U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`RPX Corporation,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Applications In Internet Time LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`
`
`US Patent No. 7,356,482
`Issue Date: April 8, 2008
`Title: Integrated Change Management Unit
`
`US Patent No. 8,484,111
`Issue Date: July 9, 2013
`Title: Integrated Change Management Unit
`____________________
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Patent Review Nos. 2015-01750, 2015-01751, 2015-01752
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Declaration of H.V. Jagadish
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Qualifications .................................................................................................... 1
`III. Grounds for which the proceedings in IPR2015-01750, IPR2015-01751 and
`IPR2015-01752 were instituted ........................................................................ 4
`IV. Claim construction ............................................................................................ 6
`a. The “application” or “application program” term ............................................ 8
`b. The “change management layer” and the “automatically detecting changes”
`terms in the ‘482 patent .......................................................................................... 9
`c. The “fourth portion” term in claim 13 of the ‘111 patent ................................. 16
`d. The “intelligent agent” term ............................................................................. 16
`V. Popp does not anticipate the claims of the ‘482 patent or the ‘111 patent
`because it does not disclose changes that are external to the application
`program ................................................................................................................. 17
`VI. Kovacevic does not anticipate the claims of the ‘482 patent or the ‘111 patent
`because it does not disclose changes that are external to the application
`program ........................................................................................................... 21
`VII. Balderrama and Java Complete do not render the claims of the ‘482 patent or
`the ‘111 patent obvious because it does not disclose changes that are external
`to the application program .............................................................................. 23
`VIII. Popp in combination with Anand does not render claims 13-17 and 33-37 of
`the ‘482 patent obvious .................................................................................. 26
`IX. Claims 3-6 and 22-26 of the ‘482 patent are not anticipated or obvious in
`view of any of the identified references or combinations .............................. 27
`X. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 27
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)
`
`i
`
`

`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I am a professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at
`
`the University of Michigan. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated below,
`
`and, if called to testify, I could and would testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by the Patent Owner, Applications in Internet
`
`Time (“AIT”), LLC, in this matter. This Declaration sets forth my opinions and the
`
`bases for those opinions regarding the validity of the instituted claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,356,482 (the “’482 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,484,111 (the “’111
`
`patent”)1.
`
`II. Qualifications
`
`3.
`
`All of my opinions stated in this declaration are based on my own
`
`personal knowledge and professional judgment. In forming my opinions, I have
`
`relied on my knowledge and experience in software development practices, and on
`
`the documents and information referenced in this report. I am competent to testify
`
`as to the matters set forth herein.
`
`4.
`
`I am the Bernard A. Galler Collegiate Professor of Electrical
`
`Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Michigan. I am part of the
`
`database group and the software systems laboratory at the University. As a
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`1(cid:3)All references herein are to the ‘482 patent, unless otherwise noted. The ‘482 patent and the ‘111 patent share a
`specification.(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)
`
`1(cid:3)
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`professor, I teach courses related to database management, the web, and data
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`structures and algorithms.
`
`5.
`
`My research focuses on how to build database systems and query
`
`models so that they are truly usable and how to design analytics processes so that
`
`they can deliver real insights to non-technical decision makers. My research is
`
`focused on building computing and data systems that have the “right” end-to-end
`
`capability, in terms of meeting the users’ needs effectively, with minimum effort
`
`on their part.
`
`6.
`
`Attached hereto as Appendix A is a true and correct copy of my
`
`Curriculam Vitae.
`
`7.
`
`I obtained my Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1985, and worked
`
`many years for AT&T where I eventually headed the database department. I began
`
`my work at the University of Michigan in the fall of 1999, and also performed
`
`work at the University of Illinois.
`
`8.
`
`I have published extensively, and am recognized as a leading
`
`researcher in the area of databases.
`
`9.
`
`I am a Fellow of the ACM, and named inventor on 37 United States
`
`patents.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`10.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $660 per hour for my work as
`
`an expert in this case. I am giving my opinion with respect to two related patents,
`
`No. 7,356,482 and No. 8,484,111. My compensation is not dependent on the
`
`content of my opinions or the outcome of this case.
`
`11.
`
`The references I reviewed in preparing this declaration were:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482 patent
`
`Crovella declaration
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,291 (“Popp”)
`
`Srdjan Kovacevic, Flexible, Dynamic User
`
`Interfaces
`
`for Web-Delivered
`
`Training,
`
`Proceedings of the Workshop on Advanced Visual
`
`Interfaces, 1996 (“Kovacevic”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,806,071 (“Balderrama”)
`
`Java Complete!, Datamation, March 1, 1996, pp.
`
`28-49 (“Java Complete”)
`
`1008
`
`E. F. Codd, Does your DBMS run by the rules?,
`
`ComputerWorld, October 21, 1985, pp. 49-60
`
`(“Codd”)
`
`3
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`
`1009
`
`62
`
`60
`
`60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,710,900 (“Anand”)
`
`Decision Granting Institution – Public Version
`(IPR2015-01751)
`Decision Granting Institution – Public Version
`(IPR2015-01752)
`Decision Granting Institution – Public Version
`(IPR2015-01750)
`
`III. Grounds for which the proceedings in IPR2015-01750, IPR2015-
`
`01751 and IPR2015-01752 were instituted
`
`12.
`
`I understand that this inter partes review proceeding was instituted in
`
`IPR2015-01750 for claims 13-18 of the ‘111 patent under the following three
`
`grounds:
`
`(cid:120) Claims 13-18 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Popp;
`
`(cid:120) Claims 13-18 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)by
`
`Kovacevic; and
`
`(cid:120) Claim 13-18 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) in view of
`
`Balderrama and Java Complete;
`
`13.
`
`I understand that this inter partes review proceeding was instituted in
`
`IPR2015-01751 for claims 1, 7, 8, 10-21, and 27-40 of the ‘482 patent under the
`
`following four grounds:
`
`(cid:3)
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`(cid:120) Claims 1, 7, 8, 10–13, 18–21, 27–33, and 38–40 as anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Popp;
`
`(cid:120) Claims 13–17 and 33–37 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`in view of Popp and Anand;
`
`(cid:120) Claims 1, 8, 10, 19–21, 28, 30, 39, and 40 as anticipated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Kovacevic; and
`
`(cid:120) Claims 1, 7, 8, 10–12, 19–21, 27–32, 39, and 40 as obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Balderrama and Java
`
`Complete.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that this inter partes review proceeding was instituted in
`
`IPR2015-01752 for claims 3-6 and 22-26 of the ‘482 patent under the following
`
`five grounds:
`
`(cid:120) Claim 22 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Popp;
`
`(cid:120) Claims 3-6 and 23-26 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`view of Popp and Codd;
`
`(cid:120) Claim 22 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. in view of Balderrama
`
`and Java Complete;
`
`(cid:120) Claims 3-6 and 23-26 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`view of Balderrama, Java Complete, and Codd; and
`
`(cid:3)
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`(cid:120) Claims 3-6 and 23-26 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`view of Kovacevic and Codd.
`
`15.
`
`As will be explained more fully below, it is my view that none of the
`
`cited references anticipate or render obvious the identified claims of the ‘482
`
`patent, or ‘111 patent.
`
`IV. Claim construction
`
`16.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review, claim terms in an
`
`unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R 42.100(b). I have
`
`rendered my opinions herein under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`17.
`
`In performing my analysis and rendering my opinions, I have
`
`interpreted claim terms by giving them the broadest reasonable interpretation they
`
`would have to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), reading the
`
`(cid:1932)482 patent with its relevant priority filing date (December 18, 1998) in mind and
`
`in light of its specification and file history.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that AIT has accepted Petitioner’s standard that a
`
`POSITA would have had at least a B.S. in Computer Science, or the equivalent,
`
`along with at least two years of computer programming experience in developing
`
`applications for client-server systems. I am comfortable with that as well.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`19.
`
`In the relevant time frame of 1998, I had been a computer scientist
`
`for over thirteen years as an engineer at AT&T following my Ph.D. Therefore, at
`
`the relevant time, I was more qualified than a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`1998. However, as an engineer and as head of the database department at AT&T, I
`
`had the privilege of working directly with many engineers at AT&T who were
`
`POSITAs in 1998. Therefore, because of my experience working and leading
`
`POSITAs at AT&T, I can appreciate what was known to them at the time and
`
`within their ability. When preparing my opinions below, I applied the perspective
`
`of such a POSITA in December 1998.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the ‘482 patent comprises three independent claims,
`
`namely claim 1, 21 and 41 and the ‘111 patent comprises one independent claim,
`
`claim 13. However, the IPR proceeding has not been instituted for independent
`
`claim 41 of the ‘482 patent. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 21 of the ‘482
`
`patent, and claim 13 of the ‘111 patent, are addressed in detail below. All of these
`
`claims require either a change management layer or a fourth portion that
`
`automatically detects changes that affect an application.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)
`
`declined to construe any claim terms in either the ‘482 patent or the ‘111 patent.
`
`However, some of the claim terms are not terms of art familiar to me, so to ensure
`
`(cid:3)
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`that the meanings are not inconsistent with the specification, I think a construction
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is necessary.
`
`22.
`
`In reviewing the claims, I determined that the following terms
`
`required construction to enable me to understand the scope of the claim. In
`
`particular, an “application”, the “change management layer”, the “automatically
`
`detecting changes” term, the “intelligent agent” term, and the “fourth portion” term
`
`in the ‘111 patent.
`
`a. The “application” or “application program” term
`
`23.
`
`The appropriate definition of “application” or “application program”
`
`is “a higher level program for use by an end-user to perform specific kind of work
`
`that is useful to the end-user; its work is not related to the computer itself, and
`
`therefore is not a utility.” While an application program can perform specific tasks,
`
`its purpose is broader – performing useful work. The definition is drawn in part
`
`from both of Petitioner’s extrinsic definitions for this term.
`
`24.
`
`I find no fault with the Petitioner’s use of two dictionaries to define
`
`the term “application”, however their proposed definition leaves out the
`
`requirement that the application perform “useful work” on behalf of a user.
`
`25.
`
`In particular, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Crovella states in paragraph 21
`
`of his declaration, “As another example, a web page (e.g. encoded in HTML or
`
`(cid:3)
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`Java) meets these definitions and is an example of an application.” A single web
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`page, with no other operability whatsoever, would not be understood by a person
`
`skilled in the art to be an “application” or “application program” on its own.
`
`Petitioner’s expert’s statement that a single web page, on its own, constitutes an
`
`application is an over-broad reading of the term “application,” and is not supported
`
`by a POSITA’s understanding at the relevant time period, or even by the dictionary
`
`definitions cited by the petitioner.
`
`b. The “change management layer” and the “automatically detecting
`changes” terms in the ‘482 patent
`The term “change management layer” that is used in claim 1 of the
`
`26.
`
`‘482 patent is not a term of art in computer science, so I reviewed the specification
`
`to understand how a POSITA would interpret the term.
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, the broadest reasonable interpretation a POSITA
`
`would apply to a “change management layer” is automatically detecting changes
`
`which impact how the application program should operate. In the context of the
`
`‘482 patent, these “changes” detected by the change management layer arise from
`
`changes external to the application program.
`
`28. My opinion is derived from a review of the ‘482 specification, which
`
`describes the integrated management unit and explains that the system includes
`
`four separate layers. In particular, the ‘482 patent states (col. 9, lines 33-38):
`
`(cid:3)
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`The system operates at four layers, as illustrated in FIG. 1: (1) a
`change management layer 11 that includes one or more change agents
`that "cruise the Web" and identify and bring to the user's attention
`relevant regulatory and non-regulatory changes found on the Web that
`may affect a user's business; (2) a Java data management layer 13, a
`user interface, built using the Java language, that applies metadata
`attributes to business and business-change related data (regulation-
`based or non-regulation-based); (3) a metadata layer 15 that provides
`and/or defines data about every feature of the user interface including,
`without
`limitation,
`tools, worklists, data entry forms, reports,
`documents, processes, formulas, images, tables, views, columns, and
`other structures and functions; and (4) a business content layer 17 that
`is specific to the particular business operations of interest to the user.
`
`29.
`
`Figure 1 of the ‘482 patent shows a change layer that is separate from
`
`the three other layers of the system:
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`30.
`
`As seen in the figure, the system comprises four separate layers: 1)
`
`the change management layer (the “Change Layer” in FIG. 1); 2) the Java Data
`
`Management layer; 3) the Metadata layer, and 4) the Business Content Layer.
`
`31.
`
`The specification explains that the “change layer primarily involves
`
`an intranet or the Internet and uses one or more intelligent agents (IA’s) that
`
`continually search on the Web for relevant changes in a selected business area. The
`
`changes may be regulatory and/or non-regulatory, and each IA is defined by rules
`
`and constraints that focus on the selected business area. When an IA discovers a
`
`relevant change, the IA obtains all available information concerning this change
`
`and delivers this information to the Java data management layer.” (col. 16, lines
`
`17-34).
`
`32.
`
`Directly under the Change layer in figure 1, the ‘482 patent indicates
`
`that “[c]hanges are identified on the Internet using Intelligent Agents and provided
`
`for configuration”.
`
`33.
`
`The ‘482 patent then explains that an intelligent agent is a
`
`“specialized program that makes decisions and performs tasks based on predefined
`
`rules and objectives. An IA can be used to identify changes in laws, statutes,
`
`ordinances, regulations and related issues, changes in technical requirements, to
`
`(cid:3)
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`provide feedback, and to perform Change Configuration tasks.” (col. 19, line 66-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 20, line 6).
`
`34.
`
`Thus, as I understand it, these intelligent agents are employed by the
`
`“change management layer” detect changes in laws, statutes, ordinances,
`
`regulations, and related issues” in order to instruct an application in how it should
`
`be changed.
`
`35.
`
`Notably, none of the examples of “changes” in the ‘482 are in
`
`response to or directed by user interaction with the application or the internal
`
`operations of the application itself.
`
`36.
`
`After the changes are detected, the ‘482 patent system integrates the
`
`changes with end user functions of the application without re-programming the
`
`application. For example, the ‘482 patent states:
`
`The integrated framework of the invention is divided into two
`main groupings, Change Configuration functions and End User
`functions. The Change Configuration functions support creation and
`change of End User functions through a variety of flexible and
`intelligent manual routines, such as intelligent agents, screens, fields,
`reports, documents and logic that can be changed without requiring
`programming skills. The End User functions support business-related
`activities, such as data entry, data analysis, document generation,
`document distribution and reporting, that are utilized by a typical
`business user. (col. 10, lines 3-14).
`
`37. My understanding of the meaning of the “change management layer”
`
`and “changes” fits well within the examples provided in the specification.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`38.
`
`For example, the ‘482 patent explains that regulations and technical
`
`requirements are subject to repeated change, and that these changes are posted in
`
`various media, including paper, microfiche and electronic media.
`
`39.
`
`One example in the ‘482 patent describes changes to the Federal
`
`Register (col. 10, lines 21-60) (emphasis added):
`
`Assume that a federal regulation, governing disposal of
`hazardous waste in landfills, is amended so that the regulation
`now requires analysis, reporting and record keeping of landfill
`samples. Part of the change language addresses what landfill
`sample information must be collected, including landfill type,
`landfill cell, parameter(s) sampled, identification of chain-of-
`custody, and laboratory results. The change is posted in the
`Federal Register and becomes promptly available as a hard
`copy (paper) and electronically, on the Internet.
`The invention begins tracking change using one or more
`intelligent agents ("IA's"). An "intelligent agent"
`is a
`specialized program that resides on a network, or at a server as
`an applet, and can make decisions and perform tasks based on
`pre-defined rules. Preferably, two or more IA's used by a
`business will have sufficiently different assignments that at
`most modest overlap occurs between the IA's. An IA function is
`part of the Logic Menu, which is discussed subsequently.
`A change made to landfill waste regulations is identified
`by an IA on the Internet, and the relevant change information
`is routed to a selected metadata table in the invention. The
`change
`information
`includes one or more of
`five
`recommendations: (1) create a new WorkList; (2) change one or
`more data entry forms; (3) create one or more new reports; (4)
`create a new process; and (5) add one or more new document
`images. Configuration Users can choose to automatically
`configure the preceding recommendation based on a set of
`default
`conditions, or
`can manually
`implement
`the
`configuration using a configuration toolkit.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, the example shown above from the ‘482 specification
`
`would make clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the change
`
`management layer automatically detects changes which impact how the application
`
`program should operate where those “changes” arise from changes external to the
`
`application program. In particular, as evident from the quotation in paragraph 36
`
`above, these changes are explicitly distinguished from End User Functions, such as
`
`providing key-strokes, mouse-clicks, data entry, or other database updates.
`
`41.
`
`In addition, I construed “automatically detecting” which appears in
`
`independent claim 21. Claim 21 recites, “automatically detecting changes that
`
`affect a particular application.” The meaning of “automatically detecting” should
`
`correspond to the change management layer” which impacts how the application
`
`program should operate because it is clear that these two limitations correspond
`
`and the functions are the same. Similarly, the meaning of “changes” in this
`
`limitation are changes that arise from changes external to the application program.
`
`42.
`
`In contrast, Dr. Crovella and the Petitioner suggest that “change
`
`management layer” should be a “mere label for the layer that performs the function
`
`recited in the claim”, namely “automatically detecting changes that affect an
`
`application.” (Crovella Decl. ¶ 23).
`
`(cid:3)
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`43.
`
`At a minimum this proposed definition fails because it provides no
`
`guidance regarding the phrase at all, instead relying up on the text of the claim
`
`itself. Dr. Crovella acknowledges that the term has no established meaning and
`
`therefore requires a construction (Crovella Decl. ¶ 23), but by relying upon the text
`
`of the claim itself, he provides no construction.
`
`44.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed definition is also contrary to the understanding
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time who would understand that the
`
`“changes that affect an application” as claimed in the ‘482 patent do not include
`
`user interactions with the application or the pre-programmed operation of the
`
`application itself. In fact, detecting changes that occur internal to an application
`
`program is precisely what is taught by the “third layer” as disclosed in the ‘482
`
`patent.
`
`45.
`
`Finally, Petitioner’s definition, relied upon by the Board in applying
`
`Petitioner’s selected references, appears to pull within its ambit typical user
`
`interactions and, virtually any other “change” that would not be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to be the “changes that affect an application” as
`
`intended by the ‘482 specification and claims.
`
`46.
`
`Therefore, in my opinion, Dr. Crovella’ and Petitioner’s proposed
`
`definition – which appears to have been adopted by default by the Board – is
`
`(cid:3)
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`broader than the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the claims and the
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specification.
`
`c. The “fourth portion” term in claim 13 of the ‘111 patent
`
`47.
`
`The ‘111 patent includes the claim term “fourth portion.” The full
`
`limitation of claim 13 recites, “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.” (e.g. claim 13).
`
`48.
`
`The phrase “fourth portion of the server” of claim 13 of the ‘111
`
`patent appears to correspond to the “change management layer” or the
`
`“automatically detect[ing] changes” limitation in claims 1 and 21 of the ‘482
`
`patent. At a minimum, the ‘482 patent and the ‘111 patent share a specification
`
`and the associated “changes” are the same. Therefore, the “fourth portion” phrase
`
`should be defined in the same way as the “change management layer” which
`
`automatically detects changes which impact how the application program should
`
`operate. Similarly, the “changes” in claim 13 of the ‘111 patent are changes
`
`external to the application program.
`
`d. The “intelligent agent” term
`
`(cid:3)
`
`49.
`
`Finally, I believe that a definition of an “intelligent agent” is required
`
`for an understanding of the claims. This phrase is actually defined in the
`
`(cid:3)
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`specification. First, “[a]n ‘intelligent agent’ is a specialized program that makes
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`decisions and performs tasks based on predefined rules and objectives.” (col. 20,
`
`lines 1-3.) The ‘482 patent also states that, “[a]n ‘intelligent agent’ is a specialized
`
`program that resides on a network, or at a server as an applet, and can make
`
`decisions and perform tasks based on pre-defined rules.” (10:42-45.)
`
`50.
`
`In view of these two, consistent express definitions, my view is that
`
`an “intelligent agent” must meet the characteristics of these two statements.
`
`V.
`
`Popp does not anticipate the claims of the ‘482 patent or the ‘111
`
`patent because it does not disclose changes that are external to the
`
`application program
`
`51.
`
`Popp describes a system for managing Internet transactions using
`
`web pages. For example, Popp explains that a user can connect to the Internet and
`
`use the Web to connect to a home page. Interactions with web pages were typical
`
`Internet transactions in the relevant time frame.
`
`52.
`
`In Popp, once the user has established a connection to the Internet,
`
`the system may be used to dynamically generate Web pages. As I understand Popp,
`
`it teaches a system that generates Web pages in response to a user’s input.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`53.
`
`RPX’s expert, Dr. Crovella, appears to agree. In his declaration, he
`
`says, “Popp’s system can be used to provide a dynamic user interface for an
`
`internal application that can respond to user input.” (Exh. 1002, p. 18, ¶29).
`
`54.
`
`Yet, when rendering his opinion, Dr. Crovella did not differentiate
`
`between user interaction with software and “intelligent agents” operating as a part
`
`of a “change management layer” such that non-user actions like regulatory changes
`
`are detected. As discussed above, this seems to be an overly-broad interpretation of
`
`that phrase.
`
`55.
`
`In order to anticipate a claim, I understand that Popp must disclose
`
`every limitation of that claim. However, Popp fails to do this.
`
`56.
`
`Dr. Crovella relies upon Popp’s inputControl Object as meeting the
`
`“change management layer” limitation. I disagree with Dr. Crovella’s application
`
`of the inputControl Object to this limitation.
`
`57.
`
`Dr. Crovella and the Board relied upon col. 22, lines 37-46 of Popp
`
`as disclosing this limitation. This reliance is misplaced. The “InputControl Object
`
`664” in Popp relied upon by the Board appears to merely detect user input in to a
`
`text field (e.g. an employee name) within a web page (22:37-42) and then to add
`
`the new text input to a database. (22:42-44). This action by a user causes the
`
`(cid:3)
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`software to replace the old employee name with the newly input name. (22:44-46;
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exh. 1002, ¶ 40).
`
`58.
`
`Popp’s disclosure is typical of web-based interactions in the relevant
`
`time frame, but in no way involves any changes external to the application.
`
`Instead, it relies upon user input into the user interface of the application.
`
`59.
`
`Certainly in Popp a user’s input may affect the generated Web page
`
`or the underlying database, but Dr. Crovella’s assertion that such a disclosure
`
`anticipates the “change management layer” reads the “change management layer”
`
`too broadly and the teachings of Popp too broadly.
`
`60.
`
`Popp discloses an application program that automatically detects
`
`changes from its own operation – interaction with the application’s user interface.
`
`In Popp, a user interacting with the Web page and entering data, causes the
`
`database data to change.
`
`61.
`
`However, a user entering data into an application is not a change that
`
`arises from changes external to the application program. Rather in Popp, the user’s
`
`interaction with the application itself causes a change in Popp’s system, as opposed
`
`to detecting a change external to the application.
`
`62.
`
`Therefore, Popp does not disclose a “change management layer”
`
`which automatically detects changes which impact how the application program
`
`(cid:3)
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Response
`(cid:3)
`should operate where those changes arise external to the application program.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01750
`
` IPR2015-01751
`
` IPR2015-01752
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, since the “fourth portion” should be cons