Paper No. __
`
`
`
`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 No. IPR2015-01751
`Patent No. 7,356,482 B2
`_____________
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 2
`I.
`II. AIT’S SOLE BASIS FOR CHALLENGING THE GROUNDS IS
`THAT THE PRIOR ART ALLEGEDLY DOES NOT TEACH
`“AUTOMATICALLY DETECTING CHANGES THAT AFFECT AN
`APPLICATION” ............................................................................................... 4
`A. AIT Improperly Limits the Meaning of “Changes” .................................... 5
`B. AIT’s Arguments Are Inconsistent with Its Litigation Position ................. 7
`C. AIT Also Seeks To Improperly Narrow “Affect an Application” .............. 8
`D. AIT’s Improperly Narrow Constructions Seek To Import
`Limitations into Plain Claim Language....................................................... 9
`E. The Institution Decision Properly Applied the BRI of
`“Automatically Detecting Changes That Affect an Application” .............10
`F. AIT Offers No Proper Challenge to Any Ground .....................................12
`III. THE PRIOR ART MEETS EVEN AIT’S NARROW
`CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................................13
`A. Grounds 1 (Popp) and 4 (Popp/Anand) .....................................................13
`B. Ground 2 – Kovacevic ...............................................................................15
`C. Ground 3 - Balderrama/Java Complete (“JC”) .........................................16
`1. AIT’s Arguments Are Limited to Challenging Whether the
`Combination Meets the “Automatically Detecting Changes
`That Affect an Application” Limitations ............................................16
`2. The Detected Changes in Balderrama Are Metadata Changes
`Different Than Those in Popp and Kovacevic and Identical to
`Those AIT Told the Court Are Covered by the Claims ......................18
`3. AIT Fails To Respond to Balderrama’s Detection of Changes
`by Corporate Headquarters ..................................................................20
`4. The Balderrama/JC Combination Meets Even AIT’s Unduly
`Narrow Construction ...........................................................................21
`IV. AIT’S ARGUMENTS ON THE MEANING OF “APPLICATION”
`ARE WRONG AND A RED HERRING ........................................................23
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`V. AIT PROVIDES THE BOARD NO REASON TO RECONSIDER ITS
`
`DECISION ON REAL PARTY—IN—INTEREST .......................................... ..26
`
`V. AIT PROVIDES THE BOARD NO REASON TO RECONSIDER ITS
`DECISION ON REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST ............................................26
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................26
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. ..26
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................11
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.51 ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`AIT’s Patent Owner Response (“POR”) argues that all instituted grounds fail
`
`for only a single reason - that the art allegedly does not “automatically detect
`
`changes that affect an application” as claimed. AIT’s position is based entirely on
`
`improper constructions of this broad clause and the plain term “changes” within it.
`
`AIT asserts that “changes” should be limited to a specific category of changes -
`
`i.e., “changes that arise from changes external to the application.” This
`
`“construction” repeats the term “changes” verbatim and tacks on additional words
`
`that improperly import extraneous limitations into the claims. AIT thus does not
`
`seek to construe the meaning of the simple term “changes” at all, but rather seeks
`
`to narrow it to a highly specific class of changes by imposing additional
`
`limitations on this plain term.
`
`At times in its POR, AIT argues that the detected changes cannot be
`
`“internal” to the application program.1 These arguments are inconsistent with
`
`AIT’s litigation position. AIT told the Nevada District Court that even under the
`
`narrower claim construction standard applicable there, “changes” means broadly
`
`
`1 These arguments are not commensurate with AIT’s own proposed construction,
`
`which requires not that the detected changes themselves be external to the
`
`application, but that they “arise from changes external to the application.”
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`“any2 type of change that may have an impact on the user’s business,” and that the
`
`specification “do[es] not exclude the possibility that the detected changes are
`
`changes to information that is internal to the system.” Compare POR at 3 with
`
`Ex. 1060 at 5-7. AIT’s narrow constructions here should be rejected under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard, as the claims should indeed be
`
`construed to cover automatically detecting “any type of change” that affects an
`
`application.
`
`Given that all of AIT’s arguments and evidence rely upon its improper claim
`
`constructions, AIT offers nothing to rebut RPX’s showing of unpatentability of the
`
`claims as properly interpreted. The claims should be found unpatentable under
`
`each ground for the reasons stated in the Petition.
`
`Furthermore, even if the Board were to adopt AIT’s overly narrow
`
`constructions, all of the claims are still unpatentable. A reply declaration from
`
`RPX’s expert establishes this. In addition, AIT’s expert conceded at deposition
`
`that the automatically detected changes in the prior art cited in the Petition meet
`
`the substance of AIT’s narrow constructions because they “arise from changes
`
`external to the application program” and “impact how the application program
`
`should operate.”
`
`
`
`
`2 Emphasis is added throughout unless otherwise noted.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`II. AIT’S SOLE BASIS FOR CHALLENGING THE GROUNDS IS THAT
`THE PRIOR ART ALLEGEDLY DOES NOT TEACH
`“AUTOMATICALLY DETECTING CHANGES THAT AFFECT AN
`APPLICATION”
`For each of Grounds 1-4, the only limitation that the POR and AIT’s
`
`supporting expert declarations alleged was not met was “automatically detecting
`
`changes that affect a particular application” in claim 21 and the change
`
`management layer for performing that function in claim 13. POR at 22-32; Ex.
`
`2032 ¶¶51-84; Ex. 2033 ¶¶41-64; Ex. 1058 at 118:3-119:6, 127:5-128:8, 143:2-
`
`144:5 (Dr. Jagadish conceded that he offered no opinion that the prior art fails to
`
`meet any other claim limitation)4.
`
`
`3 Claim 1 refers to “an application” rather than “a particular application,” but there
`
`is no substantive difference between the recited functions and AIT identifies none.
`
` 4
`
` The POR cites two expert declarations covering the same subject matter. The
`
`declarations have identical tables of contents, construe the same claim terms in the
`
`same manner, and allege that the grounds fail for the same single reason. RPX
`
`deposed Dr. Jagadish who provided the longer and more detailed declaration.
`
`Given the duplicative nature of the declarations, RPX did not depose AIT’s other
`
`expert.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`A. AIT Improperly Limits the Meaning of “Changes”
`AIT asserts that the Board “must construe” “changes,” but offers a
`
`“construction” that repeats the word rather than explain its meaning. AIT seeks to
`
`limit the claim to only a subset of “changes,” i.e., those “that arise from changes
`
`external to the application program.” POR at 3, 20; Ex. 1058 at 42:6-10, 94:10-15
`
`(conceding that “changes” construed to mean “changes that arise from changes
`
`external to the application.”); Ex. 1062 ¶4. Rather than interpret “changes,” AIT
`
`twice repeats the word in its construction and tacks on additional limitations that
`
`result in AIT’s construction failing to give “changes” its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation.
`
`The only limitation the ‘482 claims impose on “changes” is that they “affect
`
`an application.” But that limitation is accounted for in AIT’s construction by the
`
`language “which impact how the application program should operate” discussed in
`
`§II.C below. Ex. 1058 at 94:16-20. The plain language of the claims does not
`
`limit “changes” to the narrow category of changes AIT alleges (i.e., those that arise
`
`from changes external to the application).
`
`AIT had every opportunity to draft the ‘482 claims to capture subject matter
`
`it believed it was entitled to. AIT sought broader claims in the ‘482 patent than in
`
`parent U.S. Patent No. 6,341,287 and is leveraging that breadth by arguing in
`
`concurrent litigation that the claims cover detecting “any type of change that may
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`have an impact on the user’s business.” Ex. 1060 at 7. Here, AIT attempts to
`
`avoid the consequences of its broad claims by injecting limitations that do not
`
`belong into what AIT rightfully told the district court is “clear claim language.”
`
`Ex. 1060 at 1. AIT’s unduly narrow construction should be rejected because it
`
`does not give “changes” its broadest reasonable interpretation. Ex. 1062 ¶¶3-4.
`
`The ‘482 specification nowhere refers to changes “that arise from changes
`
`external to the application,” and does not limit “changes” in any way. There is no
`
`disclaimer in the ‘482 patent that limits the meaning of “changes” in the manner
`
`AIT alleges. Indeed, at deposition, AIT’s expert was forced to concede that the
`
`term “change” is used in the ‘482 specification more broadly than in AIT’s
`
`construction. Ex. 1058 at 81:12-18 (conceding that the specification describes a
`
`manual override by which a user can “change the metadata yourself.”), 65:12-14,
`
`86:21-25, 87:4-5, 88:13-14 (collectively conceding that his assertion that no
`
`“change” in the ‘482 patent related to user interaction referenced only certain
`
`“changes relevant to change management layer” which were “changes of the type
`
`that require automatic detection,” as Dr. Jagadish did not consider other “classes of
`
`change” or any other “category of change”).
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`B. AIT’s Arguments Are Inconsistent with Its Litigation
`Position
`
` AIT proposed to the district court that “changes that affect an application”
`
`be construed in an entirely different manner5 than in this proceeding – to mean
`
`“changes to an application’s metadata.” Ex. 1059 at 11. In arguing for this
`
`different construction, AIT told the court that “changes” should be construed as
`
`not limited to “changes to information that is stored outside of the claimed
`
`system,” and instead should be interpreted broadly enough to encompass “changes
`
`to information that is internal to the system.” Ex. 1060 at 5-6 (pointing to the
`
`‘482 patent’s disclosure at 19:66-67 of intelligent agents that pursue internal
`
`activities as “an embodiment where changes are detected within the system”). AIT
`
`further told the court that the detected changes can be “any type of change that
`
`may have an impact on the user’s business.” Ex. 1060 at 7.
`
`The POR twice argues that the prior art does not meet “automatically
`
`detecting changes that affect an application” as claimed because it does not detect
`
`changes that “arise from changes to metadata about the application program or are
`
`external to the application program.” POR at 24, 27. This curious argument -
`
`which is not commensurate with the construction that the POR and its supporting
`
`
`5 AIT did not inform the Board, or RPX in violation of 37 C.F.R. §42.51, of its
`
`inconsistent litigation position.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`declarations advance - appears to be a relic of an earlier draft where AIT had hoped
`
`to offer a broader construction that encompassed its litigation position that
`
`“changes that affect an application” means “changes to an application’s metadata.”
`
`Ex. 1059 at 11. AIT ultimately abandoned any attempt at consistency and
`
`proposed an entirely different construction here because prior art relied upon in
`
`the Petition (see §III.C below) teaches the automatic detection of changes to the
`
`application metadata and renders the claims unpatentable under the construction
`
`AIT advances in the litigation.
`
`C. AIT Also Seeks To Improperly Narrow “Affect an
`Application”
`
`AIT asserts that changes that “affect an application” should be construed as
`
`limited to changes “which impact how the application program should operate.”
`
`Ex. 1058 at 94:16-20. AIT again seeks to improperly import limitations into the
`
`claims that are not there, as changes can affect an application without impacting
`
`how it “should operate.” Ex. 1062 ¶5; Ex. 1058 at 63:9-64:22 (Dr. Jagadish
`
`conceded that changing the server on which an application runs can “affect” the
`
`application without impacting how it “should operate”). Indeed, AIT’s own expert
`
`declaration reveals that the plain meaning of “affect an application” is narrowed in
`
`AIT’s construction, as the declaration concedes that Kovacevic “automatically
`
`detect[s] changes … that affect the application” (Ex. 2032 ¶70) but asserts that
`
`those changes nevertheless do not “impact the application program.” Id. ¶71.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`D. AIT’s Improperly Narrow Constructions Seek To Import
`Limitations into Plain Claim Language
`
`AIT’s narrow construction is of the plain claim language “automatically
`
`detecting changes that affect an application.” In asserting that the Board must
`
`construe “change management layer” in claim 1 (POR at 2-3, 13-20), AIT
`
`mischaracterizes its own position. AIT never construes “change management
`
`layer” but instead offers a construction for the function that claim 1 recites this
`
`layer as performing.
`
`The parties agree that “change management layer” is not a term of art. Ex.
`
`1002 ¶23; POR at 14; Ex. 2032 ¶26. While AIT’s expert purports to disagree with
`
`RPX’s position that “change management” is simply a label for the claimed layer,
`
`he gives no meaning to those words. Instead, he construes only the function that
`
`claim 1 recites this layer as performing. Ex. 2032 ¶¶ 27, 41; Ex. 1058 at 49:20-
`
`50:2, 89:13-90:8, 102:9-13 (Dr. Jagadish conceded that his construction of “change
`
`management layer” construes only the function the layer performs).
`
`That function, “automatically detecting changes that affect an application,”
`
`is plain on its face and requires no construction other than of the term
`
`“application.” Petition at 9-10. While AIT purports to disagree, its expert
`
`conceded that other than “application,” the clause includes only plain terms and no
`
`terms of art. Ex. 1058 at 83:13 (“change is not a term of art”), 95:16-20
`
`(“automatically detecting” repeated in construction because these “simple” terms
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`are not “remarkable”), 44:19-45:4 (“the word ‘affect’ stands for itself and it is not
`
`one that I'm formally construing”). Indeed, AIT did not construe this clause at all,
`
`but instead improperly imported limitations into it.
`
`As illustrated in Exhibit 1057, virtually every meaningful term in the eight-
`
`word claim clause is repeated in AIT’s twenty-two word construction, which adds
`
`limitations to narrow the claim beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. While Dr.
`
`Jagadish at times suggested in his deposition that his construction interprets the
`
`claim clause holistically and should not be deconstructed, he was forced to concede
`
`the obvious - Exhibit 1057 illustrates the correspondence between the claim terms
`
`and AIT’s construction. Ex. 1058 at 94:1-97:16. AIT’s construction of
`
`“automatically detecting changes that affect an application” should be rejected
`
`because it does not construe the meaning of this simple clause at all - it manifestly
`
`and improperly repeats virtually every word in the clause and seeks to import
`
`additional limitations into it.
`
`E.
`
`The Institution Decision Properly Applied the BRI of
`“Automatically Detecting Changes That Affect an
`Application”
`
`AIT asserts that Petitioner and the Board allegedly interpreted the claims to
`
`be sufficiently broad “to read on detecting changes internal to an application
`
`program.” POR at 14 (emphasis in original). AIT’s expert conceded that this
`
`“broader” construction is consistent with the specification, but nevertheless
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`insisted that it was “overly broad.” Ex. 1058 at 115:12-17. AIT commits legal
`
`error by asserting that the BRI is not the broadest interpretation that gives the claim
`
`terms their plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the specification.
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1061-1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under a
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain
`
`meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and
`
`prosecution history”).
`
`AIT asserts that “it would be nonsensical for application-internal ‘changes’”
`
`such as those that arise from user input to be the “changes that affect the
`
`application” because “[t]hese types of changes have taken place since the first
`
`application was compiled.” POR at 17. The suggestion that no change can affect
`
`an application after the application has been “compiled” is plainly wrong and
`
`indeed makes no sense in the context of the ‘482 patent. As AIT’s own litigation
`
`expert explained, the ‘482 patent does not describe compiling source code to
`
`generate executable code for an application. Instead, a user defines an application
`
`using metadata (corresponding to the first and second layers in the claims) that is
`
`interpreted to generate executable code, and the metadata can be changed at any
`
`time to make changes to an existing application. Ex. 1061 ¶¶ 21, 29. In addition,
`
`user input undoubtedly can affect an executing application, and indeed AIT’s
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`expert concedes that user input can even more narrowly “impact how the
`
`application program should operate.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40, 108; Ex. 1058 at 66:14-17.
`
`Finally, AIT mischaracterizes Dr. Crovella’s deposition testimony as
`
`suggesting that AIT’s narrow construction of “automatically detecting changes” is
`
`“appropriate.” POR at 18-20. In the quotation in the POR, Dr. Crovella explains
`
`that his testimony was “in the context of the specification, which, of course, is
`
`different from the claims I analyze to establish the non-patentability,” and he
`
`merely points out that one of the embodiments in the specification is an intelligent
`
`agent that can “cruise the web.” POR at 18-19. The specification also describes an
`
`embodiment in which intelligent agents pursue “internal” as well as “external Web
`
`activities.” Ex. 1001 at 19:66-67. Nothing in Dr. Crovella’s testimony supports
`
`AIT’s assertion that Dr. Crovella endorsed AIT’s attempt to import limitations into
`
`the claims.
`
`F. AIT Offers No Proper Challenge to Any Ground
`For each ground, AIT’s sole argument is that the art does not meet AIT’s
`
`unduly narrow construction of “automatically detecting changes that affect an
`
`application.” POR at 22-32; Ex. 1058 at 118:3-119:6, 127:5-128:8, 143:2-144:5.
`
`Given that AIT’s construction is improper, AIT offers no basis to revisit the
`
`Institution Decision’s preliminary determinations that the claims are unpatentable
`
`under each ground. Thus, all claims on which trial was instituted should be found
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`unpatentable under each of Grounds 1-4 for the reasons established in the Petition
`
`and its supporting evidence.
`
`III. THE PRIOR ART MEETS EVEN AIT’S NARROW
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`RPX’s expert offers a reply declaration explaining how the prior art relied
`
`upon in each ground meets even AIT’s improperly narrow construction of
`
`“automatically detecting changes that affect an application.” Ex. 1062 ¶¶7-13.
`
`A. Grounds 1 (Popp) and 4 (Popp/Anand)
`For Grounds 1 and 4, AIT asserts only that Popp’s inputControl object does
`
`not automatically detect changes that affect an application (Popp’s generated web
`
`page) because it allegedly does not meet AIT’s construction. POR at 22-25. Dr.
`
`Crovella’s original declaration explained that Popp’s inputControl object 664
`
`automatically detects when a user inputs a change (e.g., by modifying a field to
`
`specify a new employee name) that affects a web page. Ex. 1002 ¶40 (citing Ex.
`
`1004, 22:37-46). Popp explicitly describes a field being “modified” to specify a
`
`new name as a “change to the name value field.” Ex. 1004 at 22:42-43, 22:59-61;
`
`Ex. 1054 (a modification is a “change”).
`
`AIT concedes that “a user’s input may affect the generated web page” and
`
`that Popp “automatically detects changes” (POR at 23), yet still asserts that Popp’s
`
`automatic detection of changes that admittedly affect the application somehow
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`does not teach “automatically detecting changes that affect the application” as
`
`claimed.
`
`AIT asserts that user-entered data Popp explicitly characterizes as a
`
`“change” (e.g., to the name value field) at 22:60 is not a change that is “external to
`
`the application.” POR at 24. This argument misapplies AIT’s own construction,
`
`which does not require detecting changes that are external to the application, but
`
`rather changes that “arise from changes external to the application.” POR at 18;
`
`Ex. 2032 ¶¶ 27, 40. In the above-cited example which Popp describes as a
`
`“change,” the specifying of a new employee name necessarily results from a
`
`change, external to the web page (the application), that prompted the user to enter
`
`the name change via the web page. Ex. 1062 ¶8.
`
`Dr. Jagadish’s declaration asserted that user input in Popp that affects the
`
`web page or its underlying database does not meet AIT’s construction of
`
`“automatically detecting changes that affect an application” because “a user
`
`entering data into an application is not a change that arises from changes external
`
`to the application program.” Ex. 2032 ¶¶60-62. However, at deposition, Dr.
`
`Jagadish conceded that, in fact, user input may arise from changes external to the
`
`application. Ex. 1058 at 66:5-7, 111:7-10. Thus, the only aspect of AIT’s
`
`construction that its POR (22-25) and supporting declarations asserted was lacking
`
`from Popp (i.e., that the changes Popp detects from user-entered data do not arise
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`from changes external to the application) is indeed met by Popp. Id.; See also Ex.
`
`1062 ¶¶8-9.
`
`AIT’s only other argument is the red herring assertion that Popp would not
`
`meet the change management layer if construed in a manner different than the way
`
`AIT’s expert and the remainder of the POR assert it should be construed. POR at
`
`24 (asserting that the claimed automatically detected changes “arise from changes
`
`to metadata about the application program or are external to the application.”); see
`
`§ II.B above.
`
`Popp meets even AIT’s strained and unduly narrow construction of
`
`“automatically detecting changes that affect an application.” Ex. 1062 ¶9.
`
`B. Ground 2 – Kovacevic
`RPX pointed to Kovacevic’s sequencing control primitives as automatically
`
`detecting changes that affect an application. Petition at 32-36; Ex. 1002 ¶108. The
`
`POR asserts that they fail to do so for two reasons. First, the POR asserts that the
`
`changes in Kovacevic do not “arise from changes to metadata about the application
`
`program or are external to an application.” POR at 27. Second, the POR asserts
`
`that the changes detected in Kovacevic are not “external to the application”
`
`because the changes are “accepted as a part of the application – namely user
`
`interaction accepted by the UI.” POR at 27-28. Neither argument accurately
`
`applies the construction the POR and its expert declarations advanced, which refers
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`not to detecting changes that arise from changes to metadata about the application
`
`or changes that are external to the application, but rather to detecting “changes that
`
`arise from changes external to the application.” POR at 18; Ex. 2032 ¶¶ 27, 40.
`
`Dr. Jagadish’s declaration asserted that “no ‘changes’ in Kovacevic appear
`
`to arise from anything other than user interaction. So, these changes never arise
`
`from changes external to the application.” Ex. 2032 ¶69. However, at deposition,
`
`Dr. Jagadish conceded that user input may arise from changes external to the
`
`application. Ex. 1058 at 66:5-7, 111:7-10. In addition, Dr. Crovella explains that a
`
`POSA would have understood that the changes automatically detected in
`
`Kovacevic arise from changes external to the application. Ex. 1062 ¶10. Thus, the
`
`only aspect of AIT’s construction of “automatically detecting changes that affect
`
`an application” that the POR and supporting declarations allege is not met by
`
`Kovacevic (i.e., that the changes Kovacevic detects from user input do not arise
`
`from changes external to the application) is indeed met by Kovacevic. Id. at ¶11.
`
`C. Ground 3 - Balderrama/Java Complete (“JC”)
`AIT’s Arguments Are Limited to Challenging Whether the
`1.
`Combination Meets the “Automatically Detecting Changes
`That Affect an Application” Limitations
`
`The POR and supporting declarations do not challenge the reasons for
`
`combining Balderrama and JC or the resulting combination, but assert solely that
`
`Balderrama’s update/modification detector 82 does not meet the limitations
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`relating to automatically detecting changes that affect the application. POR at 28-
`
`30; Ex. 2032 ¶¶74-82; Ex. 2033 ¶¶56-62.
`
`AIT’s expert characterizes Balderrama’s update/modification detector 82 as
`
`“an application… that detects when a manager has updated a database in a way
`
`that will impact the menu on the point of sale device” and acknowledges that the
`
`“menu” he refers to is the configured presentation 90 Petitioner points to as the
`
`claimed application program. Ex. 2032 ¶75; Petition at 48; Ex. 1058 at 129. At
`
`deposition, Dr. Jagadish initially asserted that Balderrama’s configured
`
`presentation 90 is not an application, but this new argument was not advanced in
`
`his declaration. Ex. 1058 at 130:20-24. Additionally, Dr. Jagadish’s new
`
`argument was directed to Balderrama alone, and not to the obvious combination in
`
`Ground 3, where the order-entry application (configured presentation 90) is
`
`implemented via a Java applet delivered to a Java-enabled browser executing on
`
`Balderrama’s customer terminal. Petition at 44-46. AIT’s expert conceded that it
`
`was known to deliver functionality through Java applets to a browser, that one
`
`could implement Balderrama’s configured presentation 90 with a Java applet sent
`
`to the point of sale device (client), and that in such an implementation the
`
`presentation 90 would indeed be an application running on the client. Ex. 1058 at
`
`150:11-13, 150:21-23, 156:23-157:3, 156:6-12. Dr. Jagadish’s new argument thus
`
`does not apply to the combination actually put forth in Ground 3, and Dr. Jagadish
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`offered no opinion that Ground 3’s browser/Java applet implementation would not
`
`have been obvious. Ex. 1058 at 155:13-16.
`
`AIT mischaracterizes Dr. Crovella’s testimony as “indicat[ing] that
`
`Balderrama does not disclose the change management layer.” POR at 30-31. Dr.
`
`Crovella said no such thing. In the testimony AIT cites, Dr. Crovella explains that
`
`database updates could be made by a person or software; i.e., a person or software
`
`could update the database. Id. This is an entirely different function than the
`
`function performed by detector 82, which automatically detects such updates after
`
`they are made. Dr. Crovella’s testimony did not remotely concede that
`
`Balderrama’s detector 82 does not meet the function performed by the change
`
`management layer.
`
`2.
`
`The Detected Changes in Balderrama Are Metadata
`Changes Different Than Those in Popp and Kovacevic and
`Identical to Those AIT Told the Court Are Covered by the
`Claims
`
`The POR asserts that the same arguments made in connection with Popp and
`
`Kovacevic apply to Balderrama because the changes detected by Balderrama’s
`
`update/modification detector 82 “essentially” are “user input, just like Popp and
`
`Kovacevic.” POR at 29. If this were true, the Balderrama/JC combination would
`
`still meet the construction AIT advances for the reasons discussed above in
`
`connection with Popp and Kovacevic. However, AIT’s assertion is plainly
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`
`incorrect, as the changes detected in Balderrama are not “user input” entered via
`
`the claimed application. Ex. 1062 ¶14.
`
`Just like the embodiments in the ‘482 patent, Balderrama discloses an
`
`application (presentation 90) that is generated based upon first information about
`
`unique aspects of the application (in-store database 86 contains information
`
`particular to a local sales outlet) and second information about user interface and
`
`other functions common to a variety of different applications (template
`
`presentation 80 provided by corporate headquarters is applicable to many different
`
`sales outlets). Ex. 1006 at 1:15-23, 8:67-9:2, 9:16-27; 11:43-46; Ex. 1002 ¶¶151-
`
`154. Database 86 of local information and template presentation 80 from corporate
`
`headquarters correspond to the claimed first and second layers and are directly
`
`analogous to the “application metadata” the ‘482 patent describes as being used to
`
`dynamically generate an application. Ex. 1061 ¶21. Balderrama’s
`
`update/modification detector 82 detects changes made by a manager updating local
`
`database 86, and by corporate headquarters updating template presentation 80. Ex.
`
`1006 at 2:10-21, 10:14-21 and 8:20-9:15; Ex. 1055 (an update is a change). These
`
`are the types of “changes” to application metadata the ‘482 specification describes
`
`as being made by a user. Ex. 1001 at 10:7-10, 15:43-49. AIT argued in litigation
`
`that “changes that affect the application” should be construed to cover precisely
`
`these types of “changes to an application’s metadata.” Ex. 1060 at 5-7.
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`
`AIT’s assertion that Balderrama’s detector 82 “essentially detects user input,
`
`just like Popp and Kovacevic” is plainly incorrect. POR at 29. The “user input”
`
`referenced in Popp and Kovacevic is entered via a user interface of the
`
`dynamically generated “application” referenced in the claims. The “application” in
`
`Balderrama is the configured presentation 90, and Balderrama nowhere describes
`
`local database 86 or template presentation 80 as being updated using the
`
`configured presentation 90. Ex. 1062 ¶14. Instead, Balderrama describes the
`
`database as being updated via a sales outlet store manager and the template
`
`presentation 80 as being updated by corporate headquarters. Ex. 1006 at 8:16-67,
`
`10:7-10.
`
`The changes that detector 82 detects in Balderrama are changes to the
`
`application metadata, and Balderrama teaches that when changes are detected, the
`
`application (presentation 90) is updated to reflect those changes. Ex. 1006 at 2:10-
`
`21; 11:64-67; 12:34-44. AIT told the court that the claims should be construed to
`
`cover detecting precisely these types of “changes to an application’s metadata.”
`
`Ex. 1060 at 5-7.
`
`3.
`
`AIT Fails To Respond to Balderrama’s Detection of
`Changes by Corporate Headquarters
`The Petition and Dr. Crovella’s declaration cite to both types of changes
`
`detected by Balderrama’s update/modification detector 82 – i.e., changes to local
`
`database 86 and updates by corporate headquarters to template presentation 80.
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`
`Petition at 44 (referring to changes to outlet-specific database 86 at 10:14-21 and to
`
`updates to template presentation 80 at 11:64-67) and Petition at 48-49 (see claim
`
`chart citations for change management layer clause); Ex. 1002 at ¶155. The POR
`
`and s