IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 42342-0001IP1
`
`In re Patent of: Unbedacht et al.
`U.S. Pat. No.: 7,827,483
`
`Issue Date:
`Nov. 2, 2010
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/752,048
`Filing Date:
`Jan. 6, 2004
`Title:
`REAL TIME PREVIEW
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DANIEL A. MENASCÉ
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`MS 1003
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED ................................................. 14
`
`I. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORl\/[ED ............................................... ..l4
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE
`ART WOULD HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF
`THE ’483 PATENT ................................................................................................. 14
`
`THE ’483 PATENT ............................................................................................... ..14
`
`A. WYSIWYG Document Editing Programs and GUIs ..................................... 17
`A. WYSIWYG Document Editing Programs and GUIs ................................... .. 17
`
`B. Command Codes............................................................................................. 23
`
`B. Command Codes ........................................................................................... ..23
`
`C. Stacks and Undo Operations in Document Processing Applications ............. 26
`C. Stacks and Undo Operations in Document Processing Applications ........... ..26
`
`D. Providing a Display of Available Commands ................................................ 30
`D. Providing a Display of Available Commands .............................................. ..30
`
`III.
`
`III.
`
`INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’483 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE ......... 33
`
`INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’483 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE ....... ..33
`
`IV. ANALYSIS OF WORDPERFECT IN VIEW OF QUARKEXPRESS, IBM,
`IV. ANALYSIS OF WORDPERFECT IN VIEW OF QUARKEXPRESS, IBM,
`AND BAKER .......................................................................................................... 35
`
`AND BAKER ........................................................................................................ ..35
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ....................................................................................... 88
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... ..88
`
`A. Anticipation .................................................................................................... 88
`A. Anticipation .................................................................................................. ..88
`
`B. Obviousness .................................................................................................... 89
`
`B. Obviousness .................................................................................................. ..89
`
`VI. ADDITIONAL REMARKS ........................................................................... 90
`
`VI. ADDITIONAL REMARKS ......................................................................... ..9O
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE
`
`ART WOULD HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF
`
`

`
`I, Dr. Daniel A. Menascé, of Cabin John, MD, declare that:
`
`1.
`
`I am a University Professor of Computer Science at George Mason
`
`University (“GMU”) in Fairfax, Virginia. I have been informed that “University
`
`Professor” is the highest rank conferred by GMU’s President and Board of Visitors
`
`to “its faculty women and men of great national or international reputation. The
`
`rank of University Professor is reserved for such eminent individuals.” See Section
`
`2.2.5 of GMU’s Faculty Handbook, available at http://www.gmu.edu/resources
`
`/facstaff/handbook/ GMU_FACULTY_HANDBOOK-2014_Final.pdf. I am
`
`honored to be among a very select group of Full Professors at GMU who become
`
`University Professors.
`
`2.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of
`
`California at Los Angeles (“UCLA”) in 1978. I obtained a Master of Science
`
`degree in Computer Science in 1975, as well as a Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering in 1974, both from the Pontifical Catholic University in Rio
`
`de Janeiro, Brazil (“PUC-Rio”).
`
`3.
`
`I have been a Professor of Computer Science at GMU since 1992.
`
`Prior to joining GMU, from 1978-1992, I was Professor of Computer Science and
`
`Chair of the Computer Science Department at PUC-Rio. During this time, I have
`
`also held visiting faculty positions at the University of Maryland Institute for
`
`Advanced Computer Studies (“UMIACS”), University of Maryland, College Park,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`and at the University of Rome, Italy. From 1981 to 1991, I was the co-founder and
`
`CEO of Tecnosoft, a software company that specialized in the development of
`
`large computerized information systems for companies such as Brazilian oil
`
`company Petrobras and Brazilian telecommunications company Embratel. I
`
`designed and personally directed the development of these information systems for
`
`these and other customers. Tecnosoft also developed and commercialized two
`
`database management systems and a software system for capacity planning and
`
`Service Level Agreement (“SLA”) prediction of computer systems.
`
`4.
`
`I have devoted the past 40 years of my professional career to the area
`
`of computer science and in particular to the fields of electronic commerce, Web-
`
`based systems, database design and management, performance modeling and
`
`analysis, service-oriented architectures, software performance engineering, secure
`
`computer systems, autonomic computing, and operating systems. My field of
`
`expertise includes the study and comparison of computer-based systems and
`
`software architectures for commercial applications, including information systems
`
`in a variety of settings, from PCs to secure networked and Web-based
`
`environments.
`
`5.
`
`During my time at GMU, I was the lead designer of GMU’s Executive
`
`Master of Secure Information Systems, the Founding Director of its Master of
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Science in E-commerce program, and the founding co-Director of GMU’s E-
`
`Center for E-Business.
`
`6.
`
`Also during my time at GMU, I co-founded the Center for the New
`
`Engineer (“CNE”) in 1993, and was the Associate Director of CNE from 1993 to
`
`1998.
`
`7.
`
`Under my direction, CNE created a library of Web-accessible
`
`interactive tutorial modules that covered eight topics in computer science, one in
`
`general engineering, a refresher for high-school math, and a refresher for college
`
`statistics.
`
`8.
`
`In 1998, CNE was renamed the HyperLearning Center (“HLC”) (see
`
`http://cs.gmu.edu/cne/), and I became its director until 2001, when the Center
`
`ceased to exist. CNE and HLC received over $3.4 million in research funding
`
`from the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects
`
`Agency (“DARPA”), the National Science Foundation (“NSF”), and the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”).
`
`9.
`
`From 2005 to 2012, I was the Senior Associate Dean of the Volgenau
`
`School of Engineering at GMU (“School of Engineering”). As Senior Associate
`
`Dean, I was in charge of research, graduate programs, graduate admissions,
`
`promotion and tenure of the faculty, and Web information systems for the entire
`
`School of Engineering. As Senior Associate Dean of the School of Engineering, I
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`was also the director of the school’s Ph.D. degree program in Information
`
`Technology. In that role, I attended all doctoral dissertation defenses to make a
`
`final determination whether the doctorate should be awarded before appending my
`
`signature.
`
`10. During my academic career, I have taught a variety of courses at the
`
`graduate and undergraduate level and developed systems using, a variety of data
`
`structures and graphical user interfaces. I have also been the dissertation advisor
`
`of 26 Ph.D. students and 52 M.S. students.
`
`11.
`
` I am the author of more than 240 peer-reviewed technical papers that
`
`have appeared in journals and conference proceedings. My publications have
`
`received over 9,500 citations, and I was informed that my h-index is 47. (The h-
`
`index is an index that attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of the
`
`published work of a scientist or scholar. The index is based on the set of a
`
`scientist’s most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in
`
`other publications.)
`
`12.
`
`I have received several lifetime achievement awards and recognitions,
`
`including elevation to the rank of Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) for “contributions to research and education in
`
`performance evaluation of computer systems”; induction as a Fellow of the
`
`Association of Computing Machinery (“ACM”) for “fundamental contributions to
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`education and practice of computer networks and performance evaluation, and
`
`material contributions to the establishment of a strong computing industry in
`
`Brazil”; a finalist in the 2016 and 2014 statewide Outstanding Faculty Award
`
`competitions among all faculty members of all disciplines in all public and private
`
`higher education institutions of Virginia; the 2001 A.A. Michelson Award, a
`
`lifetime achievement award given by the Computer Measurement Group, for my
`
`contributions to computer metrics; the 2009 Outstanding Research Faculty award
`
`by the Volgenau School of Engineering at GMU; the 2000 Teaching Excellence
`
`award from GMU; the 1999 Outstanding Teaching award from the School of
`
`Engineering at GMU; and several best paper awards.
`
`13. The external funding for my research exceeds $7.4 million and has
`
`been provided by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research
`
`Projects Agency (“DARPA”), the United States Air Force Office of Scientific
`
`Research (“AFOSR”), the United States National Aeronautic and Space
`
`Administration (“NASA”), the National Science Foundation (“NSF”), the National
`
`Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (“NGA”), the National Institute of Standards and
`
`Technology (“NIST”), Dominion Virginia Power, Virginia’s Center for Innovative
`
`Technology (“CIT”), OPNET Technologies, TRW, Hughes Applied Information
`
`Systems, the Embratel, the Brazilian Research Council (“CNPq”), the Brazilian
`
`Ministry of Science and Technology, and IBM Brazil.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`14.
`
`I have consulted for many government organizations and private
`
`companies, including the U.S. Army, NASA, the U.S. Mint, the Defense
`
`Information Systems Agency (“DISA”), the Ballistic Missile Defense
`
`Organization, the National Institutes of Health, IBM, SABRE (travelocity.com),
`
`United Online (netzero.com), Lockheed Martin, Capital One, and the Inter-
`
`American Development Bank.
`
`15.
`
`I have experience with the design of complex data-intensive
`
`distributed information systems in the commercial arena through Tecnosoft, the
`
`company I founded and managed from 1981 to 1991, and in the scientific domain
`
`where I helped NASA design the federated architecture of its Earth Orbiting
`
`System Data and Information System (“EOSDIS”). For the latter work, I received
`
`the outstanding paper award from the IEEE International Conference on
`
`Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, Southern Florida, USA, November 6-
`
`10, 1995, for the paper “A Performance-Oriented Design Methodology for Large-
`
`Scale Distributed Data Intensive Information Systems.”
`
`16.
`
`I have been invited to give keynote addresses at several conferences,
`
`universities, and companies around the world. Examples include:
`
`
`
`“Resource Optimization for IaaS and SaaS Providers,” Invited Talk,
`
`International Computer Measurement Group Conference, San Antonio, TX,
`
`November 3, 2015;
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`“Autonomic Computing: a new design principle for complex
`
`systems,” Gran Sasso Science Institute, L'Aquila, Italy, May 26, 2015;
`
`
`
`“On the Use of Performance Models in Autonomic Computing,”
`
`Congress of the Brazilian Computer Society, Curitiba, Brazil, July 18, 2012;
`
`
`
`“Self-Architecting Software Systems,” University at Buffalo,
`
`September 20, 2011;
`
`
`
`“Virtualization and the On-Demand Data Center,” Green Computing
`
`Summit, Washington, DC, December 3, 2008;
`
`
`
`“Achieving QoS in Complex Distributed Systems through Autonomic
`
`Computing,” Alcatel Technical Academy, Antwerp, Belgium, October 3,
`
`2005;
`
`
`
`“Quality of Service Challenges for Web Based Systems and E-
`
`commerce,” E-Quality Research Center, University of Twente, The
`
`Netherlands, September 30, 2005;
`
`
`
`“On the Use of Online Performance Models in Autonomic
`
`Computing,” IBM Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, NY, July 15, 2004;
`
`
`
`“QoS Challenges and Directions for Large Distributed Systems,”
`
`Workshop on Quality of Service for Geographically Distributed Systems,
`
`Rome, Italy, June 9, 2004;
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`“Self-Managing E-commerce Sites,” WWW/Internet 2003 IADIS
`
`International Conference, November 6, 2003, Algarve, Portugal;
`
`
`
`“Software, Performance, or Engineering?,” Third International
`
`Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2002), July 24-26, 2002,
`
`Rome, Italy;
`
`
`
`“QoS Issues in Web and E-commerce Services,” Distinguished
`
`Lecturer Series, Computer Science and Engineering Division, University of
`
`Michigan, October 25, 2001;
`
`
`
`“Using Performance Models to Dynamically Control E-Commerce
`
`Performance,” 2001 Aachen International Multiconference on Measurement,
`
`Modeling, and Evaluation of Computer-Communication Systems, Aachen,
`
`Germany, September 12, 2001; and
`
`
`
`“Understanding Workloads in E-Business,” Microsoft Research,
`
`Seattle, WA, May 1, 2001.
`
`17.
`
`I was the General Chair of ACM’s 2007 Federated Computing
`
`Research Conference (“FCRC”) held in June 2007 in San Diego. I was informed
`
`that this conference is the largest and most prestigious research event in the
`
`computer science field and includes sixteen co-located conferences and many
`
`workshops with a total attendance of more than 2,000 researchers.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`18.
`
`I am a member of the editorial board of ACM’s Transactions on
`
`Internet Technologies, of ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive
`
`Systems, of Elsevier’s Performance Evaluation Journal. I was an Associate Editor
`
`of ACM’s Transactions on the Web (“TWEB”) journal, an Associate Editor of
`
`Elsevier’s Electronic Commerce Research and Applications journal, and a member
`
`of the Editorial Board of IEEE’s Internet Computing for many years.
`
`19.
`
`I am “top secret” qualified and currently cleared at the “secret” level
`
`by the U.S. Department of Defense.
`
`20. My detailed educational history and work experience are set forth in
`
`my curriculum vitae, attached hereto as Appendix A. Included in my curriculum
`
`vitae is a listing of all my publications. In addition, I am the co-inventor of a U.S.
`
`patent entitled “Meta-Protocol” and of the pending U.S. patent application entitled
`
`“System and Method for Managing Insider Security Threats,” both of which are
`
`also listed in my curriculum vitae.
`
`21. My analyses set forth in this declaration are informed by my
`
`experience in the field of computer science. Based on my above-described
`
`experience in the field of computer science, I believe that I am considered to be an
`
`expert in the field. Also, based on my experiences, I understand and know of the
`
`capabilities of persons of ordinary skill in this field during the mid to late 1990s
`
`and specifically during the time before the priority date for the ’483 patent
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`(described in detail below in ¶¶ 26-28), and I taught, participated in organizations,
`
`and worked closely with many such persons during that time frame.
`
`22. As part of my independent analysis for this Declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: the background knowledge/technologies that were
`
`commonly known to persons of ordinary skill in this field during the time before
`
`the priority date for the ’483 patent (described in detail below in ¶¶ 29-60); my
`
`own knowledge and experiences gained from my work experience in the fields of
`
`computer science and electrical engineering; my experience in teaching and
`
`advising students in those subjects; and my experience in working with others
`
`involved in those fields. In addition, I have analyzed the following publications
`
`and materials:
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 7,827,483 to Unbedacht et al. (“the ’483 patent”; Exhibit
`
`MS1001);
`
` Prosecution History of the ’483 patent (Serial No. 10/752,048; Exhibit
`
`MS1002);
`
` Prosecution History of U.S. Pat. No. 8,700,996 (Serial No. 13/849,360;
`
`Exhibit MS1018);
`
` Simpson, Alan, Mastering WordPerfect 8 2nd Edition (June, 1997)
`
`(“WordPerfect”; Exhibit MS1004);
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
` QuarkXPress Reference Manual (1993) (“QuarkXPress”; Exhibit
`
`MS1005);
`
` U.S Patent No. 6,185,591 to Baker et al. (“Baker”; Exhibit MS1006);
`
` IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin Vol. 1 No. 7A (December 1991)
`
`(“IBM”; Exhibit MS1007);
`
` Mack, C.A. Fifty Years of Moore’s Law, IEEE Tr. Semiconductor
`
`Manufacturing, 24(2), January 2011, pp. 202-207 (Exhibit MS1013);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,552,982 to Jackson et al. (“Jackson”; Exhibit MS1014);
`
` Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.R., Stein, C., Introduction to
`
`Algorithms 2nd. Ed., MIT Press and McGraw-Hill, 2001, 1st edition
`
`1990, p. 200 (Exhibit MS1015);
`
` WordPerfect Version 6.0 User’s Guide (1994) (Exhibit MS1016); and
`
` Other background references, of which I had previously been aware, not
`
`cited herein, that a POSITA would have recognized as being related to
`
`the subject matter of the ’483 patent.
`
`23. Although this Declaration refers to selected portions of the cited
`
`references for the sake of brevity, it should be understood that these are examples,
`
`and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the references cited
`
`herein in their entirety and in combination with other references cited herein or
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`cited within the references themselves. The references used in this Declaration,
`
`therefore, should be viewed as being incorporated herein in their entirety.
`
`24.
`
`I am not, and never was, an employee of the Petitioner in this
`
`proceeding, Microsoft Corp. I have been engaged in the present matter to provide
`
`my independent analysis of the issues raised in the petition for inter partes review
`
`of the ’483 patent. I received no compensation for this declaration beyond my
`
`normal hourly compensation based on my time actually spent studying the matter,
`
`and I will not receive any added compensation based on the outcome of this inter
`
`partes review of the ’483 patent.
`
`I.
`
`OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`25. This Declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on
`
`my independent analysis. Based upon my knowledge and experience and my
`
`review of the prior art publications listed above, I believe that claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-
`
`12, 14 of the ’483 patent are obvious in light of Mastering WordPerfect 8 2nd
`
`Edition (“WordPerfect”) in view of QuarkXPress Reference Manual
`
`(QuarkXPress), IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin Vol. 1 No. 7A December 1991
`
`(“IBM”), and U.S Patent No. 6,185,591 to Baker et al. (“Baker”).
`
`II. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN
`THE ART WOULD HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE FILING
`DATE OF THE ’483 PATENT
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`26. The technology in the ’483 patent at issue generally relates to
`
`document editing software that allows for editing of text and graphics. See
`
`MS1001 at Abstract; 1:16-34; 6:13-18; 3:17-36. Prior to the earliest effective
`
`filing date of the ’483 patent, which as described below is assumed to be August
`
`28, 1998 for purposes of my analysis here, there existed numerous products,
`
`publications, and patents that implemented or described the functionality claimed
`
`in the ’483 patent. Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of
`
`the prior art publications listed above, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time would have recognized that the subject matter described in
`
`the ’483 patent was well-known in the prior art. Further, to the extent there was
`
`any problem to be solved in the ’483 patent, my experience and analysis of the
`
`prior art cited here shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would
`
`have known such a problem had already been solved in the prior art systems before
`
`the filing date of the ’483 patent.
`
`27. Based upon my experience in this area, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in this field at the relevant time frame (“POSITA”) would have had a
`
`combination of experience and education in computer science and software design.
`
`This typically would consist of a minimum of a bachelor degree in computer
`
`science, software engineering, computer engineering, or a related engineering field
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`plus 2-5 years of work, graduate study, and/or research experience in the field of
`
`computer science and its subfield of graphic user interface design.
`
`28. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a POSITA. Indeed, I have taught, participated in organizations, and
`
`worked closely with many such persons over the course of my career, including
`
`during the mid-1990s and certainly before the earliest effective filing date of
`
`the ’483 patent.
`
`29. The claims of the ’483 patent describe a method and a computer
`
`readable memory for providing a real time preview of changes to fonts in a
`
`computer system operating a document editing program having a document display
`
`window (see e.g., claims 1 and 14, respectively). The document editing program
`
`can be a word processor program (claim 10), a spreadsheet program (claim 11), or
`
`a graphic editor program (claim 12). Independent claim 1 describes font command
`
`codes associated with a respective font command. Claim 1 also describes an undo
`
`stack where these newly confirmed font command codes are pushed onto the undo
`
`stack.
`
`30. Given this claimed subject matter and the ’483 patent’s repeated
`
`admissions of various elements being “known in the art” (refer, e.g., to col. 6:7-9;
`
`3:45-48, 3:61-62, 4:1-2, 4:10-12, 4:28-31, 5:2-3, 5:63-64, 6:6-8, 7:47-51, 7:60-62,
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`8:9-15, 8:50-54, 10:9-11, 10:24-28, 12:6-11, 12:24-29), I believe it is relevant here
`
`to describe a number of basic background technologies well known to a POSITA
`
`before the earliest effective filing date of the ’483 patent, and indeed generally
`
`prior to 1998. For example, here I will describe the then-conventional and
`
`common technologies of: (a) What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG)
`
`document editing programs and the prior art trend of real-time previewing on
`
`graphical user interfaces, (b) inserting and removing codes from documents, (c)
`
`stack and undo stacks in document processing applications, and (d) providing a
`
`display of available commands.
`
`A. WYSIWYG Document Editing Programs and GUIs
`31. By the early 1990s, the user interface of operating systems, word
`
`processors, and other computer applications such as spreadsheets and graphic
`
`editors had transitioned from command line interfaces into Graphical User
`
`Interfaces (GUI). This move was enabled by several hardware developments that
`
`occurred between the mid 1980’s and early 1990’s. These developments include
`
`(1) the availability of high resolution color monitors, (2) the ubiquitous adoption of
`
`a computer mouse, and (3) the exponential increase in computing power due to
`
`Moore’s Law.
`
`32. The early 1990’s saw color computer monitors (aka computer
`
`displays) increase in resolution and decrease in price. Operating systems such as
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`Apple’s Macintosh and Microsoft Windows adopted GUIs that could be operated
`
`with a computer mouse, which allowed users to select objects (e.g., folders,
`
`applications, and commands within applications) on a screen by pointing the
`
`mouse to a portion of the screen. Application programs would use a mouse
`
`through the operating system’s mouse driver software that tracks the movement,
`
`position of the mouse over a mousepad or an opaque surface, and the operations of
`
`a user on the mouse buttons and wheel. A POSITA at the relevant time would
`
`have understood that these inputs are passed by the mouse driver of the operating
`
`system to the application program, which acts upon them by making the mouse
`
`cursor move on the screen, in accordance with the actual movement of the mouse
`
`on the surface, and takes an action on the object pointed by the mouse.
`
`33. The actions taken by an application depend on how the application is
`
`programmed to interpret one or more user operations on the mouse and the location
`
`the mouse is pointing at. Examples of mouse operations that would have been well
`
`known to a POSITA by the mid-1990s include single (left) click, double (left)
`
`click, hover (i.e., positioning a cursor above a command or an area), and drag and
`
`drop (i.e., click and hold a mouse button, move the mouse without releasing, and
`
`release the mouse button). See e.g., MS1005 at 16-17; 23; MS1007 at 1. An
`
`application can be programmed to react to certain sequences of mouse operations
`
`based on a specific context (e.g., within a dialog box, when pointing to a dropdown
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`menu, or to a button). For example, a word processor application can be
`
`programmed to make changes to the format of a previously selected text through
`
`the following combination of mouse operations:
`
` Single click on the Format option in the top menu bar. This opens a
`
`dropdown menu with several formatting options (e.g., Font, Paragraph,
`
`Document, Bullets and Numbering).
`
` Move the mouse down to bring it over a desired formatting option.
`
` Hover over the desired option (e.g., Paragraph)
`
` Single click on the Paragraph option. This opens the Paragraph dialog box.
`
`34. The above discussion indicates that having a suitably fast CPU of a
`
`computer can enable mouse-driven GUIs to be operated at an adequate speed for a
`
`human being not to be inconvenienced by delays between the physical motion of
`
`the mouse on the surface and the corresponding movement of the cursor on the
`
`screen. This type of human-computer interface was made possible by the increase
`
`in computer power in the early 1990’s relative to the previous decade. Such
`
`increase was at least partially attributed to Moore’s Law, an observation and
`
`prediction made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore regarding the increased power
`
`of computer processing, which generally states the number of transistors in an
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years (See e.g., “Fifty Years of
`
`Moore's Law,” C.A. Mack, IEEE Tr. Semiconductor Manufacturing, 24(2),
`
`January 2011, pp. 202-207; Exhibit MS1013).
`
`35. For example, in 1985, the Intel 80386 microprocessor that powered
`
`IBM PC computers had a clock frequency of 16 MHz. In 1993, Intel released the
`
`Pentium microprocessor, which replaced the 80386/80486 microprocessors, with a
`
`clock frequency of 66 MHz, i.e., over four times faster than the 80386. Also,
`
`because of the exponential increase in the number of transistors in a chip, main
`
`memory (i.e., DRAM) became significantly cheaper per Gbyte and had its capacity
`
`expanded.
`
`36. All of these developments in the early-to-mid 1990s motivated
`
`ordinary designers and developers of application programs to provide features that
`
`could display the results of an action immediately (from the user’s perspective),
`
`such as the real-time preview capabilities developed and suggested in the early
`
`1990s (described below), and provide rapid responses to user commands.
`
`37.
`
` Indeed, before 1998 there were several examples of document editing
`
`programs that offered GUIs through which users could select a variety of
`
`commands (e.g., the change font/formatting/graphical object options) to be
`
`executed using a mouse. Examples of such programs include Microsoft Word 6.0
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`released in 1993; Quark, Inc.’s QuarkXPress released in 1992 for Windows; and
`
`Corel’s WordPerfect 5.2 released for Windows in 1992.
`
`38. Before 1998, a POSITA would have known about these advances in
`
`computing power and software program applications and furthermore would have
`
`recognized the prior art trend of providing real-time previews in such document
`
`editing applications. There are several examples of such applications providing
`
`various degrees of real-time preview functionality, all of which were commonly
`
`known to a POSITA before 1998. (For purposes of my detailed analysis of the
`
`claims below, I will base my conclusions on printed publications, such as the
`
`QuarkXPress publication and the IBM publication that are described in detail later
`
`in this declaration and that provide further evidence of the prior art trend of
`
`providing real-time preview functionality in document editing software
`
`applications, but this prior art trend was certainly known to be implemented in
`
`other software applications too.) In one common example, Microsoft’s
`
`PowerPoint 97 included a preview function in the font dialog box that allowed a
`
`user to preview the effects of various font changes (e.g., font face, font size, font
`
`color, etc.) in the underlying slide. The user could preview a series of different
`
`font options without accepting/confirming the changes. The user could select an
`
`“OK” button to accept/confirm a selection of any font change, or could elect to
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`cancel the identified and previewed change to cause the underlying slide to revert
`
`to the previous display state.
`
`39. Another prior art document editing program that would have been
`
`known to a POSITA prior to 1998 was Adobe Illustrator 7, which included a
`
`preview checkbox in various dialog boxes that, when checked, would cause any
`
`identified menu item in the dialog box to be previewed in the underlying
`
`document. As the user identified different menu items, the real-time preview in the
`
`underlying document would automatically change with each identified item. The
`
`user could accept any previewed change by selecting an “OK” button, or ultimately
`
`reject all changes and revert the pre-preview display by selecting “cancel.” Adobe
`
`Illustrator 7 also included a pop-up filter menu that included a preview window
`
`showing how various filter menu options would appear if and when they were
`
`applied to the document. A POSITA would have understood, as a background
`
`here, that this prior art trend of implementing various real-time preview options
`
`was implemented in Adobe Illustrator 7 and other software applications too.
`
`40. Yet another example of a pre-1998 document editing program having
`
`real-time preview functionality that would have been known to a POSITA was
`
`Word 97. Word 97 allowed a user to apply various text styles to an entire
`
`document (with different font options, such as color, size, bolding, etc. applied to
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`different sections, such as first level headers, second level headers, and body text).
`
`Word 97’s style gallery included a preview window that showed a preview of the
`
`entire document with an identified style applied. The user could cycle through
`
`various style options to update the preview of the effect of the style on a copy of
`
`the document. (Again, even though my analysis of specific claim elements below
`
`is based on printed publications, such as the QuarkXPress publication and the IBM
`
`publication, I know based upon my knowledge and experience in this field that a
`
`POSITA would have been familiar with this prior art trend of implementing real-
`
`time preview functionality in various document editing applications, such as the
`
`real-time preview options implemented in Word 97, Adobe Illustrator 7, and other
`
`software applications too.)
`
`B. Command Codes
`41. Document processing programs have been using what are called
`
`“command codes” or “matching codes” in the ’483 patent since well before 1998.
`
`A matching code is a code that directs the appearance or attributes of portions of a
`
`text. As a POSITA would have been aware by the mid-1990s, these codes are
`
`inserted in the text in response to commands by a user and direct how a document
`
`is printed or displayed in the active window. Such codes are typically preceded by
`
`a non-printing special character and can be used to indicate a variety of attributes
`
`such as bold, italics, font size, font color, or line spacing. For the sake of example,
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`consider that the word “design” were to be bolded in the sentence: