UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YODLEE, INC. and YODLEE.COM, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-______
`Patent 6,199,077
`_________________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TODD MOWRY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 1
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................... 1
`I.
`PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................... 1
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 5
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................ 7
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 7
`B.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 7
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ACCUSED TECHNOLOGY ................................... 10
`VI. THE ’077 PATENT ....................................................................................... 12
`A. Description of the ’077 Patent ............................................................. 12
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 16
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17
`VIII. PRIOR ART RELIED UPON ....................................................................... 19
`IX. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED REJECTIONS ...................................... 20
`A.
`Claims 1–12 Are Rendered Obvious by Freishtat alone or in
`view of Zhao ........................................................................................ 20
`1.
`Summary of Freishtat ................................................................ 20
`2.
`Eligibility of Freishtat As Prior Art .......................................... 24
`3.
`Summary of Zhao...................................................................... 25
`4.
`Eligibility of Zhao As Prior Art ................................................ 28
`5.
`The Proposed Combination of Freishtat and Zhao ................... 29
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 38
`2.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 52
`3.
`Claim 2 and Claim 8 ................................................................. 53
`4.
`Claim 3 and Claim 9 ................................................................. 54
`5.
`Claim 4 and Claim 10 ............................................................... 54
`6.
`Claim 5 and Claim 11 ............................................................... 55
`7.
`Claim 6 and Claim 12 ............................................................... 56
`Claims 1 through 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`obvious over Sugiarto in view of Brandt ............................................ 58
`1.
`Summary of Sugiarto ................................................................ 59
`2.
`Summary of Brandt ................................................................... 61
`3.
`The Proposed Combination of Sugiarto and Brandt ................. 64
`4. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 64
`5.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .......................................... 66
`8.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 71
`9.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 79
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 2
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`10. Claim 2 and Claim 8 ................................................................. 79
`11. Claim 3 and Claim 9 ................................................................. 80
`12. Claim 4 and Claim 10 ............................................................... 81
`13. Claim 5 and Claim 11 ............................................................... 82
`14. Claim 6 and Claim 12 ............................................................... 83
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 84
`
`X.
`
`
`ii
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 3
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of the Petitioner, Plaid Technologies,
`
`Inc., to provide this Declaration concerning technical subject matter relevant to the
`
`inter partes review of a covered business method patent of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,199,077 (“the ’077 Patent,” and Ex. 1001).
`
`2.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`stated in this Declaration and could testify competently to them if asked to do so.
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I am a Professor in the Department of Computer Science at Carnegie
`
`Mellon University. I also have a courtesy appointment in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering. I have served on the faculty of Carnegie
`
`Mellon University for eighteen (18) years starting in 1997 through the present
`
`(2015).
`
`4.
`
`I also served on the faculty of the University of Toronto for four (4)
`
`years between 1993 and 1997, in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering and a courtesy appointment in the Department of Computer Science.
`
`Prior to that appointment, I served as a Graduate Research Assistant in the
`
`Department of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University for four (4) years
`
`between 1989 and 1993.
`
`5.
`
`As a faculty member, I have taught and continue to teach courses and
`
`1
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 4
`
`

`
`
`
`directed research in computer systems and software, operating systems, distributed
`
`and network systems, object-oriented programming and design, and mobile
`
`computing.
`
`6.
`
`I received a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering with Highest
`
`Distinction from the University of Virginia in May 1988. I received an M.S. in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in June 1989, and a Ph.D. in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in March 1994.
`
`7.
`
`I have worked in the computer industry in various capacities. I was a
`
`part-time Computer Architect and then Computer Architecture Consultant at
`
`Silicon Graphics, Inc. in Mountain View, California (formerly MIPS Computer
`
`Systems in Sunnyvale, California) from 1989 to 1993 and 1993 to 1996,
`
`respectively. I was a Visiting Scientist at IBM in Toronto from 1996 to 2004.
`
`During that same time period (1996 to 2004), I was also a Member of the
`
`Technical Advisory Board of SandCraft, Inc. in Santa Clara, California. I was the
`
`Director of the Intel Research Pittsburgh Lab at Intel Corporation in Pittsburgh,
`
`Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2007.
`
`8.
`
`I have authored 19 journal articles and 55 conference papers. I am
`
`also an inventor on 5 patents.
`
`9.
`
`I have published a number of papers in the top research conferences in
`
`the fields of operating systems and data storage and retrieval (including a paper
`
`2
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 5
`
`

`
`
`that won the Best Paper Award at the USENIX 2nd Symposium on Operating
`
`Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI ’96)). I have also been an active
`
`member of the Parallel Data Lab at Carnegie Mellon University since 1997,
`
`described as “academia’s premiere storage systems research center.”1
`
`10.
`
`I am the recipient of several honors and awards: the Arthur Samuel
`
`Thesis Award (awarded by the Stanford Computer Science department to the top
`
`two Ph.D. theses in a given year), several IBM Faculty Development Awards
`
`(1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003), several Best Paper Awards (the
`
`Second Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation in 1996;
`
`the 20th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) in 2004), the
`
`Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship (awarded to researchers in recognition of
`
`distinguished performance and a unique potential to make substantial contributions
`
`to their field), the Most Thought-Provoking Idea Award (awarded by the
`
`Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems
`
`(ASPLOS), in 2004), and the TR100 Award (awarded by MIT’s Technology
`
`Review magazine to the top 100 most promising young innovators in science and
`
`technology, in 1999).
`
`
`1 See the Parallel Data Lab website at http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/.
`
`3
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 6
`
`

`
`
`
`11.
`
`I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE) and the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM). I am the Editor-in-
`
`Chief of ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (since 2013), which is the
`
`premier journal for computer systems research. (I was an Associate Editor for the
`
`journal prior to that, since 2001). I was the Program Chair of the International
`
`Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating
`
`Systems (ASPLOS) in 2010. I was the Co-Program Chair of the International
`
`Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT) in
`
`2001. I have been on the programming committee in various years for ASPLOS,
`
`the International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), the International
`
`Symposium on Microarchitectures, the Workshop on Architectural and System
`
`Support for Improving Format) Workshop.
`
`12. Overall, I have over twenty-three (23) years of experience in the field
`
`of computer science and, specifically, computer architecture, compiler
`
`optimizations, operating systems, and parallel processing. A copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae, including references to the publications I authored, is attached to
`
`my Report as Appendix A.
`
`13.
`
`In light of the foregoing, I consider myself to be an expert in the field
`
`of computer science, and believe that I am qualified to provide an opinion as to
`
`what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, known, or
`
`4
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 7
`
`

`
`
`
`concluded regarding the subject matter of the ’077 Patent the time of its alleged
`
`invention.
`
`14.
`
`I am being compensated for the time I have spent on this action at my
`
`customary rate of $600 per hour, plus reimbursement for expenses. My
`
`compensation does not depend in any way upon the opinions or testimony that I
`
`provide or the outcome of this action.
`
`15. My opinions expressed herein are based on review and analysis of
`
`certain information obtained in connection with my work on this matter, together
`
`with my training, education, and experience. The opinions expressed herein are
`
`my own.
`
`16.
`
`In my analysis, I considered the ’077 Patent and its file history, as
`
`well as the prior art and other documentation discussed below.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`17. Throughout this report, I consider the issues from the perspective of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art in or around December 1998, the earliest
`
`date to which the ’077 Patent could claim priority.
`
`18. The ’077 Patent is titled “Server-side Web Summary Generation and
`
`Presentation” and describes a an Internet Portal system which provides access to
`
`previously identified Internet destinations, retrieves information from these
`
`destinations, and compiles and delivers the retrieved information for an end user.
`
`5
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 8
`
`

`
`
`
`Generally categorized, the ’077 Patent deals with methods for logging into
`
`websites and gathering personal data from them.
`
`19.
`
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art around December 1998 for the technology described in the ’077
`
`Patent, I considered a number of factors, including how web-based information
`
`retrieval systems were designed and implemented at and before that time, the
`
`nature of problems encountered in this field, and the pace at which innovations
`
`were made at that time. I also considered the educational background and
`
`experience of those actively working in the field.
`
`20.
`
`It is my opinion that for the purposes of the ’077 Patent, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, at the time the patent was filed, would be one having a
`
`Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related
`
`scientific field, and some work experience in the computer science field which
`
`could include programming experience. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would possess a combination of education and experience in certain
`
`relevant fields of computer science, such as graphical user interface design, and
`
`knowledge of software design, data structures, operating systems, archiving
`
`systems, and client-server computing. I recognize that someone with less technical
`
`education but more practical experience, or more technical education but less
`
`practical experience, could also have been considered a personal of ordinary skill
`
`6
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 9
`
`

`
`
`
`in the art.
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A. Claim Construction
`I have been informed by counsel and therefore understand that the
`21.
`
`first step in determining the validity of an asserted claim is for the claim to be
`
`properly construed.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in proceedings before the Board, patent claims are to
`
`be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the teachings of
`
`the specification and file history.
`
`23.
`
`I have reviewed Petitioner’s proposed constructions as explicitly
`
`identified in the Petition, and I agree that those constructions reflect the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of those claims. I understand that the Board has not yet
`
`construed the terms in this proceeding, and I reserve the right to supplement this
`
`Declaration based on alternative constructions proposed by the Patent Owner and
`
`the constructions adopted by the Board to the extent that these constructions differ
`
`from those proposed by Petitioner.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 if the
`24.
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`7
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 10
`
`

`
`
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`
`Rationales that may support a finding of obviousness include:
`
`• combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`• simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`• use of known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`• applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`• “obvious to try” — choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`• known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it
`for use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`• some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`invention.
`25. Even if one reference does not show the whole of the invention, if it
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time
`
`to add the missing pieces to the invention (for example as a matter of standard
`
`engineering practice or application of a well-known principle in the field), then a
`
`single reference can render a claim invalid even if it does not show the whole
`
`invention. Moreover, a combination of two or more references can render a claim
`
`8
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 11
`
`

`
`
`
`invalid as obvious whether or not there is an explicit suggestion in one of the
`
`references to combine the two references, if as a matter of engineering skill or
`
`practice in the field it would be known to do so. That said, I understand that it is
`
`impermissible to simply engage in hindsight reconstruction of the claimed
`
`invention, using the applicant’s invention as a template and selecting elements
`
`from the references to fill the gaps.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the obviousness inquiry is based on the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claim, the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, and any objective evidence
`
`(secondary indicia) of non-obviousness, to the extent they exist.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that an inquiry pertinent to secondary indicia of non-
`
`obviousness may include, for example, evidence of:
`
`• long-felt and unmet need in the art that was satisfied by the
`invention of the patent;
`• failure of others to achieve the results of the invention;
`• commercial success or lack thereof of the products and processes
`covered by the invention;
`• deliberate copying of the invention by others in the field;
`• taking of licenses under the patent by others;
`• and praise of the invention by others skilled in the art.
`I also understand that there must be a nexus between any such
`
`28.
`
`secondary indicia of non-obviousness and the invention, which it is the patentee’s
`
`9
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 12
`
`

`
`
`
`burden to show. I understand that absent a nexus, any evidence of secondary
`
`inddicia is to be given little to no probative weight.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ACCUSED TECHNOLOGY
`
`29. By the early-to-mid 1990s, computers had started to become
`
`household items, and the world saw an explosion of content become available to
`
`individuals using the World Wide Web. As people’s connectivity increased, so too
`
`did their ability to “access various types of information, disseminate information,
`
`and be exposed to electronic commerce activities, all with a great degree of
`
`freedom.” U.S. Patent No. 6,401,118 (“Thomas”) (Ex. 1016), 1:18–29.
`
`30. While the proliferation of web-based content increased access to
`
`information, it also brought with it the problem of finding efficient, user-friendly
`
`methods for accessing that data. As a result, software solutions that provided for
`
`the collection and delivery of data on the web had become well known to those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art before December 1998.
`
`31.
`
`In one example, U.S. Patent No. 6,317,783 to Freishtat (the “’783
`
`Patent” or “Freishtat,” Ex. 1003) discloses “an apparatus and process for
`
`automated aggregation and delivery of electronic personal information or data
`
`(PI).” Id., 1:23–26. Freishtat explains that “the portal strategy was successfully
`
`adopted as an efficient way for consumers to easily access a variety of content
`
`sources in a single, easy to use format.” Id., 1:50–53. However, “[a]s the volume
`
`10
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 13
`
`

`
`
`
`of available online content continues to grow exponentially; portals are now
`
`confronted with the need to make different types of content available to different
`
`consumers based upon their particular preferences and tastes.” Id., 1:53–57.
`
`32.
`
`In another, U.S. Patent No. 6,278,449 to Sugiarto (“Sugiarto”) (Ex.
`
`1007) describes an apparatus which “collect[s] information from various web
`
`pages from the worldwide web internet, configure[s] this various information in
`
`accordance with a predefined user configuration file, defined by a particular user,
`
`and transmit[s] the configured various information to a highly portable internet
`
`access device.” Sugiarto, Ex. 1007, 2:10–17.
`
`33.
`
`In another still, Zhao, “Technical Note, WebEntree: A Web Service
`
`Aggregator,” (1998) (“Zhao,” Ex. 1009), teaches a single-log-in Web service
`
`aggregator with a centralized access control and content customization facility.
`
`Zhao, Ex. 1009, 584. “The owner of the aggregated Web service can keep each
`
`component’s original branding, add more information, filter out certain content, or
`
`customize the presentations.” Id.
`
`34. As new aggregation and delivery services developed, those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art recognized that much of the personal information available
`
`on the WWW is only accessible after the user has been authenticated, for example,
`
`by providing his or her login credentials (username and password). In order to
`
`11
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 14
`
`

`
`
`
`automate and streamline this process, skilled artisans developed simulated web
`
`clients that simulated the user providing his or her credentials.
`
`35.
`
`In one example, U.S. Patent No. 5,892,905 to Brandt et al. (“Brandt”)
`
`(Ex. 1008) describes “the capability to easily access many different application
`
`programs over the WWW via a standardized [graphical user interface].” Id., 3:57–
`
`60. In Brandt, a gateway accesses a user library to obtain authentication data
`
`needed to access software applications for the user. Id., 12:15–17. The gateway
`
`then logs the user onto a requested service using normal security procedures. Id.,
`
`12:28–28.
`
`36. Likewise, Freishtat purports to “alleviate[] several of the problems
`
`with the current PI acquisition methods by automatically aggregating PI, not only
`
`generic PI as aggregated by portals but also PI specific to the end user requiring
`
`identity verification for access.” Freishtat, Ex. 1003, 4:21–26.
`
`37. Systems and methods for data aggregation and delivery had
`
`significant developments during this time period. Thus, those of skill in the art
`
`would have been aware of the teachings of the disclosures above.
`
`VI. THE ’077 PATENT
`A. Description of the ’077 Patent
`I understand that the ’077 Patent claims methods and systems “for
`38.
`
`gathering data specific to a person from a plurality of Internet sites.” Ex. 1001,
`
`12
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 15
`
`

`
`
`
`claim 7. More specifically, the Patent describes an Internet Portal system which
`
`provides access to previously identified Internet destinations, retrieves information
`
`from these destinations, and compiles and delivers the retrieved information for an
`
`end user. Ex. 1001, 2:59-67. The described system purports to allow users to
`
`“quickly access multiple WEB sites without lengthy log-in procedures” and to
`
`collect and compile data from “a summary search.” Ex. 1001, 3:12-16.
`
`39. According to the specification, three Internet servers 23, 25, and 27
`
`represent Internet servers hosted by various enterprises, such as bank servers,
`
`investment servers, or airline/travel servers, and subscribed to by a user operating
`
`Internet-capable appliance 17. Id., 4:39–42. The user connects to portal system 11
`
`by ISP 15 and gains access to “a personalized, interactive WEB page, which in
`
`turn provides access to any one of a number of servers on Internet 13, such as
`
`servers 23, 25, and 27.” Id., 4:51–58.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 16
`
`

`
`
`
`40. One of the disclosed personalized, interactive WEB pages may be
`
`seen on a display monitor of a user, as shown in Fig. 2. Id., 5:4–8.
`
`
`
`41.
`
`In the ’077 Patent, the user provides the system with his individual
`
`authentication information for a plurality of selected destinations, shown above as
`
`“LBC.com,” “My Bank.com,” etc. Id., 5:50–65. Thereafter, the system allows the
`
`user to access each of the plurality of pre-selected webpages without having to
`
`enter login information for each page. Id.
`
`42.
`
`In addition, the specification includes additional disclosure related to
`
`the so-called “Enhanced Agent for WEB Summaries.” See id., 9:53-17:50.
`
`According to the ’077 Patent, “a software agent, termed a gatherer by the
`
`inventors, is adapted to gather and return summary information about URL’s
`
`according to user request or enterprise discretion.” Id. at 9:54–57. Looking again
`
`to Figure 2, above, “[o]ne of the tools available to a subscriber interacting with list
`
`14
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 17
`
`

`
`
`
`34 is agent (software) 39. Agent 39 may be programmed to perform certain tasks
`
`such as obtaining account information, executing simple transactions, returning
`
`user-requested notification information about upcoming events, and so on. Search
`
`function 37 and update function 43 may be integrated with agent 39 as required to
`
`aid in functionality.” Id. at 10:19–25. Agent 39 may further include a “gatherer,”
`
`or a software application with a client interface layer that allows for direct user
`
`input. Id. at 10:55–61. The specification further discloses, as an example of the
`
`Enhanced Agent for WEB Summaries, that
`
`a user may enter a request to return a summary of pricing for all
`apartments renting for under $1000.00 per month located in a
`given area (defined by the user) from apartments.com (one of
`user’s registered WEB sites). The just mentioned request
`would be categorized as either a periodic request, or a one time
`(on demand) request. The communicated request initiates a
`service action wherein a knowledge worker associated with the
`service uses module 79 to set-up gatherer 67 to perform its
`function.
`Id. at 11:22–35. Furthermore, “[a] parsing engine 87 is provided and adapted to
`
`parse individual WEB sites according to a template created via scripting module
`
`79.” Id. at 12:35–37. Finally, “[a] data processing layer 75 is provided and
`
`adapted to store, process, and present returned data to users according to enterprise
`
`rules and client direction.” Id. at 12:35–37.
`
`15
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 18
`
`

`
`
`
`43.
`
`I understand that the ’077 Patent includes claims 1–12, of which
`
`claims 1 and 7 are independent.
`
`44.
`
`In my opinion, the ’077 Patent discusses well-known prior art
`
`elements used in a predictable manner.
`
`B.
`45.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`I understand
`
`that Application No. 09/323,598
`
`(“the
`
`’598
`
`Application”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for Providing and Maintaining a
`
`User-Interactive Portal System Accessible via Internet or other Switched-Packet-
`
`Network,” was filed on June 1, 1999. I also understand that the ’598 Application
`
`was filed as a continuation-in-part of Application No. 09/208,740 (“the ’740
`
`Application”), filed on Dec. 8, 1998.
`
`46.
`
`It is my understanding that Petitioner contends that this priority claim
`
`does not apply to the issued claims of the ’077 Patent, even though the grounds
`
`asserted apply equally to either priority date. It is my opinion, based on the redline
`
`comparison attached to the Petition (Ex. 1005), that the ’740 Application does not
`
`provide an adequate written description or enabling disclosure for the claims of the
`
`’077 Patent.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that, during prosecution of the ’598 Application, all of
`
`Applicants’ claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over U.S. Patent No. 5,983,227 (“Nazem”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,029,182
`
`16
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 19
`
`

`
`
`
`(“Nahab”). ’077 Patent File History, Ex. 1006. I understand the applicants
`
`submitted an Amendment and Response to this rejection, in which applicants
`
`amended the claims to require “(a) that the sites accessed are sites that store
`
`information specific to a person; (b) that the sites accessed are associated with the
`
`specific person by virtue of being sites on a list at the Portal, the list associated
`
`with the person; (c) the software suite comprising a set of gathering agents with at
`
`least one gatherer specific to each cite accessed; and (d) that the Portal
`
`authenticates to individual sites as the person.” Id. I understand that in light of
`
`these amendments, the Examiner withdrew its rejection and granted the ’0598
`
`Application as the ’077 Patent. Id.
`
`48. As I explained above and in detail below, all the elements claimed in
`
`the ’077 Patent were in common use by December 1998.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I understand that for purposes of this inter partes review proceeding,
`49.
`
`in comparing the claim language to the prior art, I am to construe that claim
`
`language as a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would do in light of the specification. I also understand that in proceedings before
`
`the Board, patent claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`consistent with the teachings of the specification and file history.
`
`50.
`
`I have reviewed the claim constructions explicitly set forth in the
`
`17
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 20
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition from that perspective and, in my opinion, believe the constructions are
`
`consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification.
`
`At this time, I have no opinion as to whether these constructions would be the
`
`proper constructions for any district court litigation involving the ’077 Patent.
`
`51. Moreover, for terms where the parties have proposed different
`
`constructions in the Co-Pending District Court Action, it is my opinion that the
`
`proposed grounds of invalidity render the claims obvious under either Patent
`
`Owner’s or Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`
`52. To one of skill in the art at the time of the ’077 Patent, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the term(s) “Internet Portal (System)” would be “a
`
`website, requiring user authentication, used to connect with Internet destination[s]
`
`on behalf of end users and retrieve personal information.” I understand that this
`
`construction is consistent with how the term was previously construed by a District
`
`Court in litigation involving the ’077 Patent and a related patent that included a
`
`claim to an “Internet Portal system.” Yodlee, Inc. v. CashEdge, Inc., No. C 05-
`
`01550 SI, slip op. (N.D. Cal., July 7, 2006) (Ex. 1011) (“the CashEdge
`
`Proceeding”).
`
`53. To one of skill in the art at the time of the ’077 Patent, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the terms “gatherer” and “gathering software agents”
`
`would be “a software component and/or related data that once processed can be
`
`18
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 21
`
`

`
`
`
`employed to locate and retrieve information from Internet destinations based on
`
`user or enterprise request.” I understand that this construction is consistent with
`
`how the term was construed in the CashEdge Proceeding. Ex. 1011.
`
`54. To one of skill in the art at the time of the ’077 Patent, under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the term “at least one gatherer agent
`
`dedicated to each of the Internet sites” would not mean that one gatherer cannot be
`
`used for two separate sites. I understand that this construction is consistent with
`
`how the term was construed in the CashEdge Proceeding. Ex. 1011.
`
`VIII. PRIOR ART RELIED UPON
`55. The present petition states invalidity grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`using the following patents and printed publication prior art:
`
`– U.S. Patent No. 6,317,783 to Freishtat (Ex. 1003), issued on Nov. 13, 2001,
`
`claiming priority to Provisional Application No. 60/105,917 (“the ’917
`
`Application”), filed Oct. 28, 1998; this reference is prior art under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`– Y. Zhao, “Technical Note, WebEntree: A Web Service Aggregator,” 37
`
`IBM Sys. J. 584 (1998) (Ex. 1009), published Oct. 1998; this reference is
`
`prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`– U.S. Patent No. 6,278,449 to Sugiarto et al. (Ex. 1007), issued Aug. 21,
`
`2001, filed on Sept. 3, 1998; this reference is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`19
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc. Ex. 1004
`Page 22
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`– U.S. Patent No. 5,892,905 to Brandt et al. (Ex. 1008), issued Apr. 6, 1999,
`
`filed on Dec. 23, 1996; this reference is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`IX. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED REJECTIONS
`A. Claims 1–12 Are Rendered Obvious by Freishtat alone or in view
`of Zhao
`56. After studying the prior art mentioned above in detail, it is my opinion
`
`that a person of ordinary