`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
`
`
` Entered: February 13, 2019
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEN B. BARRETT, and JONI Y. CHANG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Merrill communications LLC d/b/a Merrill Corporation (“Petitioner”)
`filed a corrected Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 17,
`and 18 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’383 patent”). Paper 10 (“Pet.”). e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a waiver of preliminary response. Paper 8.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow,
`we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We hereby
`institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’383 patent is involved in e-Numerate
`Solutions, Inc. v. Mattress Firm Holding Corp., Case No. 1:17-cv-00933
`(Del). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2.
`
`B. The ’383 Patent
`The ’383 patent relates to a computer markup language for use in a
`data browser and manipulator. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:31−33. The ’383
`patent discloses a system, method, and computer program product for
`processing markup documents. Id. In particular, the ’383 patent describes
`identifying two markup documents that include numerical values and tags
`reflecting characteristics of the numerical values. Id. At least a portion of
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`the numeric values is transformed automatically so that the numeric values
`of both documents have a common unit of measure. Id. And the documents
`are processed, resulting in a single markup document for display. Id.
`Figure 2 of the ’383 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’383 patent depicts data processing system 200 that
`comprises computer 201 and server computer 203 interconnected via
`network 214, such as the Internet. Ex. 1001, 11:54−56. Computer 201
`includes central processing unit 202, main memory 204, secondary storage
`device 206, display 210, and input device 212. Id. at 11:57−60. Server
`computer 203 may provide Reusable Data Markup Language (“RDML”)
`documents 102 to computer 201. Id. at 11:56−57.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Each of the challenged claims is independent. Claim 1 is illustrative:
`1. [1a] A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory
`computer-readable medium comprising:
`[1b] code for identifying a first markup document including first
`numerical values and first tags reflecting first characteristics of
`the first numerical values associated with a first unit of measure,
`and a second markup document including second numerical
`values and second tags reflecting second characteristics of the
`second numerical values associated with a second unit of
`measure,
`[1c] wherein the first tags and the second tags each include
`computer-readable semantic tags that describe a semantic
`meaning of a corresponding one of at least one of the first
`numerical values or the second numerical values, via a
`computer-readable tagging association therebetween,
`[1d] where the first characteristics of the first numerical values
`associated with the first unit of measure are different from the
`second characteristics of the second numerical values associated
`with the second unit of measure;
`[1e] code for causing automatic transformation of at least a
`portion of the first or second numerical values of at least one of
`the first markup document or the second markup document, so
`that at least some of the first numerical values of the first markup
`document and at least some of the second numerical values of
`the second markup document have a common unit of measure;
`[1f] code for processing at least a part of the first markup
`document and at least a part of the second markup document,
`resulting in a single markup document; and
`[1g] code for causing a display of at least a portion of the single
`markup document.
`Ex. 1001, 143:2–32 (bracketed matters added).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the references listed below (Pet. 8).
`Lyons
`US Patent No. 5,189,608 Feb. 23, 1993 (Ex. 1007)
`Alan Simpson & Elizabeth Olson, Mastering Access 97 (SYBEX Inc.
`1997) (Ex. 1005, “Simpson”)
`Charles Goldfarb & Paul Prescod, The XML Handbook (Prentice Hall
`PTR 1998) (Ex. 1006, “Goldfarb”)
`Based on the current record, Petitioner has made a threshold showing
`that Simpson and Goldfarb are prior art printed publications under § 102.
`See Pet. 5−8; Ex. 1005, Part 1; Ex. 1006, Part 1; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 3−17; Ex. 1009
`¶¶ 6−11. At this juncture, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s
`showing on this issue. Paper 8.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 19):
`
`Challenged Claims
`1, 17, and 18
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`Simpson
`
`Reference(s)
`
`1, 17, and 18
`
`§ 103
`
`Simpson in view of Goldfarb
`
`1, 17, and 18
`
`§ 103 Lyons
`
`1, 17, and 18
`
`§ 103 Lyons in view of Goldfarb
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Construction
`The original Petition was filed on July 12, 2018, prior to the effective
`date of the rule change that replaces the broadest reasonable interpretation
`(“BRI”) standard. See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (final rule) (“This rule is
`effective on November 13, 2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR and CBM
`petitions filed on or after the effective date.”). We, therefore, apply the BRI
`standard in this proceeding. Under the BRI standard, claim terms generally
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In
`re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Petitioner construes several claim terms expressly. Pet. 12−18. At
`this juncture, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed
`constructions. Paper 8. For purposes of this Decision, we address the claim
`terms identified below to inform the parties as to our preliminary
`understanding of these terms.
`
`“markup document”
`Each of the challenged claims recites the term “markup document.”
`
`For example, claim 1 recites “identifying a first markup document including
`first numerical values and first tags reflecting first characteristics of the first
`numerical values associated with a first unit of measure.” Petitioner argues
`that the term “markup document” should be interpreted as “a document
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`including sequences of characters providing information about the data it
`contains.” Pet. 12. As support, Petitioner (Pet. 12) directs our attention to
`the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999), which defines the term
`“markup language” as:
`A set of codes in a text file that instruct a computer how to format
`it on a printer or video display or how to index and link its
`contents. Examples of markup languages are Hypertext Markup
`Language (HTML) and Extensible Markup Language (XML),
`which are used in Web pages, and Standard Generalized Markup
`Language (SGML), which is used for typesetting and desktop
`publishing purposes and in electronic documents. Markup
`languages of this sort are designed to enable documents and other
`files to be platform-independent and highly portable between
`applications. See also HTML, SGML, [and] XML.
`Ex. 1010, 282.
`Petitioner also submits that the ’383 patent incorporates by reference
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,355 (Ex. 1011), which states that “[a] markup
`language is a way of embedding markup ‘tags,’ special sequences of
`characters, that describe the structure as well as the behavior of a document
`and instruct a web browser or other program on how to display the
`document.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1011, 1:32−36).
`Because Petitioner’s proposed claim construction is consistent with
`the Specification of the ’383 patent and the general knowledge of an
`ordinarily skilled artisan, we adopt Petitioner’s claim construction,
`interpreting “markup document” as “a document including sequences of
`characters providing information about the data it contains,” for purposes of
`this Decision.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`
`“tags”
`Each of the challenged claims recites the term “tags.” For example,
`claim 1 recites “identifying a first markup document including first
`numerical values and first tags reflecting first characteristics of the first
`numerical values associated with a first unit of measure.”
`Petitioner proposes to construe “tags” as “a sequence of characters
`that adds data about data.” Pet. 14. We adopt this proposed construction, as
`it is consistent with the Specification of the ’383 patent. As Petitioner points
`out, the Specification includes a Glossary, which defines “tagging” as
`“adding metadata” (Ex. 1001, 3:2, 15:59−61) and the Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary (4th ed. 1999) defines “metadata” as “[d]ata about data”
`(Ex. 1010, 288). The Specification uses “metadata” consistently with this
`definition. Ex. 1001, 16:42−53. Also, the ’383 patent incorporates by
`reference U.S. Patent No. 7,650,355 (Ex. 1011), which states that
`“[a] markup language is a way of embedding markup ‘tags,’ special
`sequences of characters, that describe the structure as well as the behavior of
`a document and instruct a web browser or other program on how to display
`the document.” Pet. 13−14 (citing Ex. 1011, 1:32−36). In sum, for purposes
`of this Decision, we interpret “tags” as “a sequence of characters that adds
`data about data.”
`
`“semantic tags”
`Each of the challenged claims recites the term “semantic tags.”
`For example, claim 1 recites “wherein the first tags and the second tags each
`include computer-readable semantic tags that describe a semantic meaning
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`of a corresponding one of at least one of the first numerical values or the
`second numerical values.”
`Petitioner proposes to construe “semantic tags” as “a sequence of
`characters that adds data describing the meaning of the data.” Pet. 15.
`Based on the evidence in the current record, we agree with Petitioner as the
`proposed claim construction is consistent with the Specification of the
`’383 patent and the general knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan.
`As Petitioner notes, the Glossary set forth in the ’383 patent defines
`“tagging” as “adding metadata.” Ex. 1001, 3:2, 15:59−61. The Microsoft
`Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999) defines “metadata” as “data about data,”
`and “semantic” as “the relationship between words or symbols and their
`intended meanings.” Pet. 14−15 (citing Ex. 1009, 288, 402). The
`’383 patent uses “metadata” and “semantic” in a manner consistent with
`these definitions, respectively. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 16:42−53, 46:46−52).
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed claim
`construction, interpreting “semantic tags” as “a reference or a sequence of
`characters that adds data describing the meaning of the data.”
`
`B. Principles of Law on Obviousness
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`evidence of nonobviousness.1 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966).
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d
`955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Petitioner’s declarant, Andrew Hospodor, Ph.D.,
`asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “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.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 15; Pet. 11.
`At this juncture, Patent Owner does not dispute this assertion. We note that
`Petitioner’s assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant
`proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`1 Neither party presents arguments regarding objective evidence of
`nonobviousness in this proceeding at this time.
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`2001). Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s
`assessment.
`
`D. Obviousness Over Simpson Alone, or in View of Goldfarb
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 17, and 18 are unpatentable under
`§ 103 as obvious over Simpson alone or in view of Goldfarb. Pet. 19–48.
`Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is
`met by Simpson alone and in view of Goldfarb, citing Dr. Hospodor’s
`declaration for support. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`Overview of Simpson
`Simpson is a user guide that describes the structure and operation of
`the Microsoft Access 97 database management system software. Ex. 1005.
`Simpson teaches that the Access database software could import or link data
`into the database from a wide variety of file formats, including hypertext
`markup language (“HTML”) tables. Id. at Part 5, 209−40. It also teaches
`that the Access database software could create dynamic links to the database
`in output documents, such as reports, or in HTML tables published to the
`World Wide Web. Id. at Part 3, 126; Part 5, 247−50; Part 9, 445−72.
`Simpson further teaches that field names and metadata fields within the
`database can be used to tag data in the database records with semantic
`meaning that can be utilized by the software in queries and calculations. Id.
`at Part 2, 74; Part 8, 359−414; Part 9, 419−33; Part 11, 742−44.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`Overview of Goldfarb
`
`Goldfarb discloses how XML works and the improvements XML
`brings to computing systems and the World Wide Web, including the
`structure and function of XML. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, Part 1, 33−47; Part 2,
`153−62. According to Goldfarb, the structure and function of XML “allows
`us to do more precise searches, deliver software components, describe such
`things as collections of Web pages and electronic commerce transactions,
`and much more.” Id. at Part 1, xxxv. At the time the book was published,
`XML already had impacted “all types of applications from work processors
`and spreadsheets to database managers and email. More and more, such
`applications are reaching out to the Web, tapping into the power of the Web,
`and it is XML that is enabling them to do so.” Id. at Part 1, xxxvi.
`In addition, Goldfarb discloses several examples of how XML has
`been implemented to improve computing systems. For instance, Goldfarb
`discloses an XML visual editing and publishing tool for a government filing
`application, including the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”)
`EDGAR reporting system. Id. at Part 2, 153−62. Goldfarb describes the use
`of Document Type Definitions (“DTDs”) associated with EDGAR to
`facilitate the reporting of financial data in SEC 10-K filings. Id. at Part 1,
`41; Part 2, 154−58.
`
`Analysis
`Petitioner asserts that Simpson alone, or in view of Goldfarb, renders
`claims 1, 17, and 18 obvious. Pet. 19−48. Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations as to how Simpson alone and in view of Goldfarb teaches or
`suggests every limitation of the claims, and reasoning to combine the
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`teachings of Simpson and Goldfarb, citing Dr. Hospodor’s testimony for
`support. Id.; Ex. 1003.
`Upon review of Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence, we
`are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of
`this Decision that each of the grounds based on Simpson renders the claimed
`subject matter obvious. Notably, Petitioner provides claim charts, mapping
`each limitation of claims 1, 17, and 18 to the prior art teachings. Pet. 19−48.
`We discuss below Petitioner’s contentions regarding independent claim 1,
`which recites a computer program product and is illustrative of the claimed
`subject matter. Independent method claim 17 and independent apparatus
`claim 18 contain recitations similar to those of claim 1.
`Petitioner explains that Simpson teaches “[a] computer program
`product embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” as
`required by claim 1, because Simpson describes the use of a database
`management system (“DBMS”) software product to process data on a
`computer. Id. at 20−21 (citing Ex. 1005, Part 1, 5).
`With respect to limitation [1b] recited in claim 1 (reproduced above),
`Petitioner explains that Simpson teaches the use of Microsoft Access 97
`software to import tables of numerical data from a variety of sources,
`including spreadsheets, text files, HTML files, Internet sources, and other
`databases. Id. at 21−25 (citing Ex. 1005, Part 5, 209−40, Figs. 7.17, 7.18).
`Petitioner notes that, during the import process, the user identifies which text
`character acts as the delimiter separating the different data fields, and also
`chooses whether to use the contents of the first row in the imported file as
`field names for the data. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, Part 5, 231−32). Also
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`Microsoft Access 97 will attempt to identify the correct data type for a field
`based on the contents of the imported data. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, Part 5,
`225). But the user can create an “import specification” that assigns
`particular data types to each imported field, identified by the field name. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1005, Part 5, 231−37).
`Petitioner further explains that the field names located in the first line
`of the imported text file act as tags identifying the data type (such as
`“currency”) for the imported data fields. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39, 42, 47).
`And HTML is a well-known markup language. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17,
`20, 38). Petitioner notes that Simpson teaches that “a database can contain
`many tables,” and storing information in multiple tables within the database
`is often advantageous because “it’s easier to manage data if all the
`information about a particular subject is in its own table.” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1005, Part 2, 43). Dr. Hospodor testifies that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have understood that Simpson teaches the creation of a
`database by importing and/or linking data from multiple data sources,
`including multiple HTML tables. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37−42. According to
`Petitioner, Simpson teaches that the labels included in an imported record
`can be used to provide a wide variety of semantic information about
`characteristics of the numerical values contained in that record. Pet. 24−25
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42, 47−49; Ex. 1005, Part 11, 742, 744).
`For limitation [1c] recited in claim 1, Petitioner avers that Simpson
`discloses using the field names located in the first line of an imported data
`file and values in specified fields within each record as tags identifying
`semantic information about the numerical values contained in the record
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`because Simpson describes the use of an import specification that assigns
`particular data types to each imported field names. Id. at 25−26 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39, 47−49; Ex. 1005, Part 5, 234−37; Part 11, 742−47).
`As to limitation [1d] recited in claim 1, Petitioner argues that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious based on the
`examples provided in Simpson that sales records for a company doing
`business in multiple countries should include a “Country” field as well as a
`“State” field, and that the country name and code appearing in the “Country”
`field could be used as a tag identifying the correct currency units for the
`transaction (e.g., dollars for records with a “US” country tag and yen for
`records with a “JP” country tag). Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47−49;
`Ex. 1005, Part 11, 742−47).
`Regarding limitation [1e] recited in claim 1, Petitioner submits that
`Simpson discloses the use of macros and Visual Basic code to automatically
`perform a wide variety of operations on the data contained in a database,
`including imported numerical data. Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 48;
`Ex. 1005, Part 11, 733−63; Part 12, 856−66). Citing to Dr. Hospodor’s
`testimony as support, Petitioner contends that, based on the example
`provided in Simpson that uses a macro to automatically reformat
`percentages entered as whole numbers (e.g., “30”) rather than decimals (e.g.,
`“0.30”) (Ex. 1005, Part 11, 755−58), a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have applied the same techniques to convert the numerical values
`tagged in a source document as having a different unit of measure to match
`the units used by other records in the database (for example, multiplying
`sales figures with a “JP” country code by the applicable conversion rate to
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`express the sales in dollars rather than yen). Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 47−49).
`For limitation [1f] recited in claim 1, Petitioner maintains that
`Simpson discloses that appending data imported from an HTML document
`to an existing table, rather than importing the data as a new table, and using
`macros to copy data within a database or between databases. Id. at 26−27
`(citing Ex. 1005, Part 5, 228, 229, 232 (“To add the imported data [from a
`text file] to the end of an existing table, choose In An Existing Table, use the
`drop-down list to select the existing table, and then click on Next”), 238;
`Part 11, 740, 750−55). Citing to Dr. Hospodor’s testimony as support,
`Petitioner avers that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that Simpson describes multiple techniques for merging data
`imported from two source documents into a single data set. Id. at 27 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39−46).
`Lastly, in connection with limitation [1g] recited in claim 1, Petitioner
`asserts that Simpson discloses displaying data sets, including data sets
`imported from HTML documents. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, Part 5, 238,
`Fig. 7.18).
`Upon review of Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence, we
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently, for purposes of this
`Decision, that Simpson alone and in view of Goldfarb teaches or suggests
`every limitation of at least claim 1. As mentioned, challenged claims 17 and
`18 contain similar recitations.
`
`As to the reason to combine the teachings of Simpson and Goldfarb,
`Petitioner notes that Simpson teaches that the Microsoft Access 97 database
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`software has the capability to import and output data in HTML format. Id.
`at 33 (citing Ex. 1005, Part 3, 125−26; Part 5, 237−40). Petitioner also notes
`that, as taught by Goldfarb, XML was designed to expand the capabilities of
`HTML and to provide an application-independent file format to make it
`easier to share information between different applications. Id. at 34 (citing
`Ex. 1006, Part 1, xxxv−xl).
`Dr. Hospodor testifies that this advantage of using XML was one of
`the motivations for one of ordinary skill in the art to translate all manner of
`file formats into XML. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17, 78, 79, 82. Dr. Hospodor also
`testifies that “from its inception, XML has been used to store all manner of
`data files, and has been incorporated into a wide variety of data formats” and
`doing so would have been easy for a software program like Microsoft
`Access that already had the ability to import and export data in HTML
`format. Id.
`In addition, Petitioner asserts that, at the time of the invention, an
`ordinarily skilled artisan could use free, publicly-available software (e.g., the
`Microsoft XSL processor or “docproc”) to convert between XML and
`HTML. Pet. 33−34 (citing Ex. 1006, Part 5, 397−98). Citing to
`Dr. Hospodor’s testimony as support (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78−82), Petitioner avers
`that such an artisan would have used these tools to import XML data into the
`Access 97 database, and would have understood that these tools could be
`used as stand-alone applications or incorporated into a database program
`using standard coding, database query, or macro techniques. Pet. 34 (citing
`Ex. 1005, Part 8, 359−15 (queries); Part 11, 733−64 (macros); Part 12,
`853−68 (coding in Visual Basic for Applications)). Petitioner further
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`explains that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to add
`the XML features and functionally taught by Goldfarb to expand the set of
`file type compatible with the Access 97 software described in Simpson. Id.
`at 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 80).
`In view of the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`articulated a sufficient reason for purposes of this Decision why one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Simpson and
`Goldfarb. We determine that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for
`purposes of this Decision that Simpson alone and in view of Goldfarb
`teaches or suggests each limitation of at least challenged claim 1. As
`mentioned, challenged claims 17 and 18 contain similar recitations. At this
`junction, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing, as Patent
`Owner waived the filing of a preliminary response. Consequently, we
`conclude that Petitioner has established that there is a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged as being
`unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Simpson alone and in view of
`Goldfarb.
`
`E. Obviousness Over Lyons Alone, or in View of Goldfarb
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 17, and 18 are unpatentable under
`§ 103 as obvious over Lyons alone or in view of Goldfarb. Pet. 48–64.
`Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is
`met by Lyons alone and in view of Goldfarb, citing Dr. Hospodor’s
`declaration for support. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`Overview of Lyons
`Lyons discloses a financial reporting analysis software package that
`collects, organizes, manages, and consolidates financial data and provides
`user defined capabilities for creating financial and corporate reports.
`Ex. 1007, 2:16−20. Lyons discloses a data processing system that allows the
`user to specify characteristics of numerical data, including the currency type
`(e.g., U.S. dollars) and the denomination/data precision (e.g., whether the
`input amount is in thousands, millions, etc.). Id. at 11:38−64. Lyons also
`describes transforming financial data in multiple formats into a common
`format and outputting information in a common format. Id. at Abstract,
`3:3−9. A user can automatically generate reports from the data in the
`database, including combining data from two separate schedules to generate
`a single report. Id. at 15:42−44, 24:8−13, Table XV. The user also can
`specify the data precision and currency to be displayed in the reports. Id. at
`17:39−18:1, 21:60−63. Furthermore, Lyons teaches that numerical values,
`such as currency, can be converted using a currency conversion function. Id.
`at 3:23−25.
`
`Analysis
`Petitioner asserts that Lyons alone, or in view of Goldfarb, renders
`claims 1, 17, and 18 obvious. Pet. 48−64. Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations as to how Lyons alone and in view of Goldfarb teaches or
`suggests every limitation of the claims, and reasoning to combine the
`teachings of Lyons and Goldfarb, citing Dr. Hospodor’s testimony for
`support. Id.; Ex. 1003.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`
`Upon review of Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence, we
`are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of
`this Decision that Lyons alone and in combination with Goldfarb renders the
`claimed subject matter obvious. Notably, Petitioner provides claim charts,
`mapping each limitation of claims 1, 17, and 18 to the prior art teachings.
`Pet. 49−64. We discuss below Petitioner’s contentions regarding
`independent claim 1, which recites a computer program product and is
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter. Independent method claim 17 and
`independent apparatus claim 18 contain recitations similar to those of
`claim 1.
`Petitioner explains that Lyons teaches “[a] computer program product
`embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” as required by
`claim 1, because Lyons describes a computer system comprising a plurality
`of personal computers that include a database management program stored
`in the memory of one of the computers. Id. at 49−50 (citing Ex. 1007,
`3:64−4:4, 32:65−68 (“An object code embodiment of the software that
`implements the functions described above is provided herewith on a floppy
`disk as part of this application”), Fig. 1).
`For limitation [1b] recited in claim 1 (reproduced above), Petitioner
`asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Lyons
`teaches receiving markup documents including numerical values with tags
`reflecting unit of measure characteristics of the numerical values (e.g.,
`currency). Id. at 50−51. As support, Petitioner notes that, in Lyons, “[d]ata
`is stored in the system in such a way that all data associated with a particular
`Schedule, Entity, Period, and Type (SEPT) is identified by that particular
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01391
`Patent 9,262,383 B2
`
`SEPT value,” and “[t]he data from the input file will then be stored in the
`system’s database in association with the SEPT value read from the input
`file.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 2:39−54, 14:38−64). Petitioner also submits that
`Lyons’ system allows the user to tag the numerical data being passed
`through an input template with characteristics of that data because “[t]he
`CURRENCY selection allows the user to specify whether to use the Parent
`Currency (e.g., U.S. dollars) or to use local currency (e.g., Pesos)” and “[t]he
`DENOMINATION selection allows the user to specify whether the input
`amounts are in thousands, million, etc.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 11:38−64).
`In connection with limitation [1c] recited in claim 1, Petitioner
`maintains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`that the SEPT tags and the CURRENCY and DENOMINATION
`specifications of the markup documents could indicate that the numerical
`values of two markup documents convey computer-readable semantic
`meaning. Id. at 51−52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 71).
`Regarding limitation [1d] recited in claim 1, Petitioner avers that a
`person of ordinary s
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
