UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
` ____________
`
`CIM MAINTENANCE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`P&RO SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. Case No. IPR2017-00516
`Patent 8,209,205
` ____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PHILIP GREENSPUN, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 1
`
`

`
`I, Philip Greenspun, Ph.D., hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`
`Summarized in this section are my educational background, career
`
`history, and other relevant qualifications. I have also attached a current version of
`
`my Curriculum Vitae as Exhibit 1018.
`
`2.
`
`I am a salaried employee of Fifth Chance Media LLC, which is being
`
`compensated for my work on this matter at a rate of $475.00 per hour.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science
`
`in Mathematics from
`
`the
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1982. In 1993, I received a
`
`Master’s in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT. I received a
`
`Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT in 1999. My
`
`Ph.D. dissertation concerned the engineering of large online Internet communities
`
`with a Web browser front-end and a relational database management system
`
`(RDBMS) containing site content and user data.
`
`4.
`
`I have authored five computer science textbooks in total, including
`
`Database Backed Websites (Macmillan), Software Engineering for Internet
`
`Applications (MIT Press), and an SQL language tutorial.
`
`5.
`
`As it happens, one of my earliest exposures to a computer program
`
`was as an unpaid intern in 1977 through 1978 at Potomac Scheduling Company, a
`
`Bethesda, Maryland-based firm. The business of Potomac Scheduling Company
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 2
`
`

`
`was developing, maintaining, and operating computer programs for scheduling that
`
`ran on the computers of the period, including a UNIVAC 1100-series mainframe
`
`and a Tandem “NonStop” fault-tolerant computer. An example customer was the
`
`United States Postal Service, for which a Potomac Scheduling Company program
`
`determined on which airline flights mail and packages should be sent.
`
`6.
`
`I began working full-time as a computer programmer in 1978,
`
`developing a database management system for the Pioneer Venus Orbiter at the
`
`National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
`
`7.
`
`In the early 1980s I developed computer-aided design software for
`
`electronic systems, specifically to assist digital hardware engineers designing
`
`processors at Hewlett-Packard and Symbolics. These systems relied on an in-
`
`memory database of electronic circuits.
`
`8.
`
`I co-developed a computer program for computer-aided design of
`
`mechanical systems in the mid-1980s, called the “ICAD System.” The ICAD
`
`System enabled engineers to decompose a mechanical design into a hierarchy of
`
`subassemblies and establish configuration rules at each level of subassembly. The
`
`end-result was a system in which it was possible to go from customer
`
`specifications to a finished design without human intervention. The software built
`
`an in-memory database of mechanical components, which could be written out to a
`
`hard drive for persistent storage. The first applications for the ICAD System
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 3
`
`

`
`involved large structures built from steel, such as house-sized air-cooled heat-
`
`exchangers used in commercial buildings and industrial plants. The product
`
`survives today as Oracle Configurator, part of the Oracle Applications suite of
`
`business software.
`
`9.
`
`I developed my first program using a relational database management
`
`system in 1994. It was a Web interface to the Children’s Hospital Oracle RDBMS,
`
`Version 6. This application enabled doctors at the hospital to view patient clinical
`
`data using any computer equipped with a Web browser.
`
`10.
`
`In 1995, I led an effort by Hearst Corporation to set up an
`
`infrastructure for Internet applications across all of their newspaper, magazine,
`
`radio, and television properties. This infrastructure included software for managing
`
`users, shopping carts, electronic commerce, advertising, and user tracking. Web
`
`pages were generated on-the-fly by computer programs querying a relational
`
`database management system, which also served as a central storage point for
`
`information regarding user activity and customer purchases.
`
`11. Between 1995 and 1997, I significantly expanded the photo.net online
`
`community that I had started in 1993 to help people teach each other to become
`
`better photographers. I began distributing the source code behind photo.net to other
`
`programmers as a free open-source toolkit, called “ArsDigita Community System.”
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 4
`
`

`
`The heart of the ArsDigita Community System was a SQL data model for the
`
`Oracle RDBMS.
`
`12.
`
`In May 1997, Macmillan published my first textbook on Internet
`
`Application development, Database Backed Websites. A September 1998 update to
`
`this book was published as Philip and Alex’s Guide to Web Publishing (hardcopy
`
`version published in April 1999).
`
`13.
`
`In 1997, I started a company, ArsDigita, to provide support and
`
`service for the ArsDigita Community System. Between 1997 and the middle of
`
`2000, I managed the growth of ArsDigita to 80 people, almost all programmers,
`
`and $20 million per year in annual revenue. This involved supervising dozens of
`
`software development projects, nearly all of which were Internet Applications with
`
`a Web front-end and an Oracle RDBMS back-end. As the founder, CEO, and chief
`
`technical employee of
`
`the company,
`
`I personally developed
`
`functional
`
`specifications, SQL data models (Structured Query Language, or “SQL,” the
`
`standard programming language for relational database management systems), and
`
`Web page flows that determined the user experience.
`
`14. Between 2000 and the present, I have managed software development
`
`projects
`
`for
`
`various
`
`database-backed
`
`Internet
`
`applications,
`
`including
`
`philip.greenspun.com, photo.net, and postclipper.com, a Facebook application that
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 5
`
`

`
`allows parents to create electronic baby books from a subset of their Facebook
`
`updates.
`
`15.
`
`In addition to my work developing software and teaching software
`
`engineering, I have been responsible for aircraft operations and maintenance. I
`
`hold an FAA Airline Transport Pilot certificate with ratings for flying airplanes,
`
`helicopters, seaplanes, and two different types of jet-powered airplanes. I hold an
`
`FAA Flight Instructor certificate with ratings for airplanes and helicopters. I have
`
`worked as a pilot for a Delta Airlines subsidiary. I started and currently run an
`
`FAA-certificated charter carrier and am responsible of overseeing compliance with
`
`FAA regulations regarding maintenance of aircraft owned by the carrier. This
`
`includes making sure that calendar-limited items are complied with, such as annual
`
`inspections and transponder certifications, and that hours-limited items are
`
`complied with, such as 100-hour inspections, 50-hour oil changes, and component
`
`replacement at intervals of 2200 and 4400 hours.
`
`16. As a pilot and aircraft operator I have personal experience with
`
`computerized maintenance management software. The software that I currently use
`
`is CAMP (“Computerized Aircraft Maintenance Programs”), described
`
`in
`
`https://www.campsystems.com/company#tab7:
`
`In the mid 1960s, while employed in the Service Department at Grumman,
`Daniel J. Ryan conceived of and introduced a computerized maintenance
`program for the then new Gulfstream II corporate jet. Shortly thereafter, in
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 6
`
`

`
`1967, he and three co-workers left the aerospace giant to found CAMP, and
`bring Computerized Aircraft Maintenance Programs to the business aviation
`industry at large. This founding team developed programs for a variety of
`aircraft. These programs were accepted quickly and widely. Gulfstream I
`operators North American Van Lines and Trans Canada Pipeline signed on
`as CAMP’s first customers.
`
`17.
`
`I have served as an independent member of various advisory and
`
`corporate boards, mostly for technology companies. For example, I joined the
`
`corporate board of an MIT materials science spin-off in late 2005 during a
`
`$550,000 seed capital phase. I stepped down when the company secured $10
`
`million in venture capital in mid-2007.
`
`18. Since at least 1996 I have personally used electronic calendar
`
`programs, such as Microsoft Outlook, to provide reminders of tasks due.
`
`19.
`
`I have been retained as an expert in this matter by Petitioner. As part
`
`of my work in connection with this proceedings, I have considered the following:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,209,205 (Ex. 1001),
`• Deposition Transcript of Dr. Allan Sherman (Ex. 1002),
`• Electric Power Research Institute Inc., Best Practice Guideline for
`Maintenance Planning and Scheduling (2000) (“Best Practice Guideline”)
`(Ex. 1003),
`• File History of U.S. Application No. 14//024,944 ("Child Application") (Ex.
`1005)
`• Provisional Application No. 60:472,414 (Ex. 1006),
`• Provisional Application No. 60:483,111 (Ex. 1007),
`• File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,209,205 (Ex. 1009),
`• Doc Palmer, Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Handbook, ISBN 0-
`07048264-0 (1999) (“Palmer”) (Ex. 1010),
`• Complaint (Ex. 1011),
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 7
`
`

`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,225,040 (“Eller”) (Ex. 1014),
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,606,546 (“Sinex”) (Ex. 1015),
`• John Walkenbach, Microsoft Excel 2000 Bible (1999) (“Walkenbach”)
`(Exs. 1051-54),
`• Declaration of Dr. Alan Sherman (Ex. 1017),
`• Catharine Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe, The American Woman’s
`Home, Ch. 17: Habits and System of Order (1869) (Ex. 1024),
`• M. Jackson, Thirty Years (and more) of Relational Databases (1999) (Ex.
`1025),
`• Ben Shneiderman, Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming
`Languages, 16 Computer 57 (Aug. 1983) (Ex. 1026),
`• Alan Cooper, “Chapter 18: Drag and Drop,” About Face (1995) (Ex. 1027),
`• UNIX Today!, Sun Adds Four Open Look Tools, CMP Publications (Dec.
`11, 1989) (Ex. 1028),
`• Business Wire, Microsoft Announces Word for Windows, Version 2.0, with
`Features to Make Everyday Tasks Easy (Oct. 21, 1991) (Ex. 1029),
`• Joel Shore, Excel 4.0 set to Debut --Windows Spreadsheet to Ship April 6,
`(Mar. 23, 1992), CMP Publications (Ex. 1030),
`• David Claiborne, First Impressions: Act! for Windows 1.0 -- ACT! Gets Into
`Windows, Windows Magazine (July 1, 1992) (Ex. 1031),
`• Computer Reseller News, Powercore Rolls out Network Scheduler 3
`Upgrade, CMP Publications (Aug. 16, 1993) (Ex. 1032),
`• U.S. Publication No. 2004/0078257 to Schweitzer et al. (Ex. 1033)
`• Business Wire, Announcing the First "Environmentally Correct" Group
`Scheduling Software (Sept. 21, 1993) (Ex. 1034),
`• Oracle® Enterprise Asset Management User Guide, Release 11i (July, 2002)
`(Ex. 1035),
`• Project Software & Development, Inc. (“PSDI”) “Maximo® for Facilities:
`Comprehensive Facilities Management Solutions,” (1998) (Ex. 1036),
`• U.S. Publication No. 2004/10158568 to Colle et al. (Ex. 1037),
`• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/452,383 to Colle et al. (Ex. 1038),
`• Moshman et al., RAMPS – A Technique for Resource Allocation and Multi-
`Project Scheduling, Proceedings – Spring Joint Computer Conference
`(1963) (Ex. 1039),
`• Grahame Fogel and Dave Petersen, Reliability-Based Maintenance as a
`Breakthrough-Strategy in Maintenance Improvement, Technology
`Showcase: Integrated Monitoring, Diagnostics and Failure Prevention;
`Proceedings of a Joint Conference, Mobile, Alabama (1997) (Ex. 1040),
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 8
`
`

`
`• Raouf et al., Evaluating a Computerized Maintenance System, 13
`International Journal of Operations & Production Management (1993) (Ex.
`1041),
`• Apple Computer, Inc., Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines, Ch. 9: Color
`(1995) (Ex. 1042),
`• Brian Kennemer, Creating your own conditional formatting in MS Project,
`TechRepublic (Nov. 7, 2000), http://www.techrepublic.com/article/create-
`your-own-conditional-formatting-in-ms-project/ (Ex. 1043),
`• U.S. Publication No. 2003/0088534 to Kalantar et al. (Ex. 1044)
`• U.S. Publication No. 2002/0007297 to Clarke (Ex. 1045)
`• PSDI, Maximo® User’s Guide, Release 4.0.2 (1994-1999) (Ex. 1046),
`• Datastream Systems, Inc., MP2® Enterprise: System Overview (1999) (Ex.
`1047)
`• Lawrence Magid, Used Apples, V. 1 No. 3, PC Magazine, 73 (1982) (Ex.
`1048)
`• U.S. 2003/0149608 to Kall et al. (Ex. 1049)
`• U.S. Pat. No. 7,313,534 to Scheer (Ex. 1050)
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`A. Level of Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`20.
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) of the ‘205 Patent at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, I considered several factors, including the type of problems encountered
`
`in the art, the solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations were
`
`being made in the field, the sophistication of the technology, and the education
`
`level of active workers in the field. I also placed myself back in the time frame of
`
`the claimed invention, and I considered the students whom I had taught and
`
`worked with at the time.
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 9
`
`

`
`21.
`
`In my opinion, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be a
`
`person who, at the time of the invention, possessed (1) at least an undergraduate
`
`degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or
`
`similar technical fields, and (2) two or more years of experience developing
`
`database applications.
`
`22. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the
`
`field of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Additionally, I
`
`was at least a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the
`
`‘205 Patent. For example, at the time of the ‘205 Patent, I possessed advanced
`
`degrees in the fields of computer science and electrical engineering, and had been
`
`developing relational database applications for nearly 10 years (since 1994).
`
`B. Obviousness
`23.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me that a person cannot obtain a patent on an invention if his
`
`or her invention would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time the invention
`
`was made. A conclusion of obviousness may be founded upon more than a single
`
`item of prior art. In determining whether prior art references render a claim
`
`obvious, counsel has informed me that courts consider the following factors: (1)
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 10
`
`

`
`the claims at issue, (3) the level having ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4)
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In addition, the obviousness inquiry
`
`should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness inquiry should be done
`
`through the eyes of one having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the
`
`patent was filed.
`
`24.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent
`
`claim obvious, counsel has informed me that courts allow a technical expert to
`
`consider the scope and content of the prior art, including the fact that a PHOSITA
`
`would look to the disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles,
`
`industry standards, product
`
`literature and documentation,
`
`text describing
`
`competitive technologies, requests for comment published by standard-setting
`
`organizations, and materials from industry conferences. I believe that all of the
`
`references upon which my opinions are based are well within the range of
`
`references a PHOSITA would consult to address the type of problems described in
`
`the Challenged Claims.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that for a reference to be considered in an obviousness
`
`analysis, it must be “analogous art” to the claimed invention, and that whether art
`
`is analogous is determined from the perspective of a PHOSITA. I understand that a
`
`prior art reference is considered analogous if it possesses at least one of two
`
`attributes. First, a reference is analogous art if it falls within the field of endeavor
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 11
`
`

`
`of the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). The field of
`
`endeavor may be determined by consulting the structure and function of the
`
`claimed invention. Alternatively, a prior art reference is analogous art if it is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not within
`
`the field of endeavor of the claimed invention). A reference is reasonably pertinent
`
`if it would have logically commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
`
`considering his or her problem.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the United States Supreme Court’s most recent
`
`opinion on the standard for determining whether a patent is obvious was stated in
`
`2007 in the KSR decision. Specifically, I understand that the existence of an
`
`explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements of the
`
`prior art is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness.
`
`The teaching-suggestion-motivation test should not be applied rigidly in an
`
`obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim
`
`is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid. I further understand
`
`the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents and/or publications,
`
`the effects of demands known to the technological community or present
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 12
`
`

`
`knowledge in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
`
`PHOSITA. All of these issues may be considered to determine whether there was
`
`an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the
`
`asserted patent.
`
`27.
`
`I also understand that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take into account the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a PHOSITA would employ. I understand that the prior art considered can
`
`be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`the invention and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art
`
`in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need not be directed towards
`
`solving the same specific problem as the problem addressed by the patent. Further,
`
`the individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards
`
`solving the same problem. Under the KSR framework, common sense is important
`
`and should be considered in any obviousness analysis. Common sense teaches that
`
`familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes and that
`
`slight variations to the art may be obvious.
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that the fact that a particular combination of prior art
`
`elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious even
`
`if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 13
`
`

`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it
`
`is likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I
`
`also understand that a claimed invention may be obvious even when the prior art
`
`does not teach each claimed limitation so long as there exists a reason a PHOSITA
`
`would modify the prior art to obtain the claimed invention. I further understand
`
`that in many fields, it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or
`
`combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than
`
`scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an invention. I
`
`understand that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do more than
`
`yield predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention. I understand that the factors to
`
`consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the
`
`educational level and experience of people working in the field at the time the
`
`invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the solutions
`
`found to those problems, (3) the sophistication of the technology in the field, and
`
`(4) the rapidity at which innovations were made at the time of the invention.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that at least the following rationales may support a
`
`finding of obviousness:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 14
`
`

`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`• Use of a known technique 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;
`• A predictable variation of work in the same or a different field of
`endeavor, which a person of ordinary skill would be able to implement;
`• 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 claim;
`• 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 technological
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and/or
`• 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.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is established,
`
`
`
`the final determination of obviousness must
`
`take
`
`into account “secondary
`
`considerations”
`
`if presented. In most cases,
`
`the patentee raises secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues that an
`
`invention would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, such as (1)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention, (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention, (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention, (d) deliberate copying of the invention by
`
`others, (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention, (f) praise of the invention by
`
`others skilled in the art, (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention within a
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 15
`
`

`
`comparatively short space of time, (h) teaching away from the invention in the prior
`
`art. I further understand such secondary considerations are only relevant if the offering
`
`party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the evidence and the claimed
`
`invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features. The establishment of a
`
`nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`secondary considerations at this time, I will supplement my opinions in the event hat
`
`Patent Owner raises secondary considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`III. OPINION
`A. Background of the Technology
`32. Planning and scheduling maintenance does not require materially
`
`different technology than planning and scheduling chores and activities within a
`
`family home, e.g., creating a weekly calendar specifying who will do the dishes
`
`and an annual calendar with tasks such as gutter cleaning. Part of the claimed
`
`invention is building up a list of activities to be performed upon the occurrence of
`
`an event. A parent who writes down a list of rainy-day activities for children or a
`
`“stuff to buy next time we’re at Target” list is engaged in essentially the same
`
`process. For example, from The American Woman’s Home by Catherine E.
`
`Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe (1869), in the “Habits of System and Order”
`
`pages 231-32:
`
`At this time, let her take a pen, and make a list of all the things which she
`considers as duties. Then, let a calculation be made, whether there be time
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 16
`
`

`
`enough, in the day or the week, for all these duties. If there be not, let the
`least important be stricken from the list… Every young lady can systematize
`her pursuits, to a certain extent. She can have a particular day for mending
`her wardrobe, and for arranging her trunks, closets, and drawers. … She can
`have regular periods for reading, walking, visiting, study and domestic
`pursuits.
`Ex. 1024, Beecher and Stowe at 231-32.
`
`
`33. A database is an organized collection of information, and the concept
`
`of a database predates computer systems. For example, a library card catalog is an
`
`example of a database. A computer program that assists programmers with
`
`common challenges regarding creating, updating, and querying a database is a
`
`database management system (DBMS).
`
`34. Commercial DBMSes were widely available in the 1960s, notably the
`
`Information Management System (IMS) developed by IBM for the IBM 360
`
`mainframe computers. The relational database management system (RDBMS) was
`
`conceived by E.F. Codd, a researcher at IBM, in the late 1960s, but did not become
`
`available commercially until the late 1970s. See, e.g., Ex. 1025, Jackson at 972.
`
`The first implementation of an RDBMS according to Codd’s published principles
`
`was System R, developed in the first half of the 1970s by IBM researchers. The
`
`SQL language was introduced with System R and remains the standard query
`
`language for RDBMS today.
`
`35. A database application is a computer program whose primary
`
`purpose is entering information into and retrieving information from a computer-
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 17
`
`

`
`managed database. Some of the earliest database applications were accounting
`
`systems and airline reservation systems such as SABRE, developed between 1957
`
`and 1960 by IBM and American Airlines. All of the software resided on a
`
`mainframe computer and users connected via “dumb terminals.” After the RDBMS
`
`became popular in the early 1980s, coincident with the rise of the desktop personal
`
`computer (PC), it was conventional to build business data processing systems as
`
`client/server relational database applications. Using a desktop Microsoft Windows
`
`or Apple Macintosh computer as the client connected to the RDBMS server
`
`enabled a richer user interface compared to the terminal/mainframe systems of the
`
`1960s and 1970s. It was straightforward and conventional to incorporate standard
`
`graphical user interface capabilities of the Windows and Macintosh operating
`
`systems, such as pull-down menus and drag-and-drop, into database applications.
`
`36. Computers of the 1950s typically had no user interface. Operators put
`
`punch cards in and waited for printed output to return to programmers. Time-
`
`sharing computers of the 1960s had character-oriented user interfaces accessible
`
`from terminals. The conventional graphical user interface (GUI) with keyboard
`
`and mouse was developed by Douglas Engelbart’s team at SRI International in the
`
`late 1960s and improved in the early 1970s at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
`
`(Xerox PARC). A core feature of the GUI was and is direct manipulation. Instead
`
`of typing a command and watching to see the result, the user can grab something
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 18
`
`

`
`with the mouse pointer. See Ex. 1026, Shneiderman at 57 (1983). The GUI reached
`
`enthusiastic consumers in 1984 with the Apple Macintosh and typical consumers in
`
`1990 with Microsoft Windows 3.0.
`
`37. One innovation of the 1984 Apple Macintosh system over prior art
`
`GUIs was drag-and-drop. Macintosh users in the Finder could move a file from
`
`one folder to another with drag-and-drop and a file could be deleted by moving it
`
`to the trash can icon. The drag-and-drop interface was gradually adopted for more
`
`applications, for moving information from one application to another, and on other
`
`operating systems, including Windows. A concise summary is provided in the
`
`standard mid-1990s Windows programmer’s reference, About Face:
`
`Of all the direct-manipulation idioms characteristic of the GUI, nothing
`defines it more than the drag-and-drop operation, clicking and holding the
`button while moving some object across the screen. … We might define it as
`“clicking on some object and moving it elsewhere,” … The Macintosh was
`the first successful system to offer drag-and-drop. … To Apple’s credit, they
`described drag-and-drop in their first user interface standards guide. … It
`wasn’t until Windows 3.0
`that any drag-and-drop outside of
`MXPAINT.EXE appeared.
`
`Ex. 1027, About Face, 247-48. Windows 3.0 was released in 1990. By the mid-
`
`1990s, drag-and-drop was well-established across a wide range of desktop
`
`applications and operating systems. See Ex. 1028, UNIX Today! at 1 (showing how
`
`the Sun Microsystems user interface library circa 1990 facilitated software
`
`developers adding drag-and-drop to application programs).
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 19
`
`

`
`38. The simplest kind of drag-and-drop was and remains moving
`
`something within an application program, e.g., moving a line within a drawing
`
`program, a section of text within a word processor, a slide within a slide show, or a
`
`calendar event from one date/time to another. These kinds of facilities became
`
`available soon after the Macintosh Finder pioneered drag-and-drop. See Ex. 1029,
`
`Business Wire (1991) at 1-2 (Microsoft Word first includes drag-and-drop); Ex.
`
`1030, Shore at 1(Microsoft Excel includes drag-and-drop for copying cells).
`
`39. Programs for dealing with scheduling and resource planning, the most
`
`basic of which is an electronic calendar, have also provided drag-and-drop
`
`capabilities since at least the mid-1990s. See Ex. 1031, Claiborne at 2 (describing
`
`the ACT! Program, which was similar to today’s Microsoft Outlook, “[Y]ou
`
`simply drag the meeting into the new time slot on the calendar display and drop it;
`
`all related information moves instantly.”); see also Ex. 1032, Computer Reseller
`
`News at 1 (“[I]n Network Scheduler 3, version 2.0, users could drag and drop to-do
`
`items to a specific time”); Ex. 1033, Schweitzer at [0084], [0085], [0262] (teaching
`
`the use of drag-and-drop to assign resources to employees and to create a new
`
`event in or move an existing even to a given time); Ex. 1034, Business Wire (1993)
`
`(“The monthly screen provides a graphical presentation of the activities of multiple
`
`users and/or resources … From the overview mode, you can view a time that is
`
`CiM Ex. 1022 Page 20
`
`

`
`available to all users and, by clicking and dragging, specify the appointment time --
`
`and have all participants automatically invited.”).
`
`40. Direct manipulation of objects within schedules via dragging-and-
`
`dropping remained popular with more recent and more advanced scheduling and
`
`planning programs. See Ex. 1035, Oracle EAM User’s Guide at p. 217 (teaching
`
`dynamically adjusting schedules by moving calendar bars between calendar days);
`
`Ex. 1036, Maximo Comprehensive Facilities Management Solutions at 2 (dragging
`
`and dropping materials into actuals for a work order). And programmers of
`
`scheduling interfaces have long been familiar with using drag-and-drop as a means
`
`of rescheduling calendar events and updating the schedule based on a drag-and-
`
`drop incident. See Ex. 1037, Colle at [0072], [0094], [0107] (teaching dragging
`
`and dropping a service item to a particular date and time period); Ex. 1038, Colle
`
`‘383 Provisional at pp. 33, 34, 45, 79 (teaching creating, moving, or deleting an
`
`assignment via drag and drop and triggering an alert if certain conflicts arise).
`
`41. A Dow Jones Factiva search conducted on November 24, 2016 found
`
`16,122 articles published between January 1, 1983 and January 1, 2000 that used
`
`the term “drag and drop” or “drag-and-drop.”
`
`42. Replacing paper processes with analogous computer-managed
`
`processes has been a staple