`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`MERRILL COMMUNICATIONS LLC d/b/a MERRILL
`CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
` E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent 9,268,748
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. SMITH
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................4
`
`II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`Education, Background and Experience ....................................................................6
`
`B.
`
`Compensation ...............................................................................................................7
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW .............................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .............................................................................8
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness ..................................................................................................................9
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................10
`
`V. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ‘748 PATENT ...............................................10
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ‘748 PATENT ................................................................................42
`
`VII. THE APPLIED PRIOR ART ............................................................................................42
`
`A.
`
`Simpson (Ex. 1005) ....................................................................................................42
`
`B.
`
`Goldfarb (Ex. 1006)....................................................................................................45
`
`VIII. THE INSTITUTED GROUNDS ....................................................................................48
`
`A.
`
`Grounds 1: Simpson In View Of Goldfarb .............................................................48
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“an application including a network browser on the device for
`accessing a system configured for” as required by claim 1 ...............................48
`
`“calculation rule for validation of a calculation involving data values”
`as required by claim 1 ..........................................................................................57
`
`“a computer-readable calculation rule for validation of a calculation
`involving data values, and a computer-readable unit rule for validation
`of a unit of data values” as required by claim 1 .................................................59
`
`“code for mapping the one or more of the computer-readable semantic
`tags to the one or more of the original values” as required by claim 11 ..........64
`
`“outputting at least one computer-readable Extensible Markup
`Language (XML)-compliant data document that is based on at least a
`portion of the at least one object and at least a portion of the mapping”
`as required by claim 11 ........................................................................................66
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`B.
`
`A POSA Would Not Be Motivated To Modify Simpson In View Of
`Goldfarb ......................................................................................................................69
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Simpson Discloses Existing System With Limitations The Claimed
`Invention Overcomes ...........................................................................................74
`
`The Proposed Modification Would Eliminate Goldfarb’s Stated
`Improvement.........................................................................................................75
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner Failed To Address The Inefficiencies Created .................................77
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`I, Dr. Michael J. Smith of Palo Alto, California, declare as follows:
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1)
`
`I have been retained by e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. (“ENUM”) in
`
`this Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) as an independent expert to provide opinions
`
`regarding the subject matter recited in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`(Ex. 1001, “‘748 patent”). In particular, I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinion as to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention (“POSA”) would have found claims 1, 11 and 19 of the ‘748 patent
`
`obvious in view of Alan Simpson & Elizabeth Olson, Mastering Access 97 (4th
`
`ed. 1997) (Ex. 1005, “Simpson”) in view of Charles F. Goldfarb & Paul
`
`Prescod, The XML Handbook (1998) (Ex. 1006, “Goldfarb”), based on the
`
`arguments and evidence submitted by Petitioner Merrill Communications LLC
`
`d/b/a Merrill Corporation (“Merrill”) and its declarant, Dr. Hospodor.
`
`2)
`
`I understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“Board”) has instituted an IPR of the
`
`patentability of Claims 1, 11 and 19 of the ‘748 patent following the
`
`submission of a Petition by Merrill. I understand that Merrill also submitted a
`
`supporting declaration by Dr. Andrew David Hospodor.
`
`3)
`
`I understand the Board has instituted review on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`a. Claims 1, 11 and 19 of the ‘748 patent as obvious over Simpson in
`
`view of Goldfarb pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`4) My analysis and conclusions regarding the ‘748 patent and the
`
`instituted grounds are set forth below.
`
`5)
`
`In connection with forming my opinions, I have considered the
`
`references and materials submitted by the parties in this proceeding, and in
`
`particular those cited herein, including the following:
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`Exhibit Reference Name
`N/A
`Merrill’s Petition
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748 to Davis
`1002
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`1003
`Declaration of Andrew D. Hospodor Regarding ʼ748 Patent
`1004
`Curriculum Vitae of Andrew D. Hospodor
`1005
`Alan Simpson & Elizabeth Olson, Mastering Access 97 (SYBEX Inc.
`1997)
`Charles Goldfarb & Paul Prescod, The XML Handbook (Prentice
`Hall PTR 1998)
`Declaration of Anne Rondoni Tavernier and Exhibits A-F
`Regarding Publication of Mastering Access 97
`Declaration of Peter Rolla and Exhibits A-B Regarding
`Publication of The XML Handbook
`1009 Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999)
`1010
`e-Numerate’s original Complaint in Case No. 1:17-cv-00933-RGA
`in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Affidavit of Service of e-Numerate’s original Complaint in Case
`No. 1:17-cv-00933-RGA in the U.S. District Court for the District
`of Delaware
`e-Numerate’s Amended Complaint in Case No. 1:17-cv-00933-
`RGA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Affidavit of Service of e-Numerate’s Amended Complaint in Case
`No. 1:17-cv-00933-RGA in the U.S. District Court for the District
`of Delaware
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`N/A
`
`Institution Decision
`
`
`
`6) My opinions set forth below are based on my education, training,
`
`experience, and the content of the references considered. My understanding of
`
`the relevant law, as discussed below, is based on my discussions with counsel
`
`for ENUM.
`
`
`
`II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Education, Background and Experience
`
`7)
`
`I am a United States permanent resident at Palo Alto, California.
`
`8) My curriculum vitae (CV) listing my educational background and
`
`work experience is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A.
`
`9)
`
`I have extensive knowledge and experience in the area of software
`
`tools for storing and transporting data. My work has included creating and
`
`working with commercial software tools and data processing for computer-
`
`aided design (CAD). Examples of my experience include Smith US5402358
`
`that involves generating and manipulating data and metadata including data
`
`import, export including to and from spreadsheet and other formats related to
`
`integrated circuit design data. A journal article: M. J. S. Smith et al., "Cell
`
`libraries and assembly tools for analog/digital CMOS and BiCMOS
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`application-specific integrated circuit design," in IEEE Journal of Solid-State
`
`Circuits, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1419-1432, Oct. 1989 also describes my work in
`
`software tools and data manipulation for computer-aided design (CAD). My
`
`textbook: Smith, M. J. S., Application-specific integrated circuits; Reading,
`
`Mass: Addison-Wesley; contains several chapters on the use of different
`
`software tools and data formats, and the import, export and conversion of
`
`various data formats involving very large and complex data sets used in
`
`integrated circuit design. In 1997 I converted my textbook "Application-
`
`specific integrated circuits" and accompanying materials to HTML and
`
`published the textbook as a website with IBS that represented one of the first
`
`ever online textbooks, "ASICs on the Web."
`
`B. Compensation
`
`10)
`
`I am being compensated at my customary hourly rate of $300 for
`
`my time on this matter.
`
`11)
`
`I have no financial interest in the Patent Owner, the ‘748 patent or
`
`in the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`12)
`
`I have been informed that claim construction and patentability is
`
`generally analyzed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the inventions (“POSA”).
`
`13)
`
`I understand that the POSA is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. I
`
`understand that factors that may be considered in determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) type of problems encountered in the
`
`art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) rapidly with which
`
`innovations are made; (4) sophistication of the technology; and (5) educational
`
`level of active workers in the field.
`
`14) The field in the art to which the ‘748 patent pertains is a computer
`
`markup language for use in a data browser and manipulator. For example, the
`
`‘748 patent addresses the need to format the output in accordance with the
`
`combined characteristics and attributes of all related “character data entities.”
`
`For example, with respect to SEC complaint Financial Statement filings,
`
`information is displayed in a hierarchical fashion where individual data
`
`elements are arrayed in relation to each other (e.g., a section on “assets”).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`15)
`
`I understand that Merrill assert that a POSA “would have been
`
`someone with at least a bachelor’s or graduate degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 3 to 5 years of work
`
`experience in developing software for data communication, manipulation, and
`
`reporting.”1 I had at least the qualification of a POSA under this definition in
`
`May of 1999. My opinions and analysis herein are from the perspective of the
`
`POSA as defined by Merrill.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`16)
`
`I understand that subject matter claimed in a patent is obvious if
`
`the recited subject matter would have been obvious to a POSA at the time the
`
`alleged invention was made. I understand that the subject matter of multiple
`
`references may be combined to establish obviousness, if a POSA would have
`
`had a reason to combine or modify the disclosures of the references to arrive at
`
`the claimed subject matter. I understand that as part of this analysis, three
`
`factors should be considered: (a) the scope and content of the prior art; (b) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims; and (c) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art.
`
`
`1 Petition, p. 13.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`17)
`
`I also have been informed that a combination of elements in a
`
`patent claim may be obvious when all of those elements were known in the
`
`prior art and there was a reason for a POSA to combine or modify the prior art
`
`to obtain the elements as claimed, with no change in their respective functions.
`
`Furthermore, I understand that a patent claim would not be obvious if a
`
`proposed modification would render the prior art unsuitable for its intended
`
`purpose or if the proposed modification would change the principle of
`
`operation of the prior art.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`18)
`
`I understand that in its Petition, Merrill proposed constructions for
`
`several of the claim terms in the ‘748 patent and the Board has adopted those
`
`constructions.2 For purposes of this proceeding only, I understand the Patent
`
`Owner does not dispute those other proposed and adopted constructions. I
`
`understand that the Patent Owner reserves the right to take a different position
`
`in any District Court proceeding.
`
`V. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ‘748 PATENT
`
`19)
`
`Inventor Russell T. Davis pioneered several inventions related to
`
`
`2 See Petition.
`
`…Continued
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`Reusable Data Markup Language including, but not limited to, the ‘748
`
`patent.3 As discussed below, these patents provided numerous advantages over
`
`prior art Markup Languages.4
`
`20)
`
`In the late 1990’s when numbers were treated the same as letters
`
`(text) in software programs, both online and offline, e-Numerate’s key
`
`technical advancements allowed numbers to be substantively treated as the
`
`numerical values they represent.5 This opened the computer world, both online
`
`and offline, to vastly improve a user’s ability to identify, manipulate, compare,
`
`convert and process numbers in software like never before.6 The technical
`
`innovations of the '748 patent7 are embodied in software that improves and
`
`enhances the functionalities of computer systems over the prior art. The
`
`problem that they solve relates to the need for the intelligent identification and
`
`processing of numerical information on the Internet.
`
`
`3 Exhibit 1001, 1:7-27.
`
`4 Id. at 2:66-3:2.
`
`5 Exhibit 2002, US 7249328 (parent case to US 9,268,748) 1:48-52.
`
`6 Id. at 2:42-54.
`
`7 Exhibit 1001.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`
`
`The Problem
`
`21)
`
`In the late 1990’s, the Internet was replete with numerical data but
`
`(i) there was no way of distinguishing this numerical data from text, (ii) data
`
`and analytic routines were not standardized, and (iii) calculations occurred at
`
`too low a conceptual level.8
`
`22) The advances of the inventions claimed in the '748 patent9 relate to
`
`deficiencies in the prior-art markup languages that existed at the time of the
`
`invention. These were Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML)10 and
`
`Extensible Markup Language (XML).11
`
`23)
`
`Internet browsers interpret and display documents formatted in
`
`HTML.12 In order to distinguish the text characters to be displayed from the
`
`information describing how the text characters are to be formatted,
`
`
`8 Exhibit 2002, at 1:48-52.
`
`9 Exhibit 1001.
`
`10 Exhibit 2002, at 1:31-42.
`
`11 Id. at 1:65-2:4.
`
`12 Id. at 1:43-50.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`…Continued
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`“annotations” that are not visible to the viewer of the displayed document are
`
`added to the document.13 The HTML specification describes the use of a
`
`markup language to include these non-displayed annotations.14 A markup
`
`language is a system for inserting information about the formatting and display
`
`of a group of text characters by placing non-displayed “markup” text before
`
`and after the group of text characters.15 These markups, commonly known as
`
`“tags” in online and other documents in digital format, describe the structure
`
`and formatting of digital documents and instruct computer systems on how to
`
`display them.16
`
`24) HTML works only with text and images.17 Numbers in HTML
`
`documents are read and displayed as text characters.18 There is no HTML tag
`
`capable of annotating the context or meaning of numerical data appearing in a
`
`
`13 Id. at 1:50-52.
`
`14 Id. at 1:35-39.
`
`15 Id. at 1:35-39.
`
`16 Id. at 1:39-42.
`
`17 Id. at 1:44-46.
`
`18 Id. at 1:48-52.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`markup document for computer systems to interpret these numerical data as
`
`numbers representing a particular type of information instead of a simple string
`
`of text characters.19 At most, HTML tags can be used only to indicate the
`
`display format (e.g., font, size, color, alignment) of numerical data.20 For
`
`example, a financial statement showing numbers could be displayed by
`
`computer systems running browsers, but HTML cannot be used to annotate a
`
`given number as “revenue” or “expense,” or as “dollars” or “Euros,” or as
`
`representing “thousands” or “millions,” but rather only as a text character to
`
`be displayed in a certain way according to embedded formatting tags.21
`
`Consequently, computer systems running web browsers could use HTML tags
`
`to display documents containing numbers, but the HTML tags do not enable
`
`computer systems to run analytical applications that read, manipulate,
`
`combine, compare, transform, or analyze the numbers, load them into a
`
`spreadsheet, or display them in a graph directly from multiple online sources.22
`
`
`19 Id. at 1:55-58.
`
`20 Id. at 1:43-48.
`
`21 Id. at 9:59-65.
`
`22 Id. at 1:58-64.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`25) XML version 1.0 was developed in the mid-to-late 1990s to help
`
`overcome some of HTML’s limitations.23 XML, itself, does not include a set of
`
`pre-defined tags, but rather is a specification that governs the creation of tags
`
`by particular users or groups.24 The XML specification allows developers to
`
`create customized tags that, via a glossary of terms, describe the structure and
`
`meaning of online content.25 In other words, XML allows developers to create
`
`their own individual markup languages.26 Thus, a user can use XML to create
`
`their own markup tags that annotate data characteristics that are meaningful to
`
`that particular user.27 But at the time of the inventions of the '748 patent28 no
`
`set of XML tags had been promulgated for general use, so any XML tag
`
`taxonomy created by one user would not be compatible with the taxonomies
`
`
`23 Id. at 1:65-67.
`
`24 Id. at 2:1-5.
`
`25 Id. at 2:7-12.
`
`26 Id.
`
`27 Id.
`
`28 Exhibit 1001.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`created by other users.29 One user’s XML tag taxonomy, whether individuals
`
`or groups, is not ordinarily available to any other users or groups of users.30
`
`XML’s lack of standardization, and its separation of data from its annotations
`
`(metadata), left users with no way to manipulate, combine, compare,
`
`transform, or analyze numerical data from singular or multiple online sources
`
`using differing custom created XML tag taxonomies.31 The only way to correct
`
`the deficiency of XML was to convert unrelated documents by hand.32
`
`
`
`Various Embodiments Covered by The Claimed Invention
`
`26)
`
`In contrast to XML, the Reusable Data Markup Language
`
`(“RDML”) represented a significant advance over HTML and XML. The
`
`patents-at-issue in this case solve these HTML- and XML-related problems
`
`with unique tools that allowed users for the first time to easily view, compare,
`
`
`29 Exhibit 2002, at 2:13-17.
`
`30 Id.
`
`31 Id. at 2:42-45.
`
`32 Id. at 2:45-49.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`and analyze numerical data on the Internet.33 The Reusable Data Markup
`
`Language (“RDML”) and RDML companion innovations pair the metadata
`
`directly with the numerical data in machine-readable form so the numerical
`
`data could be easily identified and used in different program applications.34
`
`This is a dramatically different approach than previously used, which was to
`
`keep document metadata and data itself separate from each other.35 Without
`
`the pairing of metadata directly with the numerical data as described in the
`
`'748 patent,36 the capabilities presented in the XBRL standard would not be
`
`possible.37 RDML companion innovations also define standards for both data
`
`formats and analytic routines38 and enhance analytical calculation power by
`
`creating data objects at the line item and document levels.39 This overcomes
`
`
`33 Id. at 8:24-28.
`
`34 Id. at 5:53-57.
`
`35 Id. at 2:1-5.
`
`36 Exhibit 1001.
`
`37 Id. at page 3; 1:7-27.
`
`38 Exhibit 2002, at 10:52.53.
`
`39 Id. at 14:7-11.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`…Continued
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`the limitations of traditional spreadsheets which operate only at the cell (single
`
`number) level.40
`
`27) Reusable Data Markup Language provides RDML tags for data
`
`characteristics that HTML lack and supplies a set of tags for content and
`
`meaning of numbers for general use, which is missing in XML.41
`
`28) A suite of software applications has been developed to create
`
`documents with RDML tag markups, read or parse the RDML documents,
`
`display them as graphs or in tree views, combine and compare data from
`
`multiple online sources, and manipulate, transform, and analyze numerical
`
`data from multiple online sources.42 RDML permits the browsing and
`
`manipulation of numbers, and allows the “RDML Data Viewer” to act as a
`
`combination Web browser and spreadsheet/analytic application that
`
`automatically reads numbers from multiple online sources, understands their
`
`meaning, and manipulates them without human intervention.43
`
`
`40 Id. at 2:37-41.
`
`41 Id. at 9:17-24.
`
`42 Id. at 17:20-26.
`
`43 Id. at 17:26-33.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`29) RDML encodes information about numbers in tags that relate to
`
`each number.44 The encoded information is connected with the numbers
`
`themselves and the tags move with the numbers when the numbers are
`
`ported.45 By associating the numbers with the numbers’ attributes and making
`
`it machine-readable, RDML facilitates browsing for and processing numbers.46
`
`30) The RDML Data Viewer is an “Application” in accordance with
`
`the XML Specifications.47 The RDML Data Viewer accesses information
`
`contained in an XML-formatted document by invoking the XML Processor to
`
`obtain individual data elements based on their “extended” tags that have been
`
`defined in accordance with the “extensibility” features of XML.48 The RDML
`
`Data Viewer automates the process of merging the tagged elements derived
`
`from documents written in different formats and languages into a single,
`
`
`44 Id. at 4:17-22.
`
`45 Id.
`
`46 Id. at 3:57-67.
`
`47 Id. at 8:57-64.
`
`48 Id. at 9:17-24.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`standardized data set.49 Where there are conflicts, the RDML Data Viewer
`
`automatically resolves the conflicts between the characteristics of the varying
`
`documents to create a standard set of tags using the RDML taxonomy.50 The
`
`RDML Data Viewer also provides a macro development and management
`
`scheme that allows users to create reusable custom routines for the
`
`manipulation, transformation, and display of RDML-formatted data.51 By
`
`defining standards for data characteristics and content-analysis, RDML
`
`addresses the problems caused by XML’s use of customized tagging making
`
`RDML applicable for general use.52
`
`
`
`The Impact of The Improvements of the '748 Patent
`
`31) One embodiment covered by the claimed invention includes
`
`“pairing the metadata directly with the numerical data in machine-readable
`
`
`49 Id. at 9:65-67.
`
`50 Id. at 11:35-42.
`
`51 Id. at 9:5-8.
`
`52 Id. at 10:31-33.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`form so the numerical data could be easily identified and used in different
`
`program applications.”53 This has never been done before.
`
`32) The inventions claimed in the '748 patent54 were invented prior to
`
`the creation of the XBRL standard.55 Prior art, as embodied in HTML and
`
`XML at the time of the filing of the '748 patent56 did not provide any metadata
`
`(i.e., information about the attributes or characteristics of a data element)
`
`beyond simple display formatting.57 Without these attributes and
`
`characteristics, it was not possible for a human or a computer to select,
`
`process, combine, or output data elements without resorting to human
`
`intervention to find, associate, and take into account how the appropriate
`
`attributes and characteristics would affect the selection, processing,
`
`combination, and outputting activities.58 For example, financial statements,
`
`
`53 Id. at 5:53-57.
`
`54 Id.
`
`55 Id. at page 3.
`
`56 Exhibit 1001.
`
`57 Exhibit 2002, at 1:39-42.
`
`58 Id. at 2:42-49.
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`…Continued
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`such as those submitted to the SEC, contain numeric values for typical
`
`accounting data items types such as “Assets,” “Balances,” “Cash,” etc.59 To
`
`organize the multiple occurrences of these items, accountants would create
`
`financial statements such as “Balance Sheets,” “Income Statements,” etc., that
`
`typically have formats that hierarchically display and summarize these
`
`accounting items in a manner that reflects how the individual organization or
`
`organizational unit represents its financial condition.60 Before the introduction
`
`of the inventive concepts contained in the '748 patent61 there were no tools that
`
`could automatically associate individual accounting data items with the
`
`appropriate sections of the organization’s financial statements.62 Typically, the
`
`organization would have to rely on its senior financial accountants to
`
`manually select, analyze, combine, and format accounting items in a manner
`
`that corresponded to that organization’s Financial Statement situation. Thus,
`
`each iteration of Financial Statement preparation required a large amount of
`
`
`59 Id. at 9:59-65.
`
`60 Id.
`
`61 Exhibit 1001.
`
`62 Exhibit 2002, at 5:53-61.
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`…Continued
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`human intervention to create a Financial Statement that faithfully adhered to
`
`the “letter” and “intent” of the generally accepted accounting standards due to
`
`the lack of a means to capture and utilize the required metadata. The '748
`
`patent63 provides these capabilities which are not addressed by either HTML or
`
`XML. The continuing significant efforts by the Financial Accounting
`
`Standards Board (FASB) and the XBRL International organization to grow
`
`and expand the Extensible Business Reporting Language are a testament to the
`
`necessity and value of the inventions contained in the '748 patent.64 The SEC is
`
`currently performing cross-financial entity and cross-industry “data mining”
`
`activities to better understand financial trends and to better discover
`
`improprieties by comparing financial entities. These activities would not be
`
`possible without the ability of different program applications to utilize the
`
`inventions contained in the '748 patent.65
`
`
`63 Exhibit 1001.
`
`64 Id.
`
`65 Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`23
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`33) One embodiment covered by the claimed invention also seeks to
`
`“define standards for both data formats and analytic routines.”66
`
`34) Before the introduction of the inventions contained in the '748
`
`patent67 the preparation of financial statements involved the manual selection,
`
`analysis, combination and outputting of numerical data items based on the best
`
`efforts of the organization’s senior accountants and later accepted as
`
`appropriate by Certified Public Accountants. Without defined standards for
`
`capturing and accessing both numerical data attributes and characteristics, the
`
`selection of appropriate data formats and analytic routines could not be
`
`performed automatically by either human or machine.68 The '748 patent69
`
`provides a mechanism to capture the metadata required to identify the
`
`attributes and characteristics of each numerical data element, and thereby
`
`allow the automated selection of the appropriate analytic routines based on the
`
`
`66 Exhibit 2002, at 10:52.53.
`
`67 Exhibit 1001.
`
`68 Exhibit 2002, at 10:31-33.
`
`69 Exhibit 1001.
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`…Continued
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`
`metadata associated with those analytical routines.70 For example, an
`
`international organization may operate in several political jurisdictions, each
`
`having their own financial regulations, reporting formats, and analytical
`
`processing procedures.71 For the international organization to produce a
`
`combined Financial Statement of Condition, the financial statement within
`
`each jurisdiction must first be created and then combined into a consolidated
`
`financial statement.72 To facilitate this consolidation, senior international
`
`accountants would have to manually identify the variations associated with
`
`each jurisdiction and determine how these diverse statements of financial
`
`condition could be combined. One embodiment covered by the claimed
`
`invention provides a mechanism to capture the necessary numerical data, item
`
`metadata, and analytical processing routine metadata to facilitate the required
`
`association of numerical data to routines needed to automatically produce
`
`combined financial statements without manual human intervention.
`
`
`70 Exhibit 2002, at 13:7-17.
`
`71 Id. at 49:38-43.
`
`72 Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued