Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 3195
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`v.
`
`
`SERVICENOW, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BEN BEDERSON IN SUPPORT OF
`BMC’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`(5,978,594; 6,895,586; and 8,646,093 Patents)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-903-JRG
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BMC SOFTWARE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 3196
`
`1.  
`
`I have been retained on behalf of plaintiff BMC Software, Inc. (“BMC”) to
`
`provide expert opinions in connection with this case.
`
`2.  
`
`I obtained a Ph.D. in Computer Science from New York University in 1992.
`
`Prior to that, I obtained my M.S. in Computer Science from New York University in 1989, and
`
`received my B.S. in Computer Science from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1986, with an
`
`undergraduate minor in Electrical Engineering. I received the Janet Fabri Memorial Award for
`
`Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation in connection with my Ph.D. work.
`
`3.  
`
`In addition to my education, I have over 25 years of experience studying,
`
`designing, and working in the field of computer science. I have built numerous software systems
`
`and developed mobile and Internet software products using a number of programming languages
`
`and tools, including Java, C++ and database languages such as MySQL.
`
`4.  
`
`As indicated in my CV, which is attached as Exhibit 1, I have been a designer of
`
`computer applications and a professor and researcher in the area of advanced computer studies
`
`for more than 25 years. For example, I have designed, programmed, and publicly deployed
`
`dozens of software products that have cumulatively been used by millions of users. My work is
`
`also described in numerous patents on which I am a named inventor.
`
`5.  
`
`My work also has been published extensively in more than 140 technical
`
`publications, and I have given about 100 invited talks, including seven keynote lectures. I have
`
`won a number of awards including the Brian Shackel Award for “outstanding contribution with
`
`international impact in the field of HCI” in 2007, and the Social Impact Award in 2010 from
`
`Association for Computing Machinery’s (“ACM”) Special Interest Group on Computer Human
`
`Interaction (“SIGCHI”). ACM is the primary international professional community of computer
`
`scientists, and SIGCHI is the primary international professional HCI community. I have been
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 3197
`
`honored by both professional organizations. I am an “ACM Distinguished Scientist,” which
`
`recognizes those ACM members with at least 15 years of professional experience and 5 years of
`
`continuous Professional Membership who have achieved significant accomplishments or have
`
`made a significant impact on the computing field. I am a member of the “CHI Academy,” which
`
`is an honorary group of individuals who have made substantial contributions to the field of
`
`human-computer interaction. These organizations are the principal leaders of the field, whose
`
`efforts have shaped the disciplines and/or industry, and led the research and/or innovation in
`
`human-computer interaction. The criteria for election to the CHI Academy are: (1) cumulative
`
`contributions to the field; (2) impact on the field through development of new research directions
`
`and/or innovations; and (3) influence on the work of others.
`
`6.  
`
`I have appeared on radio shows numerous times to discuss issues relating to
`
`software design and peoples’ use and frustration with common technologies, web sites, and
`
`mobile devices. My work has been discussed and I have been quoted by mainstream media
`
`around the world over 120 times, including by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the
`
`Washington Post, Newsweek, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Independent, Le Monde, NPR’s
`
`All Things Considered, New Scientist Magazine, and MIT’s Technology Review.
`
`7.  
`
`I am the named inventor of 8 U.S. patents, listed below:
`
`•  
`
`•  
`
`SanGiovanni, J., Bederson, B. (2014). Systems, Methods, and Computer
`
`Program Products Displaying Interactive Elements on a Canvas. U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,819,570.
`
` Pahud, M., Murillo, O. E., Karlson, A. K., & Bederson, B. B. (2012).
`
`Monitoring Pointer Trajectory and Modifying Display Interface. U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,261,211.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 3198
`
`•  
`
`•  
`
`•  
`
`•  
`
`•  
`
`•  
`
` Good, L.E., Bederson, B. B., & Stefik, M.J. (2010). Methods and Systems for
`
`Supporting Presentation Tools Using Zoomable User Interfaces. U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,707,503.
`
` Bederson, B. B., Good, L. E., & Stefik, M.J. (2010). Methods and Systems
`
`for Incrementally Changing Text Representation. U.S. Patent No. 7,650,562.
`
` Bederson, B. B., Good, L. E., & Stefik, M. J. (2009). Methods and Systems
`
`for Incrementally Changing Text Representation. U.S. Patent No. 7,549,114.
`
` Wallace, R. S., Bederson, B. B., & Schwartz, E. L. (1997). TV Picture
`
`Compression and Expansion. U.S. Patent No. 5,642,167.
`
` Bederson, B. B., Wallace, R. S., & Schwartz, E. L. (1993). Two-Dimensional
`
`Pointing Motor. U.S. Patent No. 5,204,573.
`
`Wallace, R. S., Bederson, B. B., & Schwartz, E. L. 1992). Telephone Line
`
`Picture Transmission. U.S. Patent No. 5,175,617.
`
`8.  
`
`I have reviewed the ’594, ’586, and ’093 patents and their prosecution histories,
`
`and their subject matter is within the scope of my education and experience.
`
`
`
`’594 Patent
`
`“Computer System”
`
`BMC
`Claim Term
`“computer system” plain meaning
`
`
`
`3
`
`ServiceNow
`a computer equipped with a CPU,
`conventional input equipment such as a
`keyboard, conventional output
`equipment such as a display monitor, a
`conventional data storage device such as
`a disk or tape drive or CD ROM drive,
`some sort of random access memory
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 3199
`
`(“RAM”), and some sort of
`conventional network communication
`hardware such as an ETHERNET
`interface unit for physically coupling
`the computer system to the network,
`with an installed agent software
`
`9.  
`
`ServiceNow proposes that the claim term “computer system” be construed to
`
`mean “a computer equipped with a CPU, conventional input equipment such as a keyboard,
`
`conventional output equipment such as a display monitor, a conventional data storage device
`
`such as a disk or tape drive or CD ROM drive, some sort of random access memory (“RAM”),
`
`and some sort of conventional network communication hardware such as an ETHERNET
`
`interface unit for physically coupling the computer system to the network, with an installed agent
`
`software.” I disagree with ServiceNow’s proposed construction.
`
`10.  
`
`Based on my review and analysis of the ’594 patent and prosecution history, the
`
`term “computer system” was not redefined by the patentee here to mean something other than its
`
`ordinary meaning. The specification describes a “computer system” in a manner consistent with
`
`those words’ plain meaning. For example, the specification states that computer systems are
`
`simply conventional computers: “The hardware present in each of the computer systems may be
`
`of any conventional type such is typically found on server computers in a client/server network
`
`environment.” ’594, 3:14-29. This understanding of “computer system” is consistent with how
`
`those words would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, the Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary defines “computer system” to simply mean a “configuration that includes
`
`all functional components of a computer and its associated hardware.” (Ex. 2 at 121).
`
`11.  
`
`ServiceNow’s construction appears to be derived from the ’594 patent’s
`
`description of a preferred embodiment. However, the specification’s description merely attempts
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 3200
`
`to describe what typical components of a “network management computer system” or a “server
`
`computer system” might be:
`
`’594, 3:33-44. Here, the specification states that the hardware configurations of different
`
`systems need not be the same, and only that it is “anticipated” that computer systems will be
`
`equipped with certain components—meaning only that such components might be exemplary but
`
`
`
`not required.
`
`12.  
`
`ServiceNow’s construction also attempts to require that a “computer system”
`
`must have an “agent software” installed. I disagree with this limitation. While a “computer
`
`system
`
` may have software installed, requiring a particular “agent software” to be installed would be
`
`contrary to how the term “computer system” is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Second, the patent figures show systems without “agent software” that are nonetheless labeled a
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 3201
`
`“computer system.” The specification describes a “network management computer system 10”
`
`depicted as element 10 in Figure 1.
`
`
`
`13.  
`
`Here, element 10 of Figure 1 is labeled a “computer system,” while only the
`
`“server computer system” element 14 has an “agent software” element 36. Thus the patent
`
`demonstrates that computer systems may or may not have agent software installed. This is also
`
`consistent with the claims themselves. Method Claim 1 consists of four steps: “reading,”
`
`“finding,” “interpreting,” and “determining.”
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 3202
`
`’594, 9:24-41. It is only in dependent Claim 2 where the suggestion of an “agent software” first
`
`appears, where all the steps of Claim 1 are performed by software stored in the computer system:
`
`
`
`’594, 9:42-44.
`
`14.  
`
`In view of the above, it is my conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the patent would not understand “computer system” to have the meaning proposed
`
`by ServiceNow. Accordingly, it is my conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`afford the term “computer system” its plain meaning.
`
`
`
`“Discovery Information”
`
`Claim Term
`“discovery
`information”
`
`BMC
`Plain meaning
`
`ServiceNow
`information about how to determine
`whether a resource is present on a
`computer system
`
`15.  
`
`ServiceNow’s proposed construction of “discovery information” is “information
`
`about how to determine whether a resource is present on a computer system.” I believe that this
`
`is consistent with the plain meaning that one of ordinary skill in the art would have afforded the
`
`term “discovery information.” The specification notes, when describing an embodiment, that
`
`“[d]iscovery information relates to which application classes are desired to be searched for, and
`
`also to the names and locations of the script programs required to do the searching.” ’594, 5:48-
`
`51. Furthermore, the file history confirms that discovery information involves “discovering”
`
`resources. The patentee distinguished the Bauer reference (U.S. Pat. No. 5,367,635), arguing
`
`that “[t]he Bauer reference does not discover the presence of a resource or application on a
`
`computer system, but only assumes that the ‘object’ is already present on the computer system.”
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 3203
`
`’594 FH: 9/20/96 Amendment at 6 (Ex. 3). The patentee continued: “Claim 1 of the present
`
`invention includes the step of reading ‘discovery information’ about how to discover or
`
`determine whether a resource is present on the computer system” and Bauer “only reads
`
`information from its ‘configuration file’ about ‘objects’ that are assumed or known to be present
`
`on the system.” ’594 FH: 9/20/96 Amendment at 6-7 (Ex. 3). It is my understanding that BMC
`
`has agreed to ServiceNow’s proposed construction as to this term.
`
`
`
`“Interpret” Terms and broader phrases in which they occur
`
`“interpretable high-level
`computer programming
`language”
`
`BMC
`Claim Term
`“interpreting the instructions” plain meaning. Alternatively:
`using the instructions to
`execute commands
`plain meaning. Alternatively:
`a computer language that
`provides a level of abstraction
`from the underlying machine
`language, and that can be
`translated and executed or
`compiled into an intermediate
`form and translated and
`executed
`
`
`“high-level computer
`programming language”
`
`“stored on the storage device in
`their uninterpreted form”
`
`construe “uninterpreted form.”
`Otherwise, plain meaning.
`
`“uninterpreted form”
`
`plain meaning. Alternatively:
`a form not interpreted
`
`ServiceNow
`translating and executing the
`instructions one at a time
`
`a high-level computer
`programming language in a
`form that can be translated and
`executed one instruction at a
`time such as a script
`
`
`
`
`a programming language with
`a defined syntax, capable of
`being translated into machine
`language
`stored as a text file containing
`high level programming
`language instructions
`
`
`16.  
`
`ServiceNow proposes that the term “interpreting the instructions” means
`
`“translating and executing the instructions one at a time.” I disagree. ServiceNow’s construction
`
`introduces an ambiguity about which I cannot concur, namely executing instructions “one at a
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 3204
`
`time.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that computers are iterative machines
`
`that execute one instruction followed by another. With this view, ServiceNow’s addition of this
`
`clause is meaningless at best, and confusing depending on what constitutes an “instruction” and
`
`where one “instruction” begins and ends. This is an issue because it is common for one line of
`
`computer code to contain several instructions. Furthermore, one line of high level computer code
`
`may require several machine instructions to execute. Moreover, my review of the patent and file
`
`history shows that ServiceNow’s construction is overly-limiting, as the claims require execution
`
`of “instructions” in the plural, and the term “instructions” always appears in plural form in the
`
`’594 patent, at Claims 1, 5, 9, and 14. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`more than one instruction should be executed, but nothing about the term suggests that they must
`
`be interpreted one at a time. Because it would only introduce confusion, I cannot agree with
`
`ServiceNow’s construction.
`
`17.  
`
`In my opinion, the specification supports a plain meaning understanding of
`
`“interpreting the instructions.” Interpreting instructions is illustrated in Figure 10 of the patent:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 3205
`
`
`
`18.  
`
`Depicted at step 184 of Figure 10, a compiled script program is “interpret[ed] . . .
`
`to take recovery action.” The description of this drawing is likewise straightforward, explaining
`
`that “[e]xecution continues with step 184 in which script program interpreter 66 interprets the
`
`script program, thereby taking the desired recovery action.” ’594, 9:12-14. One of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand that “interpreting the instructions” means using instructions to
`
`execute commands rather than executing the commands directly. This may be contrasted from
`
`only using machine language to execute commands, as “interpreters” are generally pieces of
`
`software designed to execute platform-independent commands using instructions such that those
`
`instructions need not be first compiled to machine language (though they may be pre-compiled to
`
`other intermediate forms as illustrated in the patent, ’594, 4:47-51). This understanding of
`
`“interpreting the instructions” also appears in the claims, where direct execution of machine
`
`language is contrasted with interpretation in dependent Claim 7, which discusses a different type
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 3206
`
`of software that is “directly executable by the server computer system without interpretation or
`
`compilation.” ’594, 10:11-14 (emphasis added).
`
`19.  
`
`ServiceNow proposes that the term “high-level computer programming language”
`
`should be construed. I disagree because this phrase never appears in the patent without the word
`
`“interpretable,” and the entire phrase has meaning in light of the word “interpretable.” ‘594 at
`
`2:26-29; 7:45-48; 8:14-18, 8:60-62, and claims 1, 5, 8, 9, and 14. Additionally, ServiceNow’s
`
`proposed construction of “high-level computer programming language” is at odds with
`
`ServiceNow’s own interpretation of “interpretable high-level computer programming language.”
`
`ServiceNow’s proposed construction for “high-level computer programming language” is “a
`
`programming language with a defined syntax, capable of being translated into machine
`
`language.” This construction requires that the language be capable of being translated to
`
`machine language. ServiceNow’s proposed construction for “interpretable high-level computer
`
`programming language” is “a high-level computer programming language in a form that can be
`
`translated and executed one instruction at a time such as a script.” In contrast, this construction
`
`does not require that the language be capable of being translated to machine language. As such,
`
`these two definitions are contradictory. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an
`
`interpretable language need not be capable of being converted to machine language before
`
`execution. The specification confirms this when it discusses that interpretable languages can be
`
`partially compiled, but not into machine language that is directly executable by a computer
`
`system: “[s]uch compilation is only partial, however, resulting in an intermediate code that is not
`
`directly executable, but that is interpretable by script program interpreter 66.” ’594, 4:48-51.
`
`20.  
`
`I also disagree with ServiceNow’s construction of “interpretable high-level
`
`computer programming language.” As with the term “interpreting the instructions,”
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 3207
`
`ServiceNow’s construction redundantly refers to “executing [] instructions one at a time,” which
`
`is a concept that I cannot agree with as I have discussed above. Additionally, ServiceNow’s
`
`construction fails to account for the fact that an interpretable language can be compiled into an
`
`intermediate form and then executed, which is shown in Figure 10, step 182, as shown above,
`
`and discussed in the specification where it mentions that such languages can be “defined such
`
`that it could be partially compiled according to conventional methods into an intermediate form.”
`
`’594, 6:38-41. ’594, 9:9-14 (“If [the pertinent script program has not been compiled], the script
`
`program is compiled in step 182 by script program compiler 64.”).
`
`21.  
`
`It is my opinion that the patent uses the term “interpretable high-level computer
`
`programming language” according to its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art.
`
`Generally speaking, computer languages exist because it is very difficult for human beings to
`
`write programs in machine language, which may consist of millions of zeros and ones in a
`
`continuous stream. Instead, computer languages can be written in human-readable form and
`
`processed by a computer thereafter, for example, by being compiled to machine language zeros-
`
`and-ones that can then be executed by the host system, or by being read by an “interpreter” and
`
`being executed on the fly. In this way, high-level computer programming languages are a way of
`
`abstracting the underlying machine language, rather than a representation of how they are
`
`executed. As reflected in the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Ed., 2002 at p. 253 “high-
`
`level language n. A computer language that provides a level of abstraction from the underlying
`
`machine language.” (Ex. 2 at 253). A language is “high-level” because the programmer needs
`
`little understanding of the underlying hardware in order to write an operable program. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand that “interpretable high-level computer
`
`programming language” refers to “a computer language that provides a level of abstraction from
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 3208
`
`the underlying machine language, and that can be translated and executed or compiled into an
`
`intermediate form and translated and executed.”
`
`22.  
`
`ServiceNow also proposes that “stored on the storage device in their uninterpreted
`
`form” means “stored as a text file containing high level programming language instructions.” I
`
`disagree with this construction, as it is contrary to the teachings of the patent and to an
`
`understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. ServiceNow’s construction equates a
`
`language’s “uninterpreted form” is a “text file,” which is contrary to the specification. The
`
`specification states that an “uninterpreted form” could be a text file, but could also include
`
`intermediately-compiled versions of the interpretable high-level computer programming
`
`language instructions. For example, the specification states in one embodiment that a “compiled
`
`version of script program 42 is stored so that the next time it is required it may simply be
`
`interpreted from its intermediate form.” ’594, 6:47-49. The prosecution history further discusses
`
`the benefit of storing compiled versions of the instructions, as opposed to text files: “[o]ne of the
`
`benefits obtained by using script language programs of the present invention is that script
`
`programs are capable of being interpreted more quickly than languages that must be interpreted
`
`from ASCII text.” ’594 FH at 9/20/96 Amendment at 8 (Ex. 3).
`
`23.  
`
`I am therefore of the opinion that “uninterpreted form” means simply “a form not
`
`interpreted.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 3209
`
`’586 PATENT
`
`“Computer System” Terms
`
`Claim Term
`“computer system”
`
`BMC
`plain meaning
`
`“sharing the plurality of
`objects with a plurality of the
`one or more computer system”
`
`plain meaning. Alternatively:
`making the plurality of objects
`available to a plurality of the
`one or more computer system,
`including making objects
`accessible to one or more
`applications and/or computer
`systems and/or sending objects
`to one or more applications
`and/or computer systems
`
`
`
`ServiceNow
`computing device such as a
`desktop computer, a laptop
`computer, a server, or other
`computing device
`making objects accessible to
`one or more applications
`and/or computer systems
`and/or sending objects to one
`or more applications and/or
`computer systems
`
`24.  
`
`ServiceNow’s construction of “computer system” is “computing device such as a
`
`desktop computer, a laptop computer, a server, or other computing device.” I disagree that the
`
`term “computer system” has any special meaning within the context of the ‘586 patent and file
`
`history. In my review of the patent and file history, I found no special meaning to this term
`
`imparted by the patentee. Figure 1 illustrates one type of computer system familiar to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 3210
`
`25.  
`
`The specification discusses hardware configurations that might be typical of a
`
`computer system, which is just as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand:
`
`
`
`
`
`’586, 6:47-63. Figure 2 likewise shows common components of a computer system: a CPU,
`
`Memory, an interface to a network, and an I/O device. ’586, Fig. 2; 6:64-7:53; 8:20-65. Thus
`
`“computer system” is readily understood, and the patent offers no special meaning to that term. I
`
`cannot agree with ServiceNow’s construction because it does nothing to further define the term
`
`“computer system”—swapping “computer system” for “computing device” and adding
`
`examples—nor is any further construction needed in view of the readily understood plain
`
`meaning.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 3211
`
`26.  
`
`ServiceNow’s construction of “sharing the plurality of objects with a plurality of
`
`the one or more computer system” is “making objects accessible to one or more applications
`
`and/or computer systems and/or sending objects to one or more applications and/or computer
`
`systems.” Based on my review of the patent and file history, I agree that sharing a plurality of
`
`objects” can include “making objects accessible to one or more applications and/or computer
`
`systems and/or sending objects to one or more applications and/or computer systems.” However,
`
`I do not agree with ServiceNow that sharing a plurality of objects is limited to making them
`
`accessible or sending them.
`
`27.  
`
`The patent specification teaches that sharing objects “may include” making them
`
`accessible or sending them (’586, 9:28-32), but the patent specification generally describes
`
`sharing broadly as “making available.” ’586, 12:32-35 (“By loading a KM into the namespace,
`
`the KM back-end 360 may make the data and/or objects associated with the KM available to
`
`other agents and components in the enterprise.”); ’586, 12:56-60 (“In the same way as the KM
`
`back-end 360, other back-ends may manage branches of the agent namespace 350 and populate
`
`their branches with relevant data and/or objects which may be made available to other software
`
`components in the enterprise.”); ’586 FH, Jan. 6, 2004 Amendment at 5 (Ex. 4) (“An enterprise-
`
`wide namespace is one way to make data available throughout an enterprise.”). To the extent
`
`sharing could include activities other than “making accessible” or “sending,” ServiceNow’s
`
`construction is too narrow. ’586, 26:17-19 (“The client program may connect to subagents. The
`
`client program may then start accessing objects in subagents using the COS APL”); ’586, 17:50-
`
`52 (“As used herein, ‘publishing’ includes sending and/or 50 making available to a software
`
`component one or more elements of data and/or changes in the data over time.”) As such, I am
`
`of the opinion that “sharing” is used in the patent according to its plain meaning, and I agree with
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 3212
`
`BMC’s proposed alternative construction as an expression of the plain meaning of “sharing”
`
`because it is not so limited as ServiceNow’s construction.
`
`“Hierarchical Namespace”
`
`Claim Term
`“hierarchical
`namespace”
`
`BMC
`a memory or plurality of memories
`which are coupled to one another,
`whose contents are uniquely
`addressable and are arranged in a
`hierarchical way
`
`ServiceNow
`hierarchical set of unique names such as a
`directory structure
`
`28.  
`
`ServiceNow’s construction of “hierarchical namespace” is a “hierarchical set of
`
`unique names such as a directory structure.” I disagree with ServiceNow’s construction.
`
`29.  
`
`As an initial matter, directory structures are only discussed in the patent
`
`specification in the context of prior art systems ’586 at 2:62-67. ServiceNow’s construction
`
`divorces the term “directory structure” from that discussion, and does not explain what type of
`
`directory structure system is being referenced. Though it is unclear what is meant by
`
`ServiceNow’s use of the term “directory structure” in its proposed construction, a directory
`
`structure is not necessarily an example of a hierarchical namespace. There is nothing in
`
`ServiceNow’s example of a “directory structure” that necessitates that the directory’s contents
`
`are uniquely addressable. For example, a telephone book is a directory structure where two
`
`names reside in the same region, but multiple people with the same name can exist in the same
`
`town—such a directory would be “hierarchical” but not uniquely addressable.
`
`30.  
`
`ServiceNow’s construction is also at odds with the ’586 specification. The ’586
`
`patent discusses hierarchical namespaces where the contents—rather than the names of the
`
`contents—are arranged hierarchically. ’586, 3:61-66 (“The namespace comprises a logical
`
`arrangement of the objects, stored hierarchically.”). Figure 6 is one illustration showing a
`
`hierarchical “tree” arrangement of the objects in the namespace.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 3213
`
`
`
`
`
`’586, 13:52-53. While the patent continues in describing how the hierarchical arrangement of
`
`objects “may be referred to using paths” 13:59-60, it is my understanding that it is inappropriate
`
`to incorporate a limitation from one embodiment into the term “hierarchical namespace.”
`
`31.   My review of the patent specification shows that the patentee acted as their own
`
`lexicographer in defining the term “namespace”: “[a]s used herein, a ‘namespace’ may refer to a
`
`memory, or a plurality of memories which are coupled to one another, whose contents are
`
`uniquely addressable.” ’586, 1:54-56. As I explained above, a “hierarchical” namespace is
`
`merely a namespace whose contents are arranged in a hierarchical way. ’586, 13:52-53 (“FIG. 6
`
`illustrates how information is organized hierarchically in the namespace according to one
`
`embodiment”); Id. at Fig. 6. Therefore, it is my opinion that the term “hierarchical namespace”
`
`means “a memory or plurality of memories which are coupled to one another, whose contents are
`
`uniquely addressable and are arranged in a hierarchical way.”
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 3214
`
`“Traits Terms”
`
`"Claim
`Term
`“traits”
`“change
`dynamically”
`“wherein the
`values of the
`traits
`inherited
`from the
`prototype
`change
`dynamically”
`“dynamically
`inherits traits
`from the
`prototype”
`
`BMC
`
`ServiceNow
`
`plain meaning
`plain meaning
`
`wherein the values of the traits
`inherited from the prototype are
`inherited as they are changed
`
`attribute values and/or child objects
`change over time
`
`wherein the values of the attributes in
`the prototype object change over time
`
`construe “traits” and “prototype.”1
`Otherwise, plain meaning.
`
`object derives attributes values from the
`prototype and the attribute values at the
`prototype may change over time
`
`
`
`32.  
`
`ServiceNow’s proposed construction of the term “traits” is “attribute values
`
`and/or child objects.” I disagree with ServiceNow’s construction. Based on my experience, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand a “trait” to be a value or an object in and
`
`of itself, but rather an attribute which is a piece of data that holds information such as a value or
`
`an object. The patent specification does not deviate from the plain meaning of the word “trait.”
`
`For example, the specification discusses “object traits” to describe traits of a schema and
`
`explains that they are “pieces of data that hold additional information about an object type.”
`
`’586, 17:9-11. The specification also discusses “attribute traits” to describe traits of a schema
`
`that are “pieces of data that hold additional information about one or more attributes.” ’586,
`
`17:21-23. The ’586 patent’s Claims likewise recognize this distinction. For example, Claim 5
`
`claims “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the inherited traits comprise child objects.” Likewise,
`
`Claim 6 claims “The method of claim 1, wherein the inherited traits comprise attribute values
`
`1 I understand that following the parties’ Patent Rule 4-3 submission, the parties agreed that “prototype” means “an
`object in a namespace from which attributes, values, and/or children are dynamically inherited by another object.”
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 21 of 28 PageID #: 3215
`
`and child objects.” Hence, traits can “comprise” attribute values or child objects, but are not
`
`attribute values or child objects themselves. As a result, ServiceNow’s