`By: Richard F. Giunta
`
`Elisabeth H. Hunt
`
`Randy J. Pritzker
`
`Michael N. Rader
`
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`Tel: (617) 646-8000
`
`Fax: (617) 646-8646
`
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`RPX Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01750
`Patent 8,484,111 B2
`
`Case IPR2015-01751
`Case IPR2015-01752
`Patent 7,356,482 B21
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF MARK E. CROVELLA, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the
`heading.
`RPX Exhibit 1062
`RPX v. AIT
`IPR2015-01751
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Mark E. Crovella, Ph.D., declare that I submitted an original declaration
`
`(Ex. 1002 in IPR2015-01750 and IPR2015-01751 and Ex. 1102 in IPR2015-
`
`01752) in these related inter partes reviews, and further declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have reviewed paragraphs 26-48 of the Declaration of H. V.
`
`Jagadish (Ex. 2032 in all three proceedings) where Dr. Jagadish construes the
`
`clause “a change management layer for automatically detecting changes that affect
`
`an application” in claim 1 of the ‘482 patent, the phrase “automatically detecting
`
`changes that affect a particular application” in claim 21 of the ‘482 patent, and “the
`
`fourth portion of the server being configured to automatically detect changes that
`
`affect the information in the first portion of the server or the information in the
`
`second portion of the server” in claim 13 of the ‘111 patent. (Id. at ¶¶ 41, 48.)
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Jagadish’s construction of “a change management layer for
`
`automatically detecting changes that affect an application” in claim 1 of the ‘482
`
`patent explicitly construes only the function performed by the layer, and appears to
`
`implicitly construe the entire clause as a layer that performs the function so
`
`construed. The construction Dr. Jagadish proffers for the function “automatically
`
`detecting changes that affect an application” is “automatically detecting changes
`
`which impact how the application program should operate,” “where those
`
`‘changes’ arise from changes external to the application program.” (Id. at ¶¶ 27,
`
`40.) He applies the same construction to “automatically detecting changes that
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`affect a particular application” in claim 21 of the ‘482 patent. (Id. at ¶ 41.) Dr.
`
`Jagadish also construes “the fourth portion of the server being configured to
`
`automatically detect changes that affect the information in the first portion of the
`
`server or the information in the second portion of the server” in claim 13 of the
`
`‘111 patent in “the same way as the ‘change management layer.’” (Id. at ¶ 48.)
`
`3.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Jagadish’s overly narrow constructions. I
`
`understand that in an inter partes review, claim language must be given its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the
`
`patent’s filing date. I further understand that the BRI for words in a claim that are
`
`not terms of art is the plain and ordinary meaning of the words, so long as that
`
`meaning is not inconsistent with the specification. In my opinion based on my
`
`knowledge of a POSA’s perspective in the relevant timeframe, and as explained
`
`further below, Dr. Jagadish’s construction is not the BRI of “automatically
`
`detecting changes that affect an application,” “automatically detecting changes that
`
`affect a particular application,” or “the fourth portion of the server being
`
`configured to automatically detect changes that affect the information in the first
`
`portion of the server or the information in the second portion of the server.”
`
`4.
`
`First, I do not agree with Dr. Jagadish’s narrowing of the recited
`
`“changes” to only “changes that arise from changes external to the application
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`program.” Dr. Jagadish does not take the position that “changes” is a term of art,
`
`and I agree that “changes” is not and was not a term of art in the patents’ time
`
`frame. As such, the BRI that a POSA would have given “changes” is its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. Dr. Jagadish’s construction – “changes that arise from changes
`
`external to the application program” – is clearly not the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of “changes.” Rather, it narrows “changes” to a particular subset of changes (i.e.,
`
`those that arise from changes external to the application program). The proper BRI
`
`of “changes that affect an application,” on the other hand, encompasses any change
`
`(according to the plain and ordinary meaning of “change”) that affects the
`
`application recited in the claim, including changes that arise from changes external
`
`to the application program as well as changes that do not arise from changes
`
`external to the application program. I find no statement in the patents’
`
`specification requiring that “changes” be construed more narrowly, nor any
`
`embodiment in the specification that would not fall under this plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of “changes.”
`
`5.
`
`I also do not agree with Dr. Jagadish’s narrowing of the recited
`
`“affect[ing] an application” to only “impact[ing] how the application program
`
`should operate.” The BRI of “changes that affect an application” is not limited to
`
`changes that impact how the application should operate. A POSA would have
`
`understood that changes can affect an application without impacting how the
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`application “should” operate, and those types of changes are also included in the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of “changes that affect an application.” For example, a
`
`change to the processing resources available to an application could affect the
`
`application (e.g., by causing it to run faster or slower) without impacting how the
`
`application “should” operate (e.g., without altering any of the steps that the
`
`application attempts to perform).
`
`6.
`
`Additionally, I disagree with Dr. Jagadish’s opinion that “changes that
`
`affect the information in the first portion of the server or the information in the
`
`second portion of the server” in claim 13 of the ‘111 patent should be construed in
`
`the same manner as “changes that affect [an application / a particular application]”
`
`in the claims of the ‘482 patent. The plain language of the claims and the shared
`
`specification of the patents do not support the notion that “the information in the
`
`first portion of the server or the information in the second portion of the server”
`
`has the same meaning as “an application” or “a particular application.” The words
`
`are clearly different, and I find nothing in the patents to indicate that the
`
`differences are not meaningful.
`
`7.
`
`Furthermore, even if Dr. Jagadish’s construction of “automatically
`
`detecting changes that affect an application” (which he asserts should be applied as
`
`well to “automatically detecting changes that affect a particular application” and
`
`“changes that affect the information in the first portion of the server or the
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`information in the second portion of the server”) were correct, a POSA would have
`
`understood Popp, Kovacevic, and the Balderrama/Java Complete combination to
`
`meet the corresponding claim limitations even when construed using Dr.
`
`Jagadish’s overly narrow construction, at least for the reasons below.
`
`8.
`
`Popp meets the claim limitations referenced in ¶ 7 above even when
`
`construed using Dr. Jagadish’s overly narrow construction. Popp’s inputControl
`
`object 664 automatically detects changes such as modification of a field 632 within
`
`Web page 622 to specify a new employee name. (Ex. 10042 at 22:37-42.) A
`
`POSA would have understood that such a change impacts how the application (the
`
`Web page) should operate, at least because the Web page should display the new
`
`name in field 632 after the input is received. A POSA would have further
`
`understood that the detected change (input modifying the field to specify a new
`
`employee name) would have arisen from a change external to the application
`
`program, such as a new employee being hired, or a current employee changing her
`
`name, giving rise to the user’s consequent change to the field. InputControl object
`
`664 detects the change by examining request information to determine which
`
`requests are relevant to it. (Id. at 22:37-41.) It performs this detection
`
`automatically, without human involvement in the detection. InputControl object
`
`
`2 Ex. 1104 in IPR2015-01752.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`664 thus automatically detects changes that arise from changes external to the
`
`application program, which impact how the application program should operate.
`
`9.
`
`Popp’s inputControl object 664 thus meets the limitations of
`
`“automatically detecting changes that affect an application,” “automatically
`
`detecting changes that affect a particular application,” and the “fourth portion of
`
`the server” clause of claim 13 of the ’111 patent construed by Dr. Jagadish in the
`
`same manner, even under Dr. Jagadish’s overly narrow construction.
`
`10. Kovacevic meets the claim limitations referenced in ¶ 7 above even
`
`when construed using Dr. Jagadish’s overly narrow construction. Kovacevic’s
`
`sequencing control primitives automatically detect changes that affect how a
`
`tutoring application should operate, by causing UI primitives (which form part of
`
`how the application operates when enabled) to be enabled or disabled. (Ex. 10053
`
`at p. 114, col. 2, para. 6.) Such a change detected by the sequencing control
`
`primitives may include, for example, user input via the UI or selection of UI
`
`elements that satisfy or violate preconditions of other UI primitives. (Id. at p. 115,
`
`col. 2.) A POSA would have understood that the detected changes arise from
`
`changes external to the application program, as changes in a student’s input via the
`
`UI or selection of UI elements in a tutoring application arise from changes in the
`
`student’s progress in learning the course material, in the student’s understanding of
`
`
`3 Ex. 1105 in IPR2015-01752.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`the subject matter being taught, etc. The sequencing control primitives detect the
`
`changes via the UI by monitoring and constantly evaluating the relevant UI context
`
`to discover whenever something occurs that should cause them to enable or disable
`
`another primitive. (Id. at p. 114, col. 2, para. 6.) They perform this detection
`
`automatically, without human involvement in the detection. The sequencing
`
`control primitives thus automatically detect changes that arise from changes
`
`external to the application program, and the automatically detected changes impact
`
`how the application program should operate.
`
`11. Kovacevic’s sequencing control primitives thus meet the limitations
`
`of “automatically detecting changes that affect an application,” “automatically
`
`detecting changes that affect a particular application,” and the “fourth portion of
`
`the server” clause of claim 13 of the ’111 patent construed by Dr. Jagadish in the
`
`same manner, even under Dr. Jagadish’s overly narrow construction.
`
`12. The Balderrama/Java Complete combination meets the claim
`
`limitations referenced in ¶ 7 above even when construed using Dr. Jagadish’s
`
`overly narrow construction. Balderrama’s update/modification detector 82
`
`automatically detects changes including modifications to files and records in
`
`database 86 and updates to template presentation 80. (Ex. 10064 at FIG. 3; 2:16-
`
`21; 10:14-21; 11:64-67; 12:34-38.) These changes impact how the application
`
`
`4 Ex. 1106 in IPR2015-01752.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`(configured presentation 90) should operate, because they trigger re-configuration
`
`of presentation 90 to present updated layouts, icons, graphics, items for sale,
`
`prices, specials, branch cells, etc. (Id. at 6:48-63; 10:11-24.) For example, a
`
`change to a branch cell in template presentation 80 would change whether the
`
`configured presentation 90 is to call up a particular screen at a particular point in
`
`its execution, thus impacting how the application should operate. (Id. at 6:51-55.)
`
`The detected changes to the files and records in database 86 arise from changes
`
`external to the application program, such as a change in the set of items that a
`
`particular sales outlet offers for sale, a change in the sales outlet’s price of an item
`
`for sale, etc. (Id. at 10:14-21.) The detected changes to the template presentation
`
`80 also arise from changes external to the application program, such as a change in
`
`how corporate headquarters personnel require the presentation of items for sale to
`
`be laid out, a change in the graphics and messages that corporate headquarters
`
`chooses to include in all sales outlets’ presentations, etc. (Id. at 6:48-63.)
`
`Update/modification detector 82 is labeled and described as a “detector;” it detects
`
`when updates to the template presentation and modifications to the database files
`
`and records necessitate reconfiguration of the presentation 90, for example by
`
`detecting which portions of the presentation are affected by the modifications or
`
`updates and therefore require reconfiguration. (Id. at 12:39-44.) This detection is
`
`performed automatically, without human involvement in the detection.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Update/modification detector 82 thus automatically detects changes that arise from
`
`changes external to the application program, and the automatically detected
`
`changes impact how the application program should operate.
`
`13. Balderrama’s update/modification detector 82 thus meets the
`
`limitations of “automatically detecting changes that affect an application,”
`
`“automatically detecting changes that affect a particular application,” and the
`
`“fourth portion of the server” clause of claim 13 of the ’111 patent construed by
`
`Dr. Jagadish in the same manner, even under Dr. Jagadish’s overly narrow
`
`construction.
`
`14.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Jagadish’s assertion in ¶ 78 of his declaration that
`
`the changes detected in Balderrama “relate to a user performing an internal change
`
`to the application.” The changes detected by Balderrama’s update/modification
`
`detector 82 include modifications to files and records in database 86
`
`(corresponding to the claimed “first layer” or “first portion of the server”) and
`
`updates to template presentation 80 (corresponding to the claimed “second layer”
`
`or “second portion of the server”); whereas the configured presentation 90
`
`corresponds to the claimed “application.” When a user at a sales outlet makes a
`
`modification to files and records in database 86 (Ex. 1006 at 10:7-10), or when
`
`another user (e.g., at corporate headquarters) makes updates to template
`
`presentation 80 (Id. at 8:16-67), those changes are not input directly to configured
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`presentation 90. Configured presentation 90 is the application that results from
`
`subsequently bringing together the changed database files and records (first
`
`layer/portion) and template presentation (second layer/portion). A POSA would
`
`have understood that the upstream changes made to those separate (first and
`
`second) layers/portions are in fact external to the application (configured
`
`presentation 90), in addition to “arising from” changes external to the application
`
`(see ¶ 12 above). See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 8:16-64, discussing identifying updates to
`
`template presentation at corporate headquarters, or at the facility of a third party
`
`handling software service/support, etc., which a POSA would have understood to
`
`be external to the application.
`
`15.
`
`I disagree as well with Dr. Jagadish’s assertion at ¶ 25 of his
`
`declaration that a web page is not an “application” as claimed. I have already
`
`explained in my previous declaration how “application” should properly be
`
`construed and how Popp’s web page, in particular, meets this construction.
`
`Additionally, such a web page would meet even Dr. Jagadish’s construction of
`
`“application” (at ¶ 23 of his declaration) as “a higher level program for use by an
`
`end-user; its work is not related to the computer itself, and therefore is not a
`
`utility.” Dr. Jagadish’s term “higher level” is not meaningful because it provides
`
`no reference as to what level the program must be “higher” than. However, a web
`
`page is a user-facing program, which is the highest level for a program in a
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`computer system. A web page is used by an end—user to perform a specific kind of
`
`work that is useful to the end—user; such as, for example, updating names of
`
`employees in a corporate database in Popp. This work, for example, is not related
`
`to the computer itself (it is related to corporate record keeping), and is not a utility.
`
`16.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made in this declaration of my
`
`own personal knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and
`
`belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements are made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine,
`
`imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
`
`Executed on: E
`
`[i
`
`,2016
`
`Mark E. Crovella, Ph.D.
`
`11