Declaration of Justin Douglas Tygar,
`
`Ph.D. Concerning the Invalidity of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,552,080
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`1.
`2. QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................................................. 2
`3. MATERIALS CONSIDERED .................................................................................. 3
`4.
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART ................................ 4
`5.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ..................................................................................... 4
`5.1.
`The Prior Art Renders Obvious Claims 1-11 of the Willard Patent ........... 4
`6. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ........................................................................ 5
`6.1. Overview ..................................................................................................... 5
`6.2.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. 5
`6.3. Relevant Dates for Prior Art ....................................................................... 6
`6.4. Obviousness ................................................................................................ 6
`6.5. Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 9
`THE WILLARD PATENT ........................................................................................ 9
`7.1.
`Summary of the Willard Patent................................................................... 9
`7.2.
`Field of the Willard Patent ........................................................................ 13
`7.3.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art for the Willard Patent ......................... 13
`7.4.
`Prior Art Disclosed in Prosecution for the Willard Patent ........................ 14
`7.5. Claim Construction for the Willard Patent ............................................... 15
`PRIOR ART TO THE WILLARD PATENT.......................................................... 19
`8.1. The Tengel Prior Art Reference ..................................................................... 19
`8.1.1. Summary of Tengel....................................................................... 19
`8.1.2. Tengel is Prior Art to the Willard Patent ...................................... 20
`8.2. The Walker I Prior Art Reference .................................................................. 20
`8.2.1. Summary of Walker I.................................................................... 20
`8.2.2. Walker I is Prior Art to the Willard Patent ................................... 21
`8.3. The Nabors Prior Art Reference..................................................................... 21
`8.3.1. Summary of Nabors ...................................................................... 21
`8.3.2. Nabors is Prior Art to the Willard Patent ...................................... 22
`8.4. The Walker II Prior Art Reference ................................................................. 22
`8.4.1. Summary of Walker II .................................................................. 22
`8.4.2. Walker II is Prior Art to the Willard Patent .................................. 22
`8.5. The Watson Prior Art Reference .................................................................... 23
`
`8.
`
`- i -
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`8.5.1. Summary of Watson ..................................................................... 23
`8.5.2. Watson is Prior Art to the Willard Patent ..................................... 23
`8.6. All of the Claims of the Willard Patent are Invalid .................................. 25
`8.6.1. Claims 1-6 and 9-11 of the Willard Patent are Invalid as Obvious
`over Tengel, Walker I, and Nabors ............................................... 25
`8.6.2. Claim 7 of the Willard Patent is Invalid as Obvious over Tengel,
`Walker I, Nabors, and Walker II ................................................... 56
`8.6.3. Claim 8 of the Willard Patent is Invalid as Obvious over Tengel,
`Walker I, Nabors, and Watson ...................................................... 58
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS TO SUPPLEMENT ............................................... 60
`9.
`10. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 60
`
`- ii -
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 3
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`1.1. My name is Justin Douglas Tygar. I am a tenured, full Professor at the University
`of California, Berkeley, with a joint appointment in the Department of Electrical
`Engineering and Computer Science (Computer Science Division) and the School of
`Information. Prior to joining UC Berkeley in 1998, I was a tenured faculty member in the
`Computer Science Department at Carnegie Mellon University.
`I have been retained by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP to provide this
`1.2.
`Declaration on behalf of Askeladden L.L.C. (hereinafter “Petitioner” or “Askeladden”) in
`connection with Askeladden’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`7,552,080 (the “’080 patent” or “Willard”). I am being compensated at my usual rate of
`$500 per hour, plus reimbursement for expenses. My compensation is not contingent in
`any way upon the content of my opinion or the outcome of this proceeding.
`I have prepared this Declaration for consideration by the Patent Trial and Appeals
`1.3.
`Board (PTAB). I am over eighteen years of age and I would otherwise be competent to
`testify as to the matters set forth herein if I am called upon to do so. My curriculum vitae
`is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`I have been asked to provide my opinions on the following matters: (1) the field
`1.4.
`of art pertinent to the Willard patent; (2) the level of ordinary skill in that field of art as of
`approximately the filing date of the application that yielded the Willard patent; (3) how a
`person having such ordinary skill in the art of the Willard patent would understand the
`contents of the specification included the claims and certain terms that are used in the
`claims of the patent; (4) how a person of ordinary skill in the art of the Willard patent
`would understand the contents of various patents and other art that was publicly available
`prior to the priority date of the Willard patent; and (5) whether any of those documents—
`alone or in combination with each other and/or the general knowledge of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art—disclose each and every element of any of the claims of the
`Willard patent. I was also asked to consider whether the claims of the Willard patent
`would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of any combination of the
`references that I considered.
`I reserve the right to supplement this Declaration after the receipt of any
`1.5.
`additional information or documents that may be produced by Patent Owner, its Counsel,
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`and/or any expert or declarant.
`1.6. My opinions expressed in this Declaration rely to a great extent on my own
`personal knowledge and recollection. However, to the extent I considered specific
`documents or data in formulating the opinions expressed in this Declaration, all such
`items are expressly referred to in this Declaration. This includes, but is not limited to, the
`Willard patent and its prosecution history.
`In forming my opinions, I rely on my knowledge and experience in the field and
`1.7.
`on documents and information referenced in this Declaration.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`2.
`In 1982, I earned an A.B. degree in Math/Computer Science from the University
`2.1.
`of California, Berkeley, and in 1986 I earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Harvard
`University.
`2.2. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A. My CV includes a list of
`books, book chapters, papers and other publications that I have authored or co-authored. I
`am an expert in software engineering, computer networks, computer and network
`security, and cryptography. I have taught courses in software engineering, computer
`security, and cryptography at the undergraduate, masters, and Ph.D. level, at both UC
`Berkeley and Carnegie Mellon University.
`I have served in a number of capacities on government, academic, and industrial
`2.3.
`committees that give advice or set standards in security and electronic commerce.
`I have co-written three books that address computer security, and one of those
`2.4.
`books has been translated into Japanese. I am presently completing a fourth book
`scheduled to be published in 2017 by Cambridge University Press.
`I have designed cryptographic postage standards for the US Postal Service and
`2.5.
`have helped build a number of security and electronic commerce systems including:
`Strongbox, Dyad, Netbill, and Micro-Tesla. I have helped design the widely used DETER
`security networking testbed. DETER is supported by the U. S. National Science
`Foundation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Further, I led the team that
`designed the SWOON overlay network used to test mobile networking in that
`environment.
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`I have also served as chair of the Defense Department’s ISAT Study Group on
`2.6.
`Security with Privacy, and was a founding board member of ACM's Special Interest
`Group on Electronic Commerce.
`I am the UC Berkeley lead of the U. S. National Science Foundation Science and
`2.7.
`Technology Center TRUST, which studies issues associated with networking and
`security.
`The U.S. State Department is funding my project at UC Berkeley to examine the
`2.8.
`security and networking issues for communication protocols and software to support
`Internet freedom and allow users to bypass national firewalls in countries such as China,
`Iran, and Syria.
`2.9. Among my awards are the National Science Foundation Presidential Young
`Investigator Award and the Kyoto Fellowship.
`I have worked in the area of computer science for over thirty years and have over
`2.10.
`thirty years of experience dealing with electronic commerce and computer. I consider
`myself to be at least a person of ordinary skill in the art of the Willard patent.
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`3.
`3.1. My opinions, as set forth in this Declaration, are based on information that was
`available to me as of the date of this Declaration. I may, however, consider any additional
`materials and facts made available in discovery in this action to determine whether they
`have any impact on my opinions. I will also consider any criticism of my opinions, or of
`the basis for my opinions, offered by Patent Owner’s witnesses and expert(s). I will
`amend or supplement this Declaration, as necessary, based on such additional
`information, or any matters raised by Patent Owner, or in light of any relevant orders
`from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`In forming my opinions, in addition to my knowledge and experience, I have
`3.2.
`considered the following documents and things that I have obtained, or that have been
`provided to me:
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,552,080 to Willard et al. (“the ’080 patent”, “Willard”)
`• File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 09/802,481, which led to the ’080
`patent
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,940,812 to Tengel et al. (“the ’812 patent”, “Tengel”)
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,794,207 to Walker et al. (“the ’207 patent”, “Walker ’207”,
`“Walker I”)
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,236,983 to Nabors et al. (“the ’983 patent”, “Nabors”)
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/188,863 to Nabors et al. (“Nabors Priority
`Application”)
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,970,478 to Walker et al. (“the ’478 patent”, “Walker ’478”,
`“Walker II”)
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,271,379 to Watson (“the ’379 patent”, “Watson”)
`• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/111,028 to Watson (“Watson
`Provisional”)
`
`
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART
`4.
`4.1. Generally, Willard concerns sending customized offers to applicants. See, e.g.,
`Willard, Abstract, 1:24-26. For example, Willard describes that an applicant can specify
`requested terms – such as an interest rate, annual fee, credit limit, etc. See, e.g., id., 1:61-
`62, 2:65-66, 4:38-41. At least one offer, if available, is selected for a particular applicant
`based on the terms requested by the applicant. See, e.g., id., Abstract, 1:60-2-4, 2:61-64,
`5:30-32, 6:5-17. The requested terms may include preferred terms, a most important term,
`ranked terms, desired changes to terms of a current card of the applicant, etc. See, e.g.,
`id., 3:57-66, 4:42-56, 4:61-63, 5:12-17, 5:21-22, 5:39-42, 5:50-60, 6:7-8. If a suitable
`offer is available, it is transmitted to the applicant. See, e.g., id., Abstract, 1:60-67, claim
`1. If a suitable offer is not available, it is not transmitted to the applicant. See, e.g., id.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`5.
`5.1. The Prior Art Renders Obvious Claims 1-11 of the Willard Patent
`5.1.1. In my opinion, the following combinations of references render obvious
`claims of the Willard patent as recited below:
`• Tengel, Walker I, and Nabors render claims 1-6 and 9-11 of the Willard patent
`invalid as obvious.
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Tengel, Walker I, Nabors, and Walker II render claim 7 of the Willard patent
`invalid as obvious.
`• Tengel, Walker I, Nabors, and Watson render claim 8 of the Willard patent
`invalid as obvious.
`
`
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`6.
`6.1. Overview
`6.1.1. I am not an attorney and have not been asked to offer opinions on the law.
`However, as an expert assisting in determining validity, counsel has informed me that I
`am obliged to follow existing law. I have been asked to apply the following legal
`principles to my analysis, and I have done so in arriving at my stated opinions and
`conclusions in this Declaration.
`6.1.2. Counsel has informed me that there are two types of claims in the Willard
`patent. An independent claim is a claim that does not refer to any other claim of the
`patent. An independent claim is read separately from the other claims to determine its
`scope. A dependent claim is a claim that refers to at least one other claim in the patent. A
`dependent claim incorporates all elements of the claim from which it depends, as well as
`the elements recited in the dependent claim itself.
`6.1.3. I understand that claims 1, 10, and 11 of the Willard patent are
`independent claims. I also understand that claims 2-9 of the Willard patent are dependent
`claims.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`6.2.
`6.2.1. I have been asked to opine on the level of skill in the art for the Willard
`
`patent.
`
`6.2.2. In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill
`in the art of the relevant patents at the time of the claimed invention, I considered several
`things, including the factors discussed below, as well (1) the levels of education and
`experience of the inventor and other persons actively working in the field; (2) the types of
`problems encountered in the field; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
`with which innovations are made; and (5) the sophistication of the technology. Finally, I
`placed myself back in the relevant time period and considered the individuals that I had
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`worked with in the field.
`6.2.3. I discuss these issues below with respect to the Willard patent.
`6.3. Relevant Dates for Prior Art
`6.3.1. Counsel has informed me that the “critical date” for a patent is one year
`prior to its earliest effective filing date. Counsel has informed me that the critical date is
`significant because patents, systems, or documents that are public prior to the critical
`date, if they disclose or suggest each and every limitation of the claims, will invalidate a
`patent regardless of whether the inventors invented the claim prior to the filing date of the
`patent.
`
`6.3.2. The Willard patent is titled “Customized Credit Offer Strategy Based On
`Terms Specified By An Applicant” and is the result of U.S. Patent Application No.
`09/802,481 that was filed on March 9, 2001. See Willard, p. 1. The Willard patent does
`not claim priority to any other application. See id. Thus, it is my understanding that the
`priority date of the Willard patent is March 9, 2001 and the “critical date” for the Willard
`patent is March 8, 2000 (more than one year one year before its priority date).
`6.4. Obviousness
`6.4.1. Counsel has informed me that a patent claim must be nonobvious to be
`valid. I understand obviousness is determined from the perspective of one of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`6.4.2. Counsel has informed me that a patent claim is obvious if, although not
`identically disclosed or described, any differences between the patent’s subject matter
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a
`skilled artisan at the time the invention was made. Counsel has informed me that this
`determination is made after weighing the following factors: (1) the level of ordinary skill
`in the pertinent art, (2) the scope and content of the prior art, (3) the differences between
`the prior art as a whole and the claim at issue, and (4) as appropriate, secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`6.4.3. Counsel has informed me that the knowledge and understanding of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art provides a reference point from which the prior art and
`claimed invention should be viewed. This reference point prevents one from using his or
`her own insight or hindsight in deciding whether a claim is obvious, but I further
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`understand that if a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the claimed
`invention as a predictable variation of a known product, then the claim may be rendered
`obvious. I further understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have
`knowledge of the relevant prior art at the time of the claimed invention, and the scope of
`the prior art comprises any prior art that was reasonably pertinent to the particular
`problems the inventor faced.
`6.4.4. Counsel has informed me that an obviousness determination can be made
`from a single reference or from a combination of multiple prior art references. Counsel
`has informed me that a proper obviousness analysis as to two or more references
`generally requires a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
`relevant field to combine the elements of multiple prior art references in the way the
`claimed new invention does. Counsel has informed me that the prior art references
`themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine, but other times
`the nexus linking two or more prior art references may be simple common sense. I further
`understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that market demand, rather than
`scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a motivation to combine references
`may be supplied by the direction of the marketplace.
`6.4.5. Counsel has informed me that a particular combination may be proven
`obvious merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example,
`when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to
`pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp because the result is likely the
`product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`6.4.6. I further understand that a proper obviousness analysis focuses on what
`was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not just to the patentee.
`Accordingly, counsel has informed me that any need or problem known in the field of
`endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
`combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`6.4.7. In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly combined
`where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and knowledge
`reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 10
`
`

`
`
`
`have been led to make the combination of elements recited in the claims. Under this
`analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or problem known in the field of
`endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a reason for combining the elements of
`multiple prior art references in the claimed manner.
`6.4.8. Counsel has informed me that at least the following rationales may
`support a finding of obviousness:
`
`
`
`(1) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(2) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(3) Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`(4) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(5) “Obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(6) A predictable variation of work in the same or a different field of
`
`endeavor if a person of ordinary skill would be able to implement the
`
`variation;
`
`(7) If, at the time of the alleged invention, there existed a known problem
`
`for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`
`claims;
`
`(8) 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
`
`(9) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`6.4.9. I have been informed and understand that secondary considerations of
`non-obviousness may include: (1) whether the invention proceeded in a direction
`contrary to accepted wisdom in the field; (2) whether there was a long felt but unresolved
`need in the art that was satisfied by the invention; (3) whether others had tried but failed
`to make the invention; (4) whether others copied the invention; (5) whether the invention
`achieved unexpected results; (6) whether the invention was praised by others; (7) whether
`others have taken licenses to use the invention; (8) whether experts or those skilled in the
`art at the making of the invention expressed surprise or disbelief regarding the invention;
`(9) whether products incorporating the invention have achieved commercial success that
`is attributable to the invention; and (10) whether or not others having ordinary skill in the
`field independently made the claimed invention at about the same time the inventor made
`the invention.
`6.4.10. I also understand that for any such secondary consideration to be relevant,
`the patentee must establish a connection or nexus between the secondary consideration
`and the claimed invention. For example, commercial success is relevant to obviousness
`only if the success of the product is related to a feature of the patent claims. If, however,
`commercial success is due to advertising, promotion, salesmanship or the like, or is due
`to features of the product other than the claimed invention, then any commercial success
`should not be considered an indication of non-obviousness.
`6.5. Claim Construction
`6.5.1. Counsel has informed me that in inter partes review, claim terms of an
`unexpired patent are interpreted under a “broadest reasonable construction” standard and
`that in general the claim terms are presumed to take on their ordinary and customary
`meaning.
`THE WILLARD PATENT
`7.
`Summary of the Willard Patent
`7.1.
`7.1.1. The Willard patent’s “Field of the Invention” section states that “[t]he
`present invention relates generally to an online application for a credit card” and “[m]ore
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 12
`
`

`
`
`
`specifically, determining an offer based on user preferences . . .” Willard, 1:24-26.
`7.1.2. Generally, the Willard patent concerns sending customized offers to
`applicants. See, e.g., Willard, Abstract, 1:24-26. For example, the Willard patent
`describes that an applicant can specify requested terms – such as an interest rate, annual
`fee, credit limit, etc. See, e.g., id., 1:61-62, 2:65-66, 4:38-41. At least one offer, if
`available, is selected for a particular applicant based on the terms requested by the
`applicant. See, e.g., id., Abstract, 1:60-2-4, 2:61-64, 5:30-32, 6:5-17. The requested terms
`may include preferred terms, a most important term, ranked terms, desired changes to
`terms of a current card of the applicant, etc. See, e.g., id., 3:57-66, 4:42-56, 4:61-63, 5:12-
`17, 5:21-22, 5:39-42, 5:50-60, 6:7-8. If a suitable offer is available, it is transmitted to the
`applicant. See, e.g., id., Abstract, 1:60-67, claim 1. If a suitable offer is not available, it is
`not transmitted to the applicant. See, e.g., id.
`7.1.3. The Willard patent has three independent claims (claims 1, 10, and 11).
`All the other claims (claims 2-9) depend from at least claim 1. Specifically, dependent
`claims 2-4 and 6-9 depend from independent claim 1, and dependent claim 5 depends
`from independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4. Each of the elements of independent
`claims 1, 10, and 11 as well as the dependent claims are disclosed in the prior art.
`7.1.4. Independent claim 1 of the Willard patent recites:
`A computer implemented method of transmitting a
`Preamble
`customized offer to an applicant comprising:
`receiving over a network a plurality of terms requested by the
`applicant, wherein at least one of the requested terms is
`indicated by the applicant as preferred over at least another
`one of the requested terms;
`determining with one or more computers a set of offers for
`the applicant;
`if the set of offers includes at least one offer that meets all of
`the requested terms, selecting with the one or more computer
`from among the set of offers at least one offer that meets all
`of the requested terms;
`if the set of offers does not include at least one offer that
`meets all of the requested terms but includes at least one
`offer that meets at least one of the preferred requested terms,
`selecting with the one or more computers from among the set
`of offers at least one offer that meets the at least one of the
`preferred requested terms;
`otherwise, not selecting an offer from the set of offers; and
`
`Element A
`
`Element D
`
`Element E
`
`
`
`10
`
`Element B
`
`Element C
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Element F
`
`transmitting any selected offer from the set of offers to the
`applicant.
`
`
`
`Element A
`Element B
`
`7.1.5. Independent claim 10 of the Willard patent recites:
`Preamble
`A system for preparing a customized offer for an applicant
`comprising:
`an interface configured to:
`receive a plurality of terms requested by the applicant,
`wherein at least one of the requested terms is indicated by the
`applicant as preferred over at least another one of the
`requested terms; and
`transmit at least one offer to the applicant; and
`a processor coupled with the interface and with a memory for
`storing program instructions, the processor configured by the
`program instructions to:
`determine a set of offers for the applicant;
`if the set of offers includes at least one offer that meets all of
`the requested terms, select from among the set of offers the at
`least one offer that meets all of the requested terms; and
`otherwise, select from among the set of offers the at least one
`offer that meets the at least one of the preferred requested
`terms.
`
`Element C
`Element D
`
`Element E
`Element F
`
`Element G
`
`Element A
`
`7.1.6. Independent claim 11 of the Willard patent recites:
`Preamble
`A computer program product for preparing a customized
`offer to an applicant, the computer program product being
`embodied in a computer readable medium and comprising
`computer instructions for:
`receiving a plurality of terms requested by the applicant,
`wherein at least one of the requested terms is indicated by the
`applicant as preferred over at least another one of the
`requested terms;
`determining a set of offers for the applicant;
`if the set of offers includes at least one offer that meets all of
`the requested terms, selecting from among the set of offers at
`least one offer that meets all of the requested terms;
`otherwise, selecting from among the set of offers at least one
`offer that meets the at least one of the preferred requested
`terms; and
`transmitting the at least one offer to the applicant if an offer
`is selected; otherwise, not transmitting the at least one offer
`to an applicant.
`
`Element B
`Element C
`
`Element D
`
`Element E
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.1.7. Figure 7A of Willard, shown below, is “a flow chart illustrating a process
`for using applicant specified terms to obtain offers to present to the applicant.” Willard,
`2:27-30. The Willard patent describes that at least one offer, if available, is selected for a
`particular applicant based on terms requested by the applicant – which may include
`preferred terms, a most important term, ranked terms, desired changes to terms of a
`current card of the applicant. See, e.g., id., 3:57-66, 4:42-56, 4:61-63, 5:12-17, 5:21-22,
`5:39-42, 5:50-60, 6:7-8. If a suitable offer is available, it is transmitted to the applicant.
`See, e.g., id., Abstract, 1:60-67, claim 1.
`
`
`7.1.8. Figure 6B of Willard, shown below, is “an illustration of a web page used
`to confirm an applicant’s specification of terms and the selection of the most important
`term.” Willard, 2:25-27.
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.1.9. In Figure 6B, the applicant has specified requested terms – such as an
`interest rate, annual fee, credit limit, rewards program, or platinum card – and has
`selected one of the requested terms (in Figure 6B, interest rate) as the most important
`term. See Willard, Figure 6B. In Figure 6B, the most important requested term (i.e., the
`interest rate) is preferred over the other requested terms (i.e., the annual fee, credit limit,
`etc.). See id. The claims of the Willard patent require that a set of offers for the applicant
`be determined and, possibly, selecting at least one offer from the set of offers. See
`Willard, claim 1.
`7.2. Field of the Willard Patent
`7.2.1. I have formed an opinion as to the field of art pertinent to the subject
`matter of the Willard patent: the field of methods, systems, and programs for determining
`an offer based on user preferences. See Willard, 1:25-26, claims 1, 10, and 11.
`7.3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art for the Willard Patent
`7.3.1. I was also asked to provide an opinion regarding the skill level of a person
`of ordinary skill in the art of the Willard patent at the time of the claimed invention. To
`do so, I considered several things. For example, I considered the types of problems
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Askeladden - Exhibit 1013 - Page 16
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`encountered in the art, the solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which
`innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the education level of
`active workers in the field.
`7.3.2. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the field of the Willard patent
`would be a person with at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field,
`or equivalent experience, and at least four years of experience in electronic commerce,
`financing, loan processing, or related experience.
`7.3.3. I have been asked by Petitioner’s counsel to assume that the person of
`ordinary skill is a hypothetical person who is assumed to be aware of all the pertinent
`information that qualifies as prior art. In addition, the person of ordinary skill in the art
`makes inferences and takes creative steps.
`7.3.4. I base my opinion on my review of the Willard patent and i