Paper No. __
`Filed: July 9, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VILOX TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,302,423
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PATENT AND APPLICABLE REFERENCES
` ......................................................................................................................... 2
`A. The ‘423 Patent ....................................................................................... 2
`1. Specification................................................................................... 2
`2. The Challenged Claims ................................................................ 5
`B. References ................................................................................................ 6
`1. EX1006: Maloney .......................................................................... 7
`2. EX1009: Excel .............................................................................11
`3. EX1007: Bertram .........................................................................14
`4. EX1008, Kanevsky .......................................................................24
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .........................................................................26
`A. “Determining a Database Schema for a Database” ..........................27
`B. “Determining a Number of Characters” ............................................27
`C. “Performing a Truncation” .................................................................28
`D. “Displaying a Portion of Each Entry in the Selected Database Field,
`wherein a Number of Characters Displayed in Each Portion is
`Less than or Equal to the Specified Amount of Characters” ........29
`E. “Each Entry from the Selected Data Field is Displayed on a
`Terminal” ...........................................................................................30
`F. Independent Claims 1 and 3 Should Not be Construed to Recite
`“Conditional Limitations” ................................................................31
`1. Background .................................................................................31
`2. Argument .....................................................................................33
`IV. EXCEL DOES NOT QUALIFY AS PRIOR ART .....................................35
`A. The Controlling Priority Date Is At Least As Early As January
`1999. ....................................................................................................38
`B. Petitioner Cannot Establish Publication of the Excel Bible Prior to
`Patent Owner’s January 1999 Priority Date ..................................41
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`1. “Copy 2” of the Excel Bible .......................................................42
`2. “Copy 1” of Excel Bible ..............................................................43
`3. None of Petitioner’s Dates Predate Patent Owner’s Invention
` ...................................................................................................45
`V. RESPONSE TO GROUND I .........................................................................46
`A. A PHOSITA Would Not Have Had A Motivation to Combine
`Maloney And Bertram. ......................................................................46
`B. Maloney in view of Bertram Does Not Teach Or Suggest All
`Limitations of the Invention .............................................................51
`1. Claim 1 .........................................................................................51
`2. Claim 2 .........................................................................................55
`3. Claim 3 .........................................................................................57
`VI. RESPONSE TO GROUND II ......................................................................57
`A. A PHOSITA Would Not Have Had A Motivation to Combine Excel
`And Bertram. ......................................................................................57
`1. Excel provides more than adequate mechanisms to
`accommodate a large quantity of data without requiring
`truncation or abbreviation .....................................................57
`2. Excel includes significant features that would be rendered
`inoperative in the combination of Excel and Bertram .........60
`3. Petitioner has not identified any advantage offered by Bertram
`not already present in Excel ...................................................62
`4. There would be no expectation of success in the combination
`of Excel and Bertram ...............................................................63
`5. Petitioner did not address portions of the Excel Bible that
`teach away from abbreviation and truncation as taught in
`Bertram .....................................................................................65
`B. Excel in View of Bertram Does Not Teach Or Suggest All
`Limitations Of The Invention ..........................................................66
`1. Claim 1 .........................................................................................66
`2. Claim 3 .........................................................................................67
`VII. RESPONSE TO GROUND III ...................................................................67
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`A. A PHOSITA Would Not Have Had a Motivation to Combine
`Maloney, Bertram, and, Kanevsky. ...................................................67
`VIII. RESPONSE TO GROUND IV ...................................................................69
`A. Excel in View of Bertram and Kanevsky Does Not Teach Or Suggest
`All Limitations Of The Invention ....................................................69
`1. Claim 6 .........................................................................................69
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................71
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Ex parte Gopalan,
` Appeal 2017-007009 (PTAB May 23, 2018) .............................................. passim
`
`Ex Parte Schulhauser,
` Appeal 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) ......................29
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
` 146 F.3d 1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................35
`
`In re Jolley,
` 308 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................... 34, 35
`
`In re Verhoef,
` Ca. No. 2017-1976 at *6 (Fed. Cir., May 3, 2018). .............................................35
`
`NFC Tech., LLC v. Matal,
` 871 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................... 34, 35
`
`Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d
`1004, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2016). ................................................................................36
`
`Price v. Symsek,
` 988 F.2d 1187, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .......................................................... 34, 35
`
`Purdue Pharma. L.P. v. Boehring Ingelheim GmbH,
` 237 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................34
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C § 102 .........................................................................................................34
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Declaration of Wesley W. Chu, Ph.D. (Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Wesley W. Chu, Ph.D.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Joseph L. De Bellis (Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response)
`
`Excel II
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,593,949 to Chee H. Chew (Chew)
`
`Excerpt from Webster’s Dictionary
`
`Declaration of Cecil E. Key
`
`Patent Owner’s Notice of Deposition of Dr., Hsieh-Yee
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee
`
`Library of Congress Online Catalog Listing for Microsoft Excel
`2000 Bible, Full Record
`
`Library of Congress Online Catalog Listing for Microsoft Excel
`2000 Bible, MARC Tags
`
`Wayne State University Library System Listing for Microsoft
`Excel 2000 Bible
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee
`
`Excel III (excerpt of Excel 2000 Bible)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Philip Greenspun, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,760,720 to De Bellis
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wesley W. Chu, Ph.D.
`
`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics
`Terms (6th ed.)(excerpt)
`
`Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (excerpt)
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3rd ed.) (excerpt)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Joseph L. De Bellis
`
`Declaration of Lucille Marie De Bellis
`
`Warehouse.com Receipt (Dec. 10, 1999)
`
`Tallgrass Technologies Receipt (Dec. 15, 1999)
`
`Fig. 10 from U.S. Patent No. 6,760,720
`
`Letter from Dr. Joseph L. De Bellis to John Harrop (Dec. 28,
`1999)
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner has challenged the patentability of Claims 1-9 and 13 of the ‘423
`
`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`I.
`
`Patent based solely on obviousness grounds. Petitioner cannot meet its burden of
`
`showing that any of the claims are unpatentable over the asserted combinations for
`
`several basic reasons:
`
`•
`
`The Excel Bible (EX1009) cannot qualify as prior art. According to
`
`the analysis of Petitioner’s expert, the earliest dates of public
`
`accessibility Petitioner can establish (late December 1999 or October
`
`26, 1999) are after Patent Owner’s dates of conception (January 1999)
`
`and beginning reduction to practice (May 1999). See Part V, infra.
`
`•
`
`Maloney (EX1006) cannot be combined with Bertram (EX1007).
`
`Petitioner’s expert testified that the combination would yield results
`
`that are unintelligible to the user of the Maloney system and that the
`
`combination does not disclose the required “determining a number of
`
`characters” limitation. See Part VI(A)-(B), infra.
`
`•
`
`As Dr. Chu, a PHOSITA with extensive experience in the relevant art
`
`has confirmed, The Excel Bible cannot be combined with Bertram
`
`(EX1007). As Dr. Chu, a PHOSITA with extensive experience in the
`
`relevant art has confirmed, the application of Bertram’s reduction
`
`method would result in the reduction of complete words or phrases to
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`an unintelligible string of characters, which would be an absurd result
`
`for users of Excel. See Part VII, infra.
`
`•
`
`Dr. Chu has also concluded that a PHOSITA would not be able to
`
`combine Kanevsky (EX1008) with any of the remaining references in
`
`a way that would achieve necessary results such as displaying all the
`
`results on the same page. See Part VIII-IX, infra.
`
`Petitioner’s challenges should therefore be rejected. Patent Owner is,
`
`however, submitting concurrently herewith a Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`presenting amendments to overcome the challenged art in the event the Board finds
`
`one or more of the challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`II. DESCRIPTION OF THE
`REFERENCES
`
`PATENT AND APPLICABLE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The ‘423 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Specification
`
`The ’423 Patent (EX1001) discloses a dynamic search engine and
`
`corresponding dynamic search methods. The search engine may be applied to
`
`databases for which prior knowledge of database schemas is not available to the user.
`
`Thus, the search engine determines the database schema. EX1001, 6:32-33; 7:3-5.
`
`
`
`In response to a query, the search engine returns search results, which may be
`
`in a tabular form that consists of a column with multiple rows. Id., Figure 4. Each
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`search result may be termed an “entry” in the column. Id., 7:19-33. Entries are not
`
`limited to text; an entry may consist of a number of characters (for example,
`
`numbers, numerals, symbols, spaces and icons). Id., Fig. 30; 17:14-15.
`
`
`
`The search engine may return so many entries that the search results cannot
`
`be displayed within the limited space of a display screen or on a single page. The
`
`search engine may therefore perform operations on the returned search results. One
`
`such operation involves truncation. One example of truncation involves determining
`
`a number of characters in each entry in a database field, and if, for a specific entry,
`
`the number of characters exceeds a specified limit, deleting a character from the
`
`entry. The process of determining and deleting executes in an iterative fashion until
`
`all entries may be represented on the display screen or page. Id., 7:19-16:40; Figures
`
`4, 10–16, 18–24, 27–38, 40-49, and 52.
`
`
`
`Figure 11 from the ’423 Patent, reproduced below, shows truncation by
`
`determining a number of characters in each entry in a database field.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The list of available data fields shows categories by which a search for books
`
`may be narrowed. One available data field is “Titles,” which, as can be seen, was
`
`selected by the user. A search for books by title produces so many results that the
`
`titles are truncated so that only the first character (1 – 9 and A – Z) of the title is
`
`displayed. This first interim result list is generated by successive, or iterative
`
`truncation. See EX1001, 8:22– 9:6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`2.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`Claims 1-9 and 13 are challenged here; these claims all were examined
`
`
`
`extensively by the Office including with respect to Maloney. See EX1002, patent
`
`application 09/935,565 file history.
`
`
`
`Claim 1, directed to a computer-implemented method for displaying data,
`
`recites several limitations not present in any combination of references asserted by
`
`Petitioner, including (1) determining a database schema for a database; (2)
`
`determining a number of characters included in each entry in the selected database
`
`field; (3) if the number of characters included in each entry exceeds a specified
`
`amount of characters, displaying a portion of each entry in the selected database
`
`field, wherein a number of characters displayed in each portion is less than or equal
`
`to the specified amount of characters; and (4) if the number of characters included
`
`in each entry does not exceed the specified amount, displaying each entry in its
`
`entirety. EX1001, claim 1.
`
`
`
`Independent claim 3, directed to a computerized method for formatting data
`
`for display, similarly recites several limitations not present in any combination of
`
`references asserted in this IPR, including (1) determining a first quantity indicative
`
`of a number of characters in each entry of the selected data field; (2) if the first
`
`quantity exceeds a specified limit, reducing a number of characters to be displayed
`
`for each entry from the selected data field; (3) performing a truncation that reduces
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`the number of characters to be displayed from the selected data field; (4) comparing
`
`the reduced number of characters to the specified limit; (5) if the reduced number of
`
`characters exceeds the specified limit, repeating the truncation and comparing steps
`
`until the reduced number of characters to be displayed from the selected data field
`
`is less than or equal to the specified limits; and (6) displaying the reduced number
`
`of characters for each entry from the selected data field. Id., claim 3.
`
`
`
`In addition, dependent claims 2, 4–9, and 13 also recite limitations not present
`
`in any combination of references asserted in this IPR. For example, claim 2 recites
`
`“[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising a key word search”; claim 6 recites
`
`“[t]he method of claim 3, wherein each entry from the selected data field is displayed
`
`on a terminal, and wherein 30 the specified limit is determined dynamically, based
`
`on a characteristic of the terminal.” Id., claims 2, 6.
`
`
`
`B. References
`
`As a general matter, Petitioner has described the references asserted in the
`
`present IPR while ignoring sections of the disclosures that teach away from the
`
`subject matter of the challenged claims. These sections, once reviewed by a
`
`PHOSITA, would have made clear that a PHOSITA would have had no motivation
`
`to combine any of the references. The sections of this Patent Owner’s Response that
`
`follow immediately hereafter describe the defects in each reference.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`1.
`
`EX1006: Maloney
`
`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`Maloney is directed to a system and a method that allow an end user 8 access
`
`
`
`to a database “without having to understand the physical database schema.”
`
`EX1006, 2:44–45. To this end, Maloney discloses a “logical schema” as a “set of
`
`rules” to allow access to a physical database.” Id., 4:45–49. Generating the “set of
`
`rules” involves creating a specific naming convention for structures of the physical
`
`database governed by the “set of rules,” and Maloney’s method generates the “set of
`
`rules” using the underlying physical database schema. A human database
`
`administrator (DBA), who does know the physical database schema, creates the “set
`
`of rules” by specifying which structures of the physical database are to be made
`
`available to the end user 8. EX2017, Declaration of Dr. Wesley W. Chu, ¶60
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA would not have viewed creating Maloney’s “logical schemas”
`
`as equivalent to determining a database schema for a database. First, Maloney
`
`explicitly describes a logical schema as “a set of instructions … to control how data
`
`is returned from the database.” Id. ¶61. A “set of rules” (or a “set of instructions”)
`
`is neither a “collection of tables” nor “the logical structure of data stored in
`
`computerized files”. Second, a PHOSITA would have understood the difference
`
`between the schema of Maloney’s physical database and Maloney’s “logical
`
`schemas.” Maloney’s physical database schema describes the tables constituting the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`database and the relationships among the tables while the “logical schema” or “set
`
`of rules” merely defines how data are retrieved from the physical database so as to
`
`allow an inexperienced end user 8 to easily access the physical database. Id. Third,
`
`a database administrator “knows” in advance, the physical database schema. Id.
`
`Because the physical database schema is known in advance by the database
`
`administrator, there is no need to “determine” the schema of the physical database.
`
`Fourth, a PHOSITA would know that an end user 8 accessing the logical schema
`
`specifically created for him by the database administrator does not constitute
`
`“determining a database schema.” Id. In summary, Maloney employs the term
`
`“logical schema” to refer to a set of database “rules” rather than an actual database
`
`schema. Calling a set of database rules a schema does not make it a schema, and no
`
`PHOSITA would consider Maloney’s “logical schemas,” or “sets of rules” to be a
`
`database schema. Thus, a PHOSITA would have concluded that Maloney does not
`
`disclose or suggest determining a database schema, and Maloney’s logical schemas
`
`are merely “sets of rules” to access an existing physical database and do not
`
`constitute a database schema. Id.
`
`
`
`Maloney discloses and requires an explicit naming convention. The naming
`
`convention is a critical aspect of the “set of rules.” Names familiar to the end user
`
`are displayed in a graphical interface to allow the end user to easily build customized
`
`forms, reports, and queries. Maloney discloses:
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Once tables for the logical schema are selected … an alias, label, and
`
`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`title for each table may be specified. An alias is a secondary name that
`
`is recognized by the DBMS. … The reason a table name is given an
`
`alias is to make the name more meaningful to an end user who will later
`
`create forms and reports using the logical schema.
`
`When end users use the logical schema to create a form or report, they
`
`may be given a list of columns in the logical schema from which to
`
`choose. The original names of columns in databases may not be
`
`descriptive of their contents, and it may be helpful to provide more
`
`descriptive names. For example, "custnum" columns could be changed
`
`to the more meaningful alias of "Customer Number".
`
`Id. ¶65 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Figure 18 of Maloney, reproduced below, illustrates a display of table names
`
`(also known as aliases) according to the “set of rules” in the graphical interface. The
`
`Fields & Expressions display presents text objects that are specific names,
`
`recognizable by end user. The end user selects from the displayed names to create
`
`report forms and reports. While the table names contained in the display of Figure
`
`18
`
`
`
`be
`
`may
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`
`
`changed, any changes should be at the request of the end user; otherwise, the end
`
`user might not recognize the changed names. Since an end user must correctly
`
`identify the tables and columns to select, a PHOSITA would know that maintaining
`
`a consistent list of table and column names is critical to the proper use of the logical
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`schema. A PHOSITA would have known that if a table or column name were altered
`
`in the display of Figure 18, an end user might not recognize the correct table or
`
`column to access in order to generate a report. Thus, a PHOSITA would have known
`
`that maintaining the fidelity of the displayed names is critical to the proper
`
`functioning of Maloney’s invention. Id. ¶67.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`EX1009: Excel
`
`Excel is a software product that provides interactive spreadsheets, organized
`
`into workbooks. An Excel spreadsheet contains columns and rows. The intersection
`
`of a column and a row defines a cell. A cell may “hold” data. When displayed on a
`
`computer screen (for example) data within a cell may be displayed to a user. An
`
`Excel spreadsheet may be saved. More specifically, as a PHOSITA would have
`
`understood, when an Excel workbook (which could contain many spreadsheets) is
`
`opened, the Excel workbook (and its spreadsheets) typically is stored in memory
`
`(i.e., typically volatile storage such as Random Access Memory (RAM)) of the
`
`computer. A PHOSITA further would have understood that when a spreadsheet was
`
`“saved in a file,” the spreadsheet was stored in non-volatile storage – for example,
`
`Read Only Memory (ROM), flash memory, and other non-volatile data storage (e.g.,
`
`a hard drive). Thus, as a PHOSITA would have known, changing information
`
`displayed in a spreadsheet did (and still does), in fact, change what was stored in
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`memory; however, a copy of the spreadsheet stored “in a file” was not changed until
`
`the user saved the altered spreadsheet. EX2017, ¶68.
`
`
`
`When an Excel spreadsheet was used to access an external database, changes
`
`to the spreadsheet did not affect the external database. However, as a PHOSITA
`
`would have known, a spreadsheet referencing an external database would have been
`
`stored (temporarily) in memory (e.g., RAM) and that it would have been changed in
`
`memory when a user manipulated the spreadsheet; the same spreadsheet would have
`
`been stored in non-volatile storage when the user saved the spreadsheet “in a file.”
`
`Thus, for example, Excel describes that a single Excel cell could “contain” as many
`
`as 32,000 characters, but all the 32,000 characters might not have been available for
`
`display. However, all 32,000 characters would have been stored temporarily in
`
`memory, and if the spreadsheet had been saved “in a file,” the 32,000 characters
`
`would have been saved to non-volatile storage. Accordingly, changing what the cell
`
`displayed by, for example, truncation or abbreviation, would have changed what was
`
`stored in memory, and subsequently saving the spreadsheet “in a file” would have
`
`changed what was stored in non-volatile storage. Id.
`
`
`
`Although an Excel spreadsheet includes a database and a display of, or view
`
`into, that database, in some situations, what the database holds is not displayed to
`
`the user or is reformatted for display. Id. ¶73. For example, Excel provides
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`automatic and manual features or mechanisms that affect the display of data from
`
`the underlying database. Id. ¶74.
`
`
`
`Hence:
`
`• A PHOSITA would have understood that an Excel spreadsheet consisted of a
`
`display and a database. A PHOSITA further would have understood that some
`
`contents of the database may not have been shown in the display.
`
`• A PHOSITA would have understood that editing text in a cell to make the text
`
`shorter altered not only the text in the display but when the database was saved
`
`“in a file” the edited text was saved; i.e., editing permanently removed text
`
`from both the database and the display.
`
`• A PHOSITA would have understood that increasing the width of a column
`
`allowed for the display of more text in a cell but did not affect what was stored
`
`in the database.
`
`• A PHOSITA would have understood that selecting the “wrap text” feature
`
`resulted in the display of the entire content of a cell by adding lines in the cell
`
`until the contents of the cell are displayed. A PHOSITA further would have
`
`understood that the “wrap text” feature would not affect what was stored in
`
`the database.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`• A PHOSITA would have understood that the features disclosed in Excel
`
`provided convenient mechanisms for storing large quantities of information
`
`and at the same time, provided a convenient display.
`
`• A PHOSITA would have understood that an Excel spreadsheet might not have
`
`displayed all the data that cell “contained.” For example, a cell could contain
`
`32,000 characters, but the display of those 32,000 characters could have been
`
`limited; nonetheless, a display limitation did not affect the actual contents of
`
`the cell.
`
`
`
`Thus, A PHOSITA would have understood that Excel described numerous,
`
`well-designed mechanisms to accommodate large quantities of data without the need
`
`to actually reduce, truncate, or abbreviate any of the data for display AND without
`
`any possibility of permanently altering the data stored in Excel’s underlying
`
`database. Id. ¶¶84-96.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`EX1007: Bertram
`
`Bertram notes that data often are displayed in a table organized into rows and
`
`columns. Columns with entries containing text data may take up more horizontal
`
`space than is desirable. For example, a column may include a column heading that
`
`is longer than the data in the other column entries, which can waste space on the
`
`display or force a user to scroll horizontally to view data. Bertram discloses that one
`
`prior art solution involved truncating the text data in the column header to allow the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`column to be made narrower. However, Bertram asserts that truncation has
`
`drawbacks. In fact, Bertram explicitly disparages truncation, noting that
`
`information important in identifying the monitor may be lost by truncating the
`
`column heading. Id. ¶¶98-99(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Bertram solves the problems of overly-wide columns while preserving textual
`
`meaning by implementing a two-phased, iterative abbreviation and truncation
`
`process. Specifically, Bertram discloses a two-phased process, namely an
`
`abbreviation process followed, optionally, by a one-time truncation process.
`
`Bertram, Figure 7 (reproduced below), illustrates the abbreviation process in which
`
`a user employs a prior art method (illustrated in Figure 3, also reproduced below)
`
`set a column width. However, Bertram does not explain what this width-setting
`
`method is: “The user enters the desired width of the column heading via step 52.”
`
`Bertram provides no further explanation as to how column width is set or
`
`determined. Id. ¶¶101-102.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018—OOO44
`
`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`1W— W
`
`ITO
`
`mmT‘I'PE
`
`.EST5%.- ”a134-
`
`I‘ll]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018—OOO44
`
`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 5
`(PRIOR ART}
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`The abbreviation process then proceeds according to Figure 7 to abbreviate
`
`
`
`one character at a time. The abbreviation process executes by examining characters
`
`by type, left to right, and abbreviating or removing characters until a width set in
`
`accordance with step 52 of Figure 3 is achieved. Once all abbreviation steps are
`
`executed, if the column width still is greater than the set width, Bertram applies a
`
`one-time truncation, left to right, that achieves the set width in accordance with step
`
`182: “the column heading is truncated to the appropriate number of characters via
`
`step 196.” Id. However, Bertram does not disclose or suggest how step 182 is
`
`executed: It is then determined if the width of the column heading is greater than
`
`the width set in step 52 of the method 50, via step 182. Id. ¶106.
`
`
`
`Bertram, Figure 4, reproduced below, “depicts a table 70 displayed after the
`
`conventional method 50 has been used to truncate the columns to be five characters
`
`in width.” EX1007 5:9–11. (Note that this statement is not correct – see column 71,
`
`which clearly holds six letters (characters) and at least a leading and trailing blank
`
`space (also a character)). EX2017, ¶103.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`
`Bertram states that in Figure 4, the prior art process is “used to truncate the
`
`
`
`column to be five characters in width.” Petitioner asserts that the phrase “used to
`
`truncate the column to be five characters in width” should be interpreted to mean
`
`Bertram discloses “determining a number of characters” in an entry. EX1005, at 39;
`
`(citing Bertram 5:10-11). However, when Patent Owner’s counsel asked Dr.
`
`Greenspun if and where Bertram discloses “determining a number of characters, Dr.
`
`Greenspun could not do so:
`
`A. The user enters the desired width of the column heading via step
`
`52.
`
`Q. What does that mean?
`
`A. The user would have to type in, for example, how many
`
`characters he or she wanted to see for each column of a table; or, if
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`you had a somewhat fancier system like Microsoft Excel, you might
`
`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`be able to use a mouse to drag a column to the desired width.
`
`Q. Where does Bertram say he would type in the number of
`
`characters?
`
`A. He doesn't say that, so the person of ordinary skill would infer
`
`that it would be done either with the -- well, it says "the user enters,"
`
`so that usually implies typing and hitting the carriage return, or enter
`
`key.
`
`…
`
`Q. And where does it say that he enters a number of characters?
`
`A. It -- it doesn't say that.
`
`…
`
`Q. Well, Dr. Greenspun, I'm asking you what does Bertram say.
`
`Does it say anywhere, enter the number of characters?
`
`A. No.
`
`…
`
`Q. … Is there any disclosure in Bertram that states “determining a
`
`number of characters”?
`
`…
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`A. I don’t think that Bertram uses the phrase, “determining a number
`
`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent No. 7,403,423
`
`
`of characters,” no.
`
`Id., at 99:4–101:23.
`
`Thus, Dr. Greenspun admits that Bertram does not disclose “determining a number
`
`of characters.” EX2017, ¶104.
`
`
`
`Bertram, Figure 8 (reproduced below), illustrates application of the Figure 7
`
`abbreviation process to the database table shown in Figure 2 (also reproduced
`
`below). Figure 8 illustrates two columns (210 and 240) with six characters (more if
`
`the leading and trailing blanks are included) and four columns with 5 characters (plus
`
`blanks); however, the six illustrated columns all have the same width; in other words,
`
`column w