . to be defined
`
`once for a family of types” as suggested by Stroustrup. Ex. 1014 at 276, 255; Ex. 1011 at ¶
`
`48. Additionally, the Board has previously held that “a skilled artisan would have sought a
`
`standard textbook” and thus, a POSITA in the field of object-oriented programming would
`
`have been prompted to apply Stroustrup’s suggestion regarding templates to Walton’s
`
`system because to do so would be merely seeking out a programming manual (such as the
`
`Stroustrup reference) to achieve a predictable result. See Intel Corporation v. Fuzzysharp
`
`Technologies, Inc., IPR2014-00001 Paper 23 at 25. Indeed, a POSITA would have been
`
`particularly motivated to seek out the Stroustrup reference since it was written by the creator
`
`of the C++ programming language. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 48.
`
`Similarly, a POSITA would have been prompted to apply Stroustrup’s teachings
`
`regarding templates to the resulting system of Eick and Kruglinski to provide “a powerful
`
`model for composition of code from separate parts” and to “allow generic functions . . . to be
`
`defined once for a family of types” as suggested by Stroustrup. Ex.1014 at 276, 255; Ex.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`1011 at ¶ 49. Furthermore, a POSITA in the field of object-oriented programming would
`
`have been prompted to apply Stroustrup’s suggestion regarding templates to Eick in view of
`
`Kruglinski because Eick describes a computing system developed using C++ and both
`
`Kruglinski and Stroustrup are C++ programming manuals. Therefore, applying the
`
`teachings of Stroustrup to Eick in view of Kruglinski would be merely seeking out a
`
`programming manual (e.g., the Stroustrup reference) to achieve a predictable result. See
`
`Intel Corporation v. Fuzzysharp Technologies, Inc., IPR2014-00001 Paper 23 at 25. Indeed,
`
`a POSITA would have been particularly motivated to seek out the Stroustrup reference
`
`since it was written by the creator of the C++ programming language. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 49.
`
`Furthermore, Micrografx failed to mention even a cursory search of the patent
`
`database (part of its burden), which would have revealed numerous references indicating
`
`that the technique of using a “template” of “pointers” to call code objects/classes was well
`
`known in the field of object-oriented programming and would have readily been applied to
`
`Walton’s system or the combination of Eick and Kruglinski. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 50. For example,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,999,987 to O’Farrell et al. (“O’Farrell”) describes a C++ “template class”
`
`of “‘smart pointers’ which are used in the preferred embodiment to invoke or implement
`
`asynchronous invocation and are therefore referred to as asynchronous pointers.” Ex. 1015
`
`at 6:1-4; see also 6:24-27 (“the template mechanism of C++ is used to define a class of
`
`smart pointers”). As another example, U.S. Patent No. 5,923,877 to Berner et al. (“Berner”)
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`discloses utilizing “a template class of foreign pointers that point to more than one foreign
`
`object.” GOOGLE 1016 at 8:3-5. Berner further discloses that the “template allow[s] the
`
`programmer to use the foreign pointer as if it were a regular C++ pointer” when accessing a
`
`foreign object. Id. at 8:35-49; FIG.1. Yet another reference, PCT Pub. WO/1996/008765 to
`
`Foody et. al, discloses use of a “[t]emplate of an array of pointers to objects” in object
`
`oriented programming. Ex. 1017 at 50; see also Ex. 1018 at 23:39-40 (“each object
`
`template of a component includes a pointer, to code to be executed to build an object”);
`
`Abst. (describing “[s]oftware templates describing each data structure and pointers to code
`
`to be executed”). Again, Micrografx had the burden to at least attempt to identify and
`
`distinguish such references, but Micrografx ignored all of it and instead demands that the
`
`Board must play the role of an examiner. Micrografx’s lack of a good faith analysis of the
`
`prior art (in comparison to the amendment) is both telling and fatal.
`
`Alternatively, even if Micrografx’s narrow construction of “external shape template” is
`
`adopted, the technique of using a “generic interface to access” objects/classes was well
`
`known in the field of object-oriented programming and would have readily and easily been
`
`applied to Walton’s system or the resulting system of Eick and Kruglinski. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 50-
`
`51. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,475,817 to Waldo et al. (“Waldo”) discloses “a common
`
`generic interface allowing a common means of communication with and among the object
`
`managers” in an “object oriented distributed computing system.” Ex. 1019 at 2:46-50; 3:10-
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`11; see also 6:10-13 (“Object managers 23 of different object models 24 are able to be
`
`managed by a common MOM 29 through a generic interface”). The disclosed system
`
`including the “common generic interface” allows “for implementing operations and data of a
`
`target object . . . in response to a request to the target object.” Id. at 3:11-14. Waldo
`
`describes benefits of using a common generic interface for accessing code objects in that
`
`“[t]he common generic interface allows a common means of communication with and
`
`among object managers 23, MOM's 29, object region managers 31 and mapping managers
`
`33.” Id. at 6:46-51. Furthermore, use of a “common generic interface” allows for “the
`
`addition of multiple object managers 23 over the life of the computing system 11” and also
`
`allows for “communicat[ion] with each object manager[] 23 without explicit knowledge of the
`
`object model on which the object manager is based.” Id. at 7:58-65; see also Abstract (“[a]
`
`generic interface enables new Object Managers reflecting new Object Models to be easily
`
`added to the system.”).
`
`Here, a POSITA would have been prompted to apply Waldo’s suggestions to
`
`Walton’s system to achieve the numerous benefits recited by Waldo, including: 1) allowing
`
`for communication with multiple objects through a single interface, 2) allowing for the
`
`addition of objects after a program is created, and 3) allowing for communication with
`
`multiple objects without knowledge of the object models on which the objects are based, as
`
`suggested by Waldo for predictable results. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 50; Ex. 1019 6:46-51; 7:58-65.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`
`A POSITA would have been similarly prompted to apply the teachings of Waldo to
`
`the resulting system of Eick in view of Kruglinski to achieve the numerous benefits recited
`
`by Waldo, including: 1) allowing for communication with multiple objects through a single
`
`interface, 2) allowing for the addition of objects after a program is created, and 3) allowing
`
`for communication with multiple objects without knowledge of the object models on which
`
`the objects are based as suggested by Waldo to achieve predictable results. Ex. 1011 at ¶
`
`51; Ex. 1019 6:46-51; 7:58-65.
`
`Various other references also disclose use of a generic interface for accessing
`
`objects/classes. See e.g. Ex. 1020 at 6:26-45 (“A generic interface is one that is not specific
`
`to one particular kind of system object. The use of generic interfaces is important to enable
`
`interworking between system objects. It would be impractical to require each system object
`
`to understand all the specific interfaces of all the other system objects . . . .”); Ex. 1021 at
`
`6:28-33 (disclosing a “generic interface 113 to an object model.”). In sum, Micrografx’s
`
`reliance on the newly recited “external shape template” is misplaced. Such an element was
`
`widely used in the prior art (and even discussed in standard textbooks), and is not enough
`
`to justify patentability here—especially when Micrografx ignored all of it.
`
`VII. Conclusion
`For the reasons discussed above, Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is faulty and
`
`should denied, and the amended claims are nevertheless unpatentable.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
` /Michael T. Hawkins/
`Michael T. Hawkins, Reg. No. 57,867
`
`
`
`
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 13, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Trial No. IPR2014-00532)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633
`Our Ref. 19473-0309IP1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies that on
`
`February 13, 2015, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Amend was provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`correspondence email addresses of record as follows:
`
`Douglas R. Wilson
`Heim, Payne & Chorush, L.L.P
`9442 Capital of Texas Hwy.
`Plaza I, Suite 500-146
`Austin, TX 78759
`
`Nathan J. Davis
`Michael F. Heim
`Heim, Payne & Chorush, L.L.P
`600 Travis Street, Suite 6710
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`Email: dwilson@hpcllp.com
`ndavis@hpcllp.com
`mheim@hpcllp.com
`micrografxIPR@hpcllp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Diana Bradley/
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
