Filed on behalf of Petitioner
`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
`
`
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
