`
`
`
`
`
`Merrill Communications LLC
`d/b/a Merrill Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`Issue Date: February 16, 2016
`
`
`
`Title:
`SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR
`PROCESSING A MARKUP DOCUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREW DAVID HOSPODOR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 4
`
`IV. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS .............................................................. 4
`
`V.
`
`STATE OF THE ART ..................................................................................... 7
`
`VI. THE ’383 PATENT ......................................................................................... 9
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`A.
`“Markup Document” ............................................................................. 9
`B.
`“Tags” ..................................................................................................10
`C.
`“Semantic Tags” ..................................................................................11
`D.
`“Means for Identifying” ......................................................................12
`E.
`“Means for Automatically Transforming” ..........................................13
`F.
`“Means for Processing” .......................................................................14
`G.
`“Means for Causing a Display” ...........................................................15
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART........................................................................16
`A. Access 1997 .........................................................................................16
`B.
`The XML Handbook ...........................................................................24
`C. U.S. Patent No. 5,189,608 to Lyons et al. (“Lyons”) ..........................30
`D. Motivation to Combine the Prior Art ..................................................34
`E.
`The Grounds for Challenge .................................................................36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`I, Andrew D. Hospodor, make this declaration in connection with the
`
`proceeding identified above.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Merrill Communications LLC
`
`d/b/a Merrill Corporation (“Merrill”) as a technical expert in connection with the
`
`proceeding identified above. I submit this declaration in support of Merrill’s
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) of United States Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`(“the ʼ383 patent”).
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`2. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1004 to the Petition.
`
`Following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`experience:
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Engineering
`
`from Lehigh University in 1981, a Master of Science degree in Computer Science
`
`from Santa Clara University in 1986, and a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from
`
`Santa Clara University in 1994. My Ph.D. emphasis was in storage architecture
`
`and systems. My dissertation was entitled: “A Study of Prefetch in Caching SCSI
`
`Disk Drive Buffers.”
`
`-1-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`4.
`
`I have been part of the computer industry for over 25 years and
`
`involved in engineering storage, networking and processing systems. I have also
`
`focused on simulation and implementation of new technologies at Quantum Corp.
`
`5.
`
`I have taught graduate and undergraduate courses at Santa Clara
`
`University. After receiving my Master’s degree in 1986, I joined the Institute for
`
`Information Storage Technology as an Adjunct Lecturer, then later as a Research
`
`Fellow. I have taught courses in Computer Architecture, Storage Architecture,
`
`Hard Disk and Floppy Disk Controller Design, and Grid Computing. I was most
`
`recently the Executive Director of the Storage Systems Research Center at
`
`University of California, Santa Cruz. There, I oversaw the research of faculty,
`
`graduate students, post-doctoral scholars, and I worked with industrial sponsors in
`
`the data storage industry as well as the National Science Foundation (NSF). I am
`
`presently a consultant to NSF.
`
`6.
`
`I am a named inventor on nineteen U.S. patents. I have authored
`
`numerous publications in reference journals, industry periodicals, and am often
`
`cited by my peers in textbooks and journal publications. I have presented to the
`
`American National Standards Institute (ANSI) committee on the Small Computer
`
`Systems Interface (SCSI), the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the
`
`SCSI Forum, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Systems
`
`Design and Network Conference, and many other related conferences.
`
`-2-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`7. My experience in the design of and implementation of systems using
`
`markup languages, such as HyperText Markup Language (HTML) and Extensible
`
`Markup Language (XML) began while working for Quantum Corp. in Milpitas,
`
`California from 1993 to 1999. At Quantum, I managed the Operating Systems,
`
`Simulation and Performance group responsible for building models of hard disk
`
`drives to study the impact of new features, such as cache sizes and prefetch
`
`algorithms. Quantum already used Matlab software and I explored the use of XML
`
`for data exchange. I also interacted with Microsoft regarding their SQL-Server
`
`database products, and their interest in optimizing data storage devices for their
`
`enterprise customers. Later, in 2001, I returned to Santa Clara University to take a
`
`graduate class in Advanced Database Systems that included both Software Query
`
`Langage (SQL) and noSQL databases.
`
`8.
`
`In 2001 I was also an expert in the matter of Matlab v. Comsol, where
`
`I examined source code that connected Matlab to the libraries of the Java
`
`programming language. These libraries included functions for the parsing and
`
`processing of XML data that form the basis of structured data interchange used in
`
`many modern computer systems. In 2013, I introduced the UC-Share program for
`
`sharing of genomic data, specifically the cancer data of patients, across the five UC
`
`hospitals and cancer centers. UC medical centers deployed software from EPIC to
`
`manage health care records that are shared as XML documents. Genomic data
`
`-3-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`would become an XML extension to EPIC that enables UC clinicians to view
`
`whole genome sequences along with entire patient records, while UC researchers
`
`would access only de-identified patient data to search for clues across patients with
`
`genetically similar diseases.
`
`9.
`
`In summary,
`
`I have a deep
`
`familiarity with
`
`the storage,
`
`manipulation/processing/analysis, transfer, and communication of data, and had
`
`first-hand experience with these technologies at and before the time the application
`
`for the ʼ383 patent was filed.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`10.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed, among other things, the
`
`following materials: (a) the ʼ383 patent and its prosecution history; (b) U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,650,355; (c) The Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999); (d)
`
`Mastering Access 97 published by Sybex in 1997 (“Mastering Access”); (e) The
`
`XML Handbook published by Prentice Hall in 1998 (“XML Handbook”); (f) U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,189,608 to Lyons et al. (“Lyons”); and (g) the Petition.
`
`IV. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claims are construed from
`
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, and that during this proceeding, claims are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction consistent with the specification.
`
`-4-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`12.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim is invalid because of
`
`anticipation when every element of the claim is described in a single prior art
`
`reference, such that the elements are arranged as required by the claim. I have
`
`been informed and understand the description of a claim element in a prior art
`
`reference can be express or inherent. For a prior art reference to describe a claim
`
`element inherently, the claim element must be necessarily present. Probabilities
`
`are not sufficient to establish inherency.
`
`13.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that the subject matter of a
`
`patent claim is obvious if the differences between the subject matter of the claim
`
`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 (POSITA) to which the subject matter pertains. I have also been informed that
`
`the framework for determining obviousness involves considering the following
`
`factors: (i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claimed subject matter; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`and (iv) any objective evidence of non-obviousness. I understand that the claimed
`
`subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if, for
`
`example, it results from the combination of known elements according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results, the simple substitution of one known element
`
`for another to obtain predictable results, use of a known technique to improve
`
`-5-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`similar devices in the same way or applying a known technique to a known device
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results. I have also been informed that
`
`the analysis of obviousness may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common
`
`sense available to the person of ordinary skill in the art that does not necessarily
`
`require explication in any reference.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed that a structural limitation in a patent claim may
`
`be written in what is called “means-plus-function” format. I understand that while
`
`the claim language recites the function performed by some “means,” the claim
`
`element is limited to the specific structure described in the patent specification for
`
`performing that function, plus its structural equivalents. I have also been informed
`
`that when the function in a means-plus-function limitation is performed by
`
`computer software, the corresponding structure in the patent specification must
`
`include an algorithm for performing the recited function.
`
`15.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the
`
`ʼ383 patent in the 1999 time frame 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.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed that the earliest possible relevant date for
`
`considering the patentability of the claims of the ʼ383 patent is May 21, 1999. I
`
`-6-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`have not analyzed whether the ʼ383 patent is legally entitled to this filing date. I
`
`shall refer to this time frame as the “relevant date” or the “relevant time frame.”
`
`Based on my education and experience in the field of computer science set forth
`
`above, I believe I am more than qualified to provide opinions about how one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art by the relevant date in 1999 would have interpreted and
`
`understood the ʼ383 patent and the prior art discussed below.
`
`V. STATE OF THE ART
`
`17. By about 1998, data communication, manipulation and reporting were
`
`commonplace and well understood. Organizing data into a database using a
`
`schema that defined data types present within a given document (i.e. Document
`
`Type Definitions or DTDs), along with associated query languages to access the
`
`database, was supported in software packages available from a variety of vendors,
`
`including IBM and Microsoft. Structuring of data into a database became the basic
`
`tool for large organizations to manage business-critical data and perform analysis,
`
`manipulation and reporting of it. However, each vendor’s operating system, and
`
`often applications running on that operating system, stored data in files with
`
`different formats. This made the exchange and reporting of data tedious and time
`
`consuming. Oracle subsequently introduced a new database that was not bound to
`
`a particular operating system, rather, it initially supported the VAX/VMS and
`
`UNIX operating systems in the 1980s. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
`
`-7-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`first published HyperText Markup Language (HTML) (and later published
`
`eXtensible Markup Language (XML)) as ISO standard 8879 in 1986. XML was
`
`immediately adopted as a means to structure data outside of a database. Because
`
`XML was also operating system independent, it rapidly became the preferred
`
`method for data interchange. By 1998, the relevant time frame, Fortune 500
`
`companies had necessitated that their complex applications must communicate
`
`with each other across their enterprise, in order to remain competitive. Although
`
`Sales, Accounting, Resource Planning, Business Intelligence, Reporting and other
`
`applications often came from different vendors and ran on different operating
`
`systems, they could all use XML as a mechanism for structured data interchange.
`
`Oracle offered their first database with complete XML support in 1999. Today,
`
`even common Microsoft Office applications like Word, Excel and PowerPoint rely
`
`upon XML to store structured user data in files with .docx, .xlsx and .pptx formats.
`
`Likewise, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has allowed publically
`
`traded companies to file their 10-K statements using eXtensible Business maRkup
`
`Language (XBRL) – which is based upon XML technology – since 2005.
`
`Companies report XBRL filings to SEC via the Electronic Data Gathering,
`
`Analysis, and Retrieval system (EDGAR).
`
`-8-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`VI. THE ’383 PATENT
`
`18. The claims of the ’383 patent are directed to using a computer markup
`
`language to merge two documents that contain numbers expressed in different
`
`units of measure into a single document where the numbers are expressed with a
`
`common unit of measure. (See ʼ383 patent abstract.) The ʼ383 patent converts
`
`between units of measure by multiplying the values in one unit of measure by a
`
`“conversion factor” such as the well-known ratio between inches and centimeters.
`
`(See id. at 24:49-52, Fig. 10 & Appendix C.)
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“Markup Document”
`
`19. Claims 1, 17, and 18 include the limitations of “a first markup
`
`document” and “a second markup document.”
`
`20. Markup documents were well-known in 1999. The Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999) defines “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)….” (p. 282.) The background of U.S. Patent No. 7,650,355, which is
`
`incorporated by reference into the ’383 patent, states that “[a] markup language is a
`
`way of embedding markup ‘tags,’ special sequences of characters, that describe the
`
`-9-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`structure as well as the behavior of a document and instruct a web browser or other
`
`program on how to display the document.” (ʼ355 patent at 1:32-36.)
`
`21. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “markup
`
`document”
`
`is “a document
`
`including sequences of characters providing
`
`information about the data it contains.”
`
`B.
`
`“Tags”
`
`22. Claims 1, 17, and 18 repeatedly use the term “tag,” including in the
`
`limitation “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.”
`
`23. The specification of the ’383 patent includes a Glossary, which
`
`defines “[t]agging” as “adding metadata.” (’383 patent at 3:2; see also id. at
`
`15:59-61.) The term “metadata” was well-known to a POSITA. The Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999) defines “metadata” as “[d]ata about data.” (p.
`
`288.) The specification of the ’383 patent uses the term “metadata” consistently
`
`with this definition:
`
`The image database 226 contains document metadata that references
`the original document table or flat file in the original database 230.
`Documentation information contained in the image database 226 is
`
`-10-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`added to this data. It further includes line item set metadata for the set
`of line items, documentation that is typically of a more technical
`nature and applies to the line item set as a whole. Examples of such
`information is table types, field definitions (“x values”) and
`hyperlinks that apply to the line item set as a whole. (A line item set
`may be generally analogous to a table; it is a collection of line items,
`which are analogous to records in the database world.)
`
`(’383 patent at 16:42-53.) As discussed above, U.S. Patent No. 7,650,355, which
`
`is incorporated by reference into the ’383 patent, 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.” (ʼ355 patent at 1:32-
`
`36.)
`
`24. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “tag” is “a
`
`sequence of characters that adds data about data.”
`
`C.
`
`“Semantic Tags”
`
`25. Claims 1, 17, and 18 include the limitation “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.”
`
`26. As discussed above, the ’383 patent includes a Glossary, which
`
`defines “[t]agging” as “adding metadata.” (’383 patent at 3:2; see also id. at
`-11-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`15:59-61.) As discussed above, the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999)
`
`defines “metadata” as “[d]ata about data” (p. 288), and the ʼ383 patent
`
`specification uses “metadata” consistently with this definition (see ’383 patent at
`
`16:42-53).
`
`27. The term “semantic” was also well-known to a POSITA in 1999.
`
`“Semantics” is defined by Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999) to mean
`
`“[i]n programming, the relationship between words or symbols and their intended
`
`meanings.” (p. 402.) The ’383 patent uses “semantics” the same way:
`
`Semantics refers to the fact that RDML provides generic tags in which
`indicators of the “meaning” of the numbers, including the
`vocabularies of other SGML and XML markup languages, can be
`placed…. Semantic meaning is also conveyed in text-based attributes:
`legends, titles, labels, footnotes, etc.
`
`(’383 patent at 46:46-52.)
`
`28. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “semantic tag”
`
`is “a sequence of characters that adds data describing the meaning of the data.”
`
`D.
`
`“Means for Identifying”
`
`29. Claim 18 includes the limitation “means for identifying a first markup
`
`document including first numerical values and first tags reflecting 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
`
`-12-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`second characteristics of the second numerical values associated with the second
`
`unit of measure[.]” I understand that this is a means-plus-function term, and the
`
`corresponding structure is the algorithm (if any) disclosed in the patent
`
`specification for performing the recited function.
`
`30. The ʼ383 specification states that “[t]he rdml_doc_ID attribute is the
`
`unique identification of the RDML document 102 and is typically a file name or
`
`URL.” (’383 patent at 20:11-12.) I have been unable to identify any greater detail
`
`in the specification about the algorithm used to identify the documents.
`
`Accordingly, to the extent that the patent discloses sufficient structure, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the corresponding structure is “software that identifies
`
`a markup document based on an identification attribute such as a filename or
`
`URL.”
`
`E.
`
`“Means for Automatically Transforming”
`
`31. Claim 18
`
`includes
`
`the
`
`limitation “means
`
`for automatically
`
`transforming at least a portion of the… numerical values… so that at least some of
`
`the… numerical values… have a common unit of measure.” I understand that this
`
`is a means-plus-function term, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm (if
`
`any) disclosed in the patent specification for performing the recited function.
`
`32. Appendix C to the patent specification includes code for a “UnitList
`
`XML document.” (’383 patent at Col. 91.) For each of the specified “unit names”
`
`-13-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`(e.g., “inch”), the code identifies a “conv_target” (e.g., “centimeter”) and a
`
`“conv_factor” (e.g., “2.5400050”). (See, e.g., id.) Similarly, the flowchart in
`
`Figure 10 of the ʼ383 patent includes the steps “Access Unit, Magnitude, Modifier,
`
`Scale, Measure, and Adjustment Attributes”; “Determine Conversion Factors for
`
`Each Attribute”; and “Multiply the Conversion Factors to Manipulate the numbers
`
`[sic] of the Document or Line Item[.]” (See id. at Fig. 10; see also id. at 24:49-52
`
`(“The data viewer 100 then multiplies the conversion factors to transform the
`
`numerical data into the desired display (step 1014) and displays the transformed
`
`line item or document (step 1016).”).) Accordingly, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the corresponding structure is “software that multiplies numerical
`
`values associated with one unit of measure by a conversion factor to express them
`
`in a different unit of measure.”
`
`F.
`
`“Means for Processing”
`
`33. Claim 18 includes the limitation “means 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[.]” I understand that this is a means-plus-
`
`function term, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm (if any) disclosed in
`
`the patent specification for performing the recited function.
`
`34.
`
`In addition to physical microprocessors, the ʼ383 specification
`
`describes an “RDML Processor 708” as a software element that “receives the
`
`-14-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`parsed text and creates a tree-shaped data structure of the data elements, matching
`
`the structure of the RDML DTD 702 hierarchy.” (’383 patent at 28:40-42; see
`
`generally id. at 28:40-29:11.) I have been unable to identify any greater detail in
`
`the specification about how this process is performed. Accordingly, to the extent
`
`that the patent discloses sufficient structure, the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of the corresponding structure is “software that converts parsed text into a
`
`structured record.”
`
`G.
`
`“Means for Causing a Display”
`
`35. Claim 18 includes the limitation “means for causing a display of at
`
`least a portion of the single markup document.” I understand that this is a means-
`
`plus-function term, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm (if any)
`
`disclosed in the patent specification for performing the recited function.
`
`36. The ʼ383 specification states that “[t]he method automatically
`
`combines the first markup document and the second markup document into a
`
`single data set and displays the single data set” and “[t]he data viewer 100 then
`
`multiplies the conversion factors to transform the numerical data into the desired
`
`display (step 1014) and displays the transformed line item or document (step
`
`1016).” (’383 patent at 3:21-24, 24:49-52.) I have been unable to identify any
`
`detail in the specification about the steps taken by the computer to cause the
`
`display to be generated. Accordingly, to the extent that the patent discloses
`
`-15-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`sufficient structure, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the corresponding
`
`structure is “software that causes a portion of a dataset to be displayed on a
`
`screen.”
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART
`
`A. Access 1997
`
`37. Mastering Access discloses the use of a commercially available
`
`software database product (Microsoft Access 97) that organized, structured and
`
`managed data within a database. A POSITA would have understood that the
`
`Access 97 product was an executable program stored as code on a computer-
`
`readable medium (such as a hard disk), loaded into memory (RAM), and run by a
`
`computer processor.
`
`38.
`
`In the relevant timeframe, the Access 97 database could import from
`
`and output data to markup documents in HTML format that contain numerical
`
`values and tags. (See Mastering Access at 125-126, 237-240.) HTML is a well-
`
`known markup language.
`
`39. Mastering Access teaches that the Access 97 software can import or
`
`link database records from tables stored in delimited or fixed-width text,
`
`spreadsheet, HTML, or other database files. (See Mastering Access at 209-240.)
`
`When Access imports or links a table, each row in the table corresponds to an
`
`individual record (except the first row, which may be used to specify the field
`
`-16-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`names (i.e. tags)), and the columns correspond to the individual data fields within
`
`each record.
`
`40. The difference between importing and linking data is that an imported
`
`table is copied into the Access database. In contrast, a linked data source is read
`
`by Access from its original location. (See Mastering Access at 219-239.) If the
`
`data in a linked data source is changed, Access will read the changed data the next
`
`time it looks up the information from the data source. Mastering Access teaches
`
`that Access 97 could create similar dynamic links in output documents, such as
`
`reports or tables published to the World Wide Web. (See id. at 126, 247-250.)
`
`Those dynamically-linked documents would execute a query back to Access to
`
`obtain fresh data whenever they were browsed. (See id.)
`
`41. Mastering Access 97 teaches that data imported from an HTML
`
`document may also be “append[ed]… to an existing table” rather than imported as
`
`a new table. (See id at 238; see also id. at 228-29 (same for data imported from
`
`spreadsheet files), 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.”).)
`
`42. A POSITA would understand this approach as being useful in
`
`populating a database by importing and/or linking data from multiple data sources,
`
`including multiple HTML tables and spreadsheets. Field names (tags) could be
`
`-17-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`used by Access 97 to associate a particular value, such as currency or sale tax rate,
`
`with a corresponding object, such as a product, country or state. These field names
`
`(tags) could be used to facilitate the Access 97 database software’s performance of
`
`operations on the imported data, by associating the data with its semantic meaning.
`
`43. A POSITA would also understand that the importing and linking
`
`processes taught by Mastering Access involve the parsing of source documents
`
`(text files, spreadsheets, HTML files, etc.) and converting the parsed data into
`
`structured database records. At a minimum, it would be obvious to a POSITA to
`
`implement the importing and linking processes taught by Mastering Access that
`
`way.
`
`44. Mastering Access also teaches outputting data from the database as
`
`“reports.” (See Mastering Access at 445-472.) The “report” described in
`
`Mastering Access is actually a set of dynamic instructions or template for building
`
`the final reporting document that a casual recipient might call a “report.” (See id.)
`
`Mastering Access teaches “previewing” and “printing” the report in order to view a
`
`static instance of the report. (See, e.g., id. at 470-471.) The report itself remains
`
`dynamic, and can be modified to present the data in different ways the next time it
`
`is previewed or printed. (See id.) A POSITA would have understood that if a
`
`report was based on a linked source document, and the data in the source document
`
`changed, Access would pull the updated data from the source document and
`
`-18-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`include it in the next instance of the report when the report was printed or
`
`previewed.
`
`45. Mastering Access explains that “a database can contain many tables.”
`
`(Mastering Access at 43.) One of the advantages to storing information in multiple
`
`tables within the database is that “it’s easier to manage data if all the information
`
`about a particular subject is in its own table.” (Id.) A POSITA would have
`
`understood that the instructions provided in Mastering Access for importing and
`
`linking data from external tables (text, spreadsheet, HTML, etc.) could simply be
`
`repeated to add multiple tables to the database.
`
`46. Mastering Access 97 also teaches the use of macros to copy data
`
`within a database or between databases. For example, the “CopyObject” action
`
`“[c]opies the specified object to a diferent Access database, or to the same database
`
`but with a different name.” (Id. at 740.) In another example, Mastering Access 97
`
`teaches writing a macro called “CopyValue” that uses the “SetValue” action to
`
`copy data from one data field (which Access calls “controls”) to another. (See,
`
`e.g., id. at 750-55.) A POSITA would thus understand that Mastering Access 97
`
`teaches multiple techniques for merging data imported from two source documents
`
`into a single data set. At a minimum, doing so would have been obvious.
`
`47. Mastering Access explains that Access 97 can perform operations on
`
`the data in database records by using field names to identify the specific data fields
`
`-19-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`at issue. For example, Mastering Access describes the creation of “a macro that
`
`adds 7.75 percent sales tax to a total sale but only if the sale is made in the state of
`
`California.” (Mastering Access at 742.) The database records for this example
`
`contain fields named “State,” “SubTotal,” “SalesTaxRate,” “SalesTax,” and
`
`“TotalSale,” the last two of which are “calculated fields.” (Id.) Mastering Access
`
`teaches that the macro initially sets the “SalesTaxRate” value for each record to 0,
`
`and t