`____________
`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