throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
`505 GAMES, ACTIVISION, CAPCOM, DISNEY, ELECTRONIC ARTS, NAMCO
`BANDAI, RIOT GAMES, SONY, SQUARE ENIX, TAKE-TWO, AND UBISOFT
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BABBAGE HOLDINGS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`U.S. Patent No. 5,561,811
`Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PER-USER CUSTOMIZATION OF
`APPLICATIONS SHARED BY A PLURALITY OF USERS ON A SINGLE
`DISPLAY
` ____________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF STEPHEN C. HAYNE, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 1
`
`

`
`I, Stephen C. Hayne, Ph.D., hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION
`1.
`I am currently a Full Professor of Computer Information Systems at
`
`Colorado State University (tenured). I teach Graduate courses (50% of my time)
`
`and conduct research (40% time) and serve on various University committees
`
`(10% time).
`
`2.
`
`I received my PhD in Management Information Systems in 1990,
`
`Bachelor of Commerce in 1986 and an Associate Degree in Music in 1983.
`
`3.
`
`From July 1990 to December 1994, I was Assistant Professor at
`
`University of Calgary, from January 1995 to June 2000, I was at Arizona State
`
`University (Assistant Professor until promoted to Associate Professor in July 1999)
`
`and from July 2000 to present I am at Colorado State University (Associate
`
`Professor until promoted to Full Professor in May 2006). .
`
`4.
`
`Further, I have authored more than 60 peer-reviewed articles in leading
`
`journals and conferences and received more than $3M in research grants. Most
`
`relevantly, I conducted research into the implementation and performance of
`
`“gesturing” across multiple platforms (Hayne, Pendergast & Greenberg, 1994), the
`
`experiences gained from building several different collaboration systems (Hayne,
`
`1990; Hayne & Pendergast, 1995) and recently the design and empirical research
`
`
`
`2
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 2
`
`

`
`associated with shared whiteboards for information fusion (Hayne, Troup &
`
`McComb, 2011).
`
`5.
`
`In the area of collaborative software, I have been involved in the
`
`development of theories and have experience with implementing tools to assist
`
`groups in communication and decision-making, i.e. shared cognition, collaborative
`
`drawing, group brainstorming, concurrent issue surfacing or consolidation,
`
`consensus building, choice, pattern recognition and team bidding in auctions as
`
`summarized in the articles above. In 1988, as one of many Management
`
`Information Systems PhD students at University of Arizona, I began research into
`
`collaboration systems with a “business” or decision-making focus, specifically an
`
`emerging area called Group Decision Support Systems (now referred to as GSS).
`
`A parallel stream with more of a “human factors” and technical focus from
`
`Computer Science is called Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW).
`
`GSS and CSCW systems are typically implemented in a distributed personal
`
`computer environment, communicating over a network and accessing shared data
`
`on a server. I have built software which supports “same time, same place”
`
`collaboration, implementing relaxed WYSIWIS (What You See Is What I See). In
`
`my systems, different kinds of “objects” are created, shared and controlled across
`
`multiple computers in near real time. I have proposed an interaction model, Team
`
`
`
`3
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:22)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 3
`
`

`
`Recognition Primed Decision-Making, and empirically tested it using the software
`
`I built or designed.
`
`6.
`
`I have also started a research stream into group or team bidding in
`
`auctions, and participated in a patent application (US 20020156715 A1) for
`
`auctioning, canceling and reissuing tickets.
`
`7.
`
`In sum, I have over 25 years of experience in the field of collaborative
`
`software as a researcher, developer, inventor, and consultant.
`
`8. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`II. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`9.
`
`I submit this declaration to offer my independent expert opinion in
`
`support of this petition for inter partes review (“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,561,811 (“the ‘811 patent”). My compensation is not based on the substance of
`
`the opinions rendered here. As part of my work in connection with this matter, I
`
`have studied the ‘811 patent [Exhibit 1001], including the respective written
`
`descriptions, figures, claims, and file history [Exhibit 1007]. In addition, I have
`
`reviewed the Petition and have also considered the following references:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,548,304 to Yoshino et al., filed on August 16, 1990 and
`issued on August 20, 1996 (“Yoshino”) [Exhibit 1002]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,157,384 to Greanias et al., filed on April 28, 1989 and
`issued on October 20, 1992 (“Greanias”) [Exhibit 1003]
`
`“Idea Management In a Shared Drawing Tool,” Proceedings of the
`Second European Conference in Computer-Supported Cooperative
`
`4
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:23)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 4
`
`

`
`Work, Iva M. Lu and Marilyn M. Mantei, published on or about
`September 25-27, 1991 (“Lu”) [Exhibit 1004]
`
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘811 PATENT
`10. This overview is not meant to describe my full understanding of the
`
`‘811 Patent, but is only used to generally describe the functionalities of the ‘811
`
`Patent.
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed that the filing date of the ‘811 Patent is
`
`November 10, 1992. I have also been informed that the filing date is referred to as
`
`the priority date.
`
`12. Generally speaking,
`
`the ‘811 Patent describes a collaborative
`
`environment in which multiple users simultaneously interact with an application
`
`running on a single computer. Ex. 1001, ‘811 Patent at Abstract. Each user
`
`controls a separate input device and the response to these multiple inputs is
`
`reflected in a single shared view of the application. Id. Fig. 1 of the ‘811 Patent
`
`illustrates the basic architecture disclosed for implementing the described
`
`collaborative system:
`
`
`
`5
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:24)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 5
`
`

`
`
`
`13. The ‘811 Patent also provides for per-user input device customization.
`
`Specifically, users may store preferences that define what effect in the application
`
`is generated in response to a given action received from the input device. Id. at
`
`2:28-34. Additionally, once a user has stored such preferences, he or she may
`
`“register” with a particular input device. Then, actions received from the
`
`registered input device are processed in accordance with the user’s stored
`
`preferences. Id. at 2:35-37.
`
`14. Finally, the ‘811 Patent teaches that a user’s registration may be
`
`revoked and reassigned to a second user. Id. at 9:52-67.
`
`IV. STATE OF THE RELEVANT ART IN 1992
`15. As of 1992, researchers and developers had built many different kinds
`
`of GDSS and CSCW systems, mostly directed towards increasing group
`
`
`
`6
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:25)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 6
`
`

`
`productivity, but sometimes just as technical demonstrations of feasibility.
`
`Systems were focused on allowing group members to work in parallel, in order to
`
`reduce process losses associated with group communication. Research had moved
`
`beyond the single computer architecture into distributed personal computers, due to
`
`performance increases (computational, display and network). This enabled studies
`
`of “large” groups (more than 2 or 3 people) with a myriad of interaction models.
`
`Some of the early collaboration systems involved shared drawing or text editing,
`
`but quickly moved into all kinds of more complex tasks such as idea
`
`brainstorming, consensus building, deliberation and design. As the research
`
`matured, new issues emerged, such as, determining whether users of these systems
`
`behave differently when working in parallel, and measuring and predicting
`
`performance gains in these innovative collaboration software supported tasks.
`
`There were also technical challenges to be solved, e.g., object concurrency control
`
`and real-time responsiveness. At the time, I was building and empirically testing
`
`systems to allow group drawing, issue analysis and database design. I was also
`
`engaged in performance testing of a telepointing concept in support of “gesturing”.
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`16.
`
`I am a technical expert, and do not offer any legal opinions. But from
`
`my discussions with counsel, I have been informed of the framework applied for
`
`
`
`7
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:26)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 7
`
`

`
`determining invalidity and related matters. I applied this framework in developing
`
`my technical opinions expressed in this declaration.
`
`A. Obviousness
`17.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is not
`
`patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the patent claim and
`
`the prior art are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the claimed invention was made to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. Obviousness, as I have been
`
`informed, is based on the scope and content of the prior art, the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and, to the
`
`extent that they exist and have an appropriate nexus to the claimed invention (as
`
`opposed to prior art features), secondary indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that whether there are any relevant differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention is to be analyzed from the view of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As such, my
`
`opinions below as to a person of ordinary skill in the art are as of the time of the
`
`invention, even if not expressly stated as such; for example, even if stated in the
`
`present tense.
`
`19.
`
`In analyzing the relevance of the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art, I have been informed that I must consider the impact, if
`
`
`
`8
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:27)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 8
`
`

`
`any, of such differences on the obviousness or non-obviousness of the invention as
`
`a whole, not merely some portion of it. The person of ordinary skill faced with a
`
`problem is able to apply his or her experience and ability to solve the problem and
`
`also look to any available prior art to help solve the problem.
`
`20. An invention is obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art, facing
`
`the wide range of needs created by developments in the field, would have seen an
`
`obvious benefit to the solutions tried by the applicant. When there is a design need
`
`or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to try the
`
`known options. 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 would have been obvious.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that a precise teaching in the prior art directed to
`
`the subject matter of the claimed invention is not needed. I have been informed that
`
`one may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have employed in reviewing the prior art at the time
`
`of the invention. For example, if the claimed invention combined elements known
`
`in the prior art and the combination yielded results that were predictable to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, then this evidence
`
`would make it more likely that the claim was obvious. On the other hand, if the
`
`
`
`9
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:28)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 9
`
`

`
`combination of known elements yielded unexpected or unpredictable results, or if
`
`the prior art teaches away from combining the known elements, then this evidence
`
`would make it more likely that the claim that successfully combined those
`
`elements was not obvious.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that hindsight must not be used when comparing
`
`the prior art to the invention for obviousness.
`
`23. Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating that it would have
`
`been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to create the
`
`subject matter of the patent claim. Obviousness may be shown by showing that it
`
`would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of prior
`
`art. In determining whether a piece of prior art could have been combined with
`
`other prior art or combined with or modified in view of other information within
`
`the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, the following are examples of
`
`approaches and rationales that may be considered:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`
`
`10
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 10
`
`

`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`24.
`
`Applying a technique or approach that would have been "obvious to
`try" (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`with a reasonable expectation of success);
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`invention.
`I have been informed that the rationale for modifying a reference
`
`and/or combining references may come from sources such as explicit statements in
`
`the prior art, or the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, including any
`
`need or problem known in the field at the time, even if different from the specific
`
`need or problem addressed by the inventor of the patent claim.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider "secondary
`
`considerations" if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an
`
`invention would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which
`
`include: (a) commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention; (b) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of
`
`
`
`11
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 11
`
`

`
`others to find the solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention; (f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of
`
`independent simultaneous invention within a comparatively short space of time;
`
`(h) teaching away from the invention in the prior art.
`
`26.
`
`I have been
`
`informed and further understand
`
`that secondary
`
`considerations evidence is only relevant if the offering party establishes a
`
`connection, or nexus, between the evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus
`
`cannot be to prior art features. The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact.
`
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that the first step in an invalidity analysis
`
`involves construing the claims, as necessary, to determine their scope. And,
`
`second, the construed claim language is then compared to the disclosure of the
`
`prior art. In proceedings before the USPTO, I have been informed that the claims
`
`of an expired patent are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I
`
`further understand that claims of an expired patent should be construed to preserve
`
`validity in cases of ambiguity. I have been informed that the ‘811 Patent is
`
`expired. In comparing the claims of the ‘811 Patent to the known prior art, I have
`
`carefully considered the ‘811 Patent and the ‘811 Patent prosecution history based
`
`
`
`12
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 12
`
`

`
`upon my experience and knowledge in the relevant field. For purposes of this
`
`proceeding, I have applied the claim constructions set forth in the claim
`
`construction section of the IPR petition that this declaration accompanies when
`
`analyzing the prior art and the claims. For those terms that have not expressly
`
`been construed, I have applied the terms’ ordinary and customary meaning, as one
`
`skilled in the relevant field would have understood them.
`
`VI. OPINIONS
`A. Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`28.
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art of the ‘811 Patent at the time of the claimed invention, I considered
`
`several factors, including the type of problems encountered in the art, the solutions
`
`to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made in the field, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the education level of active workers in the
`
`field. I also placed myself back in the time frame of the claimed invention, and
`
`considered the persons with whom I had worked at that time. In my view, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in 1992 would have a
`
`B.S. in computer science or related technical discipline and at least two years
`
`industry experience in the field of collaborative software, or equivalent experience
`
`and/or education.
`
`29. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the
`
`field of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person
`
`
`
`13
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 13
`
`

`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. I have technically
`
`supervised or worked with such individuals in the relevant timeframe and I,
`
`myself, also met at least these minimum qualifications in this relevant timeframe.
`
`B. Opinions Concerning Yoshino and Greanias
`30.
`I have been asked to consider whether claim 7 is obvious over Yoshino
`
`in view of Greanias. It is my opinion that they are indeed obvious.
`
`31.
`
`It is my opinion that the combination of Yoshino and Greanias teaches
`
`all elements of claim 7 as set forth in the claim chart for the combination of
`
`Yoshino and Greanias in the Petition.
`
`32. For example, Yoshino and Greanias both teach user interface systems
`
`in which users interact with applications through a variety of input devices. Ex.
`
`1002, Yoshino at 5:2-4; Ex. 1003, Greanias, at 4:60-68. Yoshino teaches that
`
`users interact with an application program through a “cursor control unit,” which
`
`can include a mouse, keyboard, or a light pen. Ex. 1002, Yoshino at 5:2-4.
`
`Similarly, Greanias teaches that users input data into the application program via a
`
`mouse, keyboard, or touch sensor. Ex. 1003, Greanias, at 4:60-68.
`
`33. Additionally, both Yoshino and Greanias teach that numerous different
`
`commands may be generated in an application program through input device
`
`actions. Ex. 1002, Yoshino at 1:53-58; Ex. 1003, Greanias, at 9:36-40. For
`
`example, Yoshino teaches that input device actions can control the entry or change
`
`
`
`14
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 14
`
`

`
`of information in an application program as well as enlargement, reduction, or
`
`exchange of images. Ex. 1002, Yoshino at 1:53-58. Similarly, Greanias teaches
`
`that standard word processing commands such as “cut” and “paste” may be
`
`generated by through specific keyboard entries. Ex. 1003, Greanias, at 9:36-40.
`
`34. Further, both Yoshino and Greanias teach that users may define
`
`custom input device attributes, which are stored in memory. Ex. 1002, Yoshino at
`
`4:46-5:4; Ex. 1003, Greanias, at 10:5-21. For example, Yoshino teaches that
`
`various “attributes” may be assigned to cursors controlled by input devices. Ex.
`
`1002, Yoshino at 8:5-20. These “attributes” include both visual feedback and
`
`access restrictions, and can be assigned for each particular user. Id., id. at Figs.
`
`10(a-c). Similarly, Greanias teaches that MACROs may be defined that map
`
`specific input device actions to specific application commands. Ex. 1003 ,
`
`Greanias, at 9:24-41. A separate user profile that stores these defined MACROs
`
`can be written for each system user. Id. at 10:5-21.
`
`35. By the time of the purported invention of the ‘811 Patent, it was well
`
`known to those of ordinary skill in the art that it may be beneficial to provide
`
`various types of per-user customization. Both Yoshino and Greanias disclose as
`
`much. Upon reading the disclosure of Greanias, a skilled artisan would have
`
`recognized the value in modifying Yoshino, beyond its express “attribute”
`
`customization, to provide input device action to application command mappings.
`
`
`
`15
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:24)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 15
`
`

`
`36. The combination of Yoshino and Greanias is nothing more than a
`
`simple substitution of the visual attribute customization of Yoshino with the input-
`
`to-command mapping customization of Greanias, which would have yielded
`
`predictable results without undue experimentation. This substitution would have
`
`required nothing more than ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`37. Accordingly, it is my opinion that it would have been obvious to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the multi-user, multi-input
`
`system of Yoshino with the input device customization of Greanias to provide a
`
`collaborative software environment in which each user may customize the
`
`commands generated in response to particular input device signals. This
`
`combination could have been accomplished using known methods in the art and
`
`would have yielded predictable results. The combination of Yoshino and Greanias,
`
`therefore, in my opinion, renders obvious claim 7 of the ‘811 Patent.
`
`C. Opinions Concerning Lu and Greanias
`38.
`I have been asked to consider whether claim 7 is obvious over Lu in
`
`view of Greanias. It is my opinion that they are indeed obvious.
`
`39.
`
`It is my opinion that the combination of Lu and Greanias teaches all
`
`elements of claim 7 as set forth in the claim chart for the combination of Lu and
`
`Greanias in the Petition.
`
`
`
`16
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 16
`
`

`
`40. For example, both Lu and Greanias teach that numerous different
`
`commands may be generated in an application program through input device
`
`actions. Ex. 1004, Lu at 102; Ex. 1003, Greanias, at 9:36-40. For example, Lu
`
`teaches that line, rectangle, oval, polygon, text and freehand drawing tools may be
`
`controlled through input device actions. Ex. 1004, Lu at 102. Similarly, Greanias
`
`teaches that standard word processing commands such as “cut” and “paste” may be
`
`generated by through specific keyboard entries. Ex. 1003, Greanias, at 9:36-40.
`
`41. Further, both Yoshino and Greanias teach that users may define
`
`custom input device attributes. Ex. 1004, Lu at 102; Ex. 1003, Greanias, at 10:5-
`
`21. For example, Lu teaches that users may elect to use different colored drawing
`
`tools to identify their own work. Ex. 1004, Lu at 102. Similarly, Greanias teaches
`
`that MACROs may be defined that map specific input device actions to specific
`
`application commands. Ex. 1003, Greanias, at 9:24-41. A separate user profile
`
`that stores these defined MACROs can be written for each system user. Id. at
`
`10:5-21.
`
`42. By the time of the purported invention of the ‘811 Patent, it was well
`
`known to those of ordinary skill in the art that it may be beneficial to provide
`
`various types of per-user customization. Both Lu and Greanias disclose as much.
`
`Upon reading the disclosure of Greanias, a skilled artisan would have recognized
`
`the value in modifying Lu, beyond its express visual feedback customization, to
`
`
`
`17
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:26)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 17
`
`

`
`provide input device action to application command mappings. For example, a
`
`CaveDraw user could assign the left mouse button to a particular drawing tool and
`
`the right mouse button to a particular erase tool.
`
`43. The combination of Lu and Greanias is nothing more than a simple
`
`substitution of the visual attribute customization of Lu with the input-to-command
`
`mapping customization of Greanias, which would have yielded predictable results
`
`without undue experimentation. This substitution would have required nothing
`
`more than ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`44. Accordingly, it is my opinion that it would have been obvious to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the multi-user, multi-input
`
`collaborative drawing system of Lu with the drawing tool customization of
`
`Greanias to provide a collaborative drawing environment in which each user may
`
`customize drawing tools to dictate the specific commands generated in response to
`
`particular input device signals. This combination could have been accomplished
`
`using known methods in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The
`
`combination of Lu and Greanias, therefore, in my opinion, renders obvious claim 7
`
`of the ‘811 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 18
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 19
`
`

`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 20
`
`
`
`Appendix A
`Appendix A
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 20
`
`

`
`STEPHEN C. HAYNE
`Internet: stephen.hayne@colostate.edu http://selfsynchronize.com/hayne
`March, 2014
`
`
`
`Home
`
`
`
`
`1411 Red Oak Ct
`Fort Collins, CO 80525
`(970) 204-4040 (h)
`(970) 491-7511 (w)
`
`Office
`
`
`
`
`16 Rockwell Hall
`College of Business
`Colorado State University
`Fort Collins, CO 80523
`
`EDUCATION
`Ph.D.
`University of Arizona (1990), Tucson, USA
` Major
`
`: Management Information Systems (Dr. Sudha Ram – Chair)
` Minor
`
`: Economics
`
`B.Commerce University of Alberta (1986, Honors), Edmonton, Canada
` Concentrations
`
`: Finance, Management Science, Computer Science
`
`A.A. Music Grant MacEwan Community College (1983), Edmonton, Canada
` Majors
`
`: Bass Guitar, Voice
`
`ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`Professor, Colorado State University
`May 2006 – Present
`
`
`Nominated as a “Best Teacher” for CSU (2013 and 2011). Received research grants totaling
`more than $3.6M in the last 15 years. Received College of Business “Research Excellence”
`Award (2006). Lectured in the Business Beverage Institute (Strategic Information Systems).
`Current Teaching: Masters – Software Methodology, Database, UG – Ethical Hacking.
`
`July 2000 – Apr 2006
`
`Associate Professor, Colorado State University
`
`Opened 2700 sq. ft. Collaboration and Cognition Research Lab (2005). Awarded First
`National Bank Research Fellowship (2004-2007). Senior Summer Faculty Fellow at
`SPAWAR (2000).
`
`July 1999 – June 2000
`
`Associate Professor, Arizona State University – West
`
`Developed wwwMBA. Implemented Undergraduate Concentration in Information Systems.
`
`Jan 1995 – June 1999
`
`Assistant Professor, Arizona State University – West
`
`Developed and taught Graduate courses in Business Process Innovation, Database Design
`and Implementation, Decision Support Systems, Expert Systems, Group Support Systems, and
`Strategic Use of Telecommunications. Implemented software to support teaching in a
`computer classroom.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 21
`
`

`
`June 1996 - Present
`
`Adjunct Professor, American Graduate School of Intl. Mgmt.,
`Vienna University of Economics and Business
`
`Lectured and used the case method in Executive Education and Overseas Programs
`(Bucharest, Phoenix, Dubai, Archamps, and Prague). Specialties are Decision Theory,
`Electronic Commerce, Technologies for Strategic Advantage, The Networked Firm,
`Knowledge Management, Outsourcing and Virtual Value Chain.
`
`July 1990 - Dec 1994
`
`Assistant Professor, University of Calgary
`
`Developed and taught Undergraduate courses in Data Communications and Group Support
`Systems as well as Undergraduate and Graduate courses in Software Engineering and
`Database Management. Managed installation and use of the Norcen Group Support Systems
`(GSS) Laboratory. Received several research grants ($126,360). Nominated for Teaching
`Excellence awards (1992/93).
`
`Sept 1987 - June 1990
`
`Research/Teaching Associate, University of Arizona
`
`Prepared the grant, designed, implemented and

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
throbber

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.

throbber

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