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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,262,383
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW ............................................................................... 1
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.104 (a)) ....................................... 1
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 CFR § 42.15(a)) ................................ 2
`B.
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b)) ................................................ 2
`i.
`Real Party in Interest (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1)) .............................. 2
`ii.
`Related Matters (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2)) ...................................... 2
`iii. Designation of Counsel and Service Information (37 CFR
`§§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ........................................................................ 3
`Proof of Service (37 CFR §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)) ............................ 3
`
`D.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction and Identification of the Claims Being Challenged (37
`CFR § 42.104(b)(1)) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`III. Background of the ʼ383 Patent ........................................................................ 9
`A.
`Effective Filing and Priority Dates of the ʼ383 Patent .......................... 9
`B.
`Relevant Prosecution History of the ʼ383 Patent .................................. 9
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)....................................11
`
`IV. Claim Construction (37 CFR § 42.104(b)(3)) ...............................................11
`A.
`“Markup Document” ...........................................................................12
`B.
`“Tags” ..................................................................................................12
`C.
`“Semantic Tags” ..................................................................................14
`D.
`“Means for Identifying” ......................................................................15
`E.
`“Means for Automatically Transforming” ..........................................16
`F.
`“Means for Processing” .......................................................................17
`G.
`“Means for Causing a Display” ...........................................................18
`
`V.
`
`Identification of Specific Statutory Grounds for Challenge (37 CFR §
`42.104(b)(2)) ..................................................................................................19
`
`VI. Detailed Explanation and Evidence Supporting Grounds for Challenge
`(37 CFR §§ 42.104(b)(4)-(5)) ........................................................................19
`A. Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims of 1, 17, and 18 Based on
`Mastering Access 97 ............................................................................19
`Disclosure of Mastering Access 97 ...........................................19
`i.
`Comparison of Claims 1, 17, and 18 to Mastering Access
`ii.
`97 ...............................................................................................20
`
`-i-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`B. Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1, 17, and 18 Based on
`Mastering Access 97 in Combination with The XML Handbook .......31
`Disclosure of Mastering Access 97 ...........................................31
`i.
`Disclosure of The XML Handbook ...........................................31
`ii.
`iii. Rationale for Combining the Teachings of Mastering
`Access 97 and The XML Handbook ..........................................33
`iv. Comparison of Claims 1, 17, and 18 to Mastering Access
`97 and The XML Handbook ......................................................35
`C. Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims of 1, 17, and 18 Based on
`Lyons ...................................................................................................48
`i.
`Disclosure of Lyons ..................................................................48
`ii.
`Comparison of Claims 1, 17, and 18 to Lyons .........................49
`D. Ground 4: Obviousness of Claims 1, 17, and 18 Based on
`Lyons in Combination with The XML Handbook ...............................58
`i.
`Disclosure of Lyons ..................................................................58
`Disclosure of The XML Handbook ...........................................58
`ii.
`iii. Rationale for Combining the Teachings of Lyons and The
`XML Handbook .........................................................................59
`iv. Comparison of Claims 1, 17, and 18 to Lyons and The
`XML Handbook .........................................................................60
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................63
`
`
`Attachment A. Proof of Service of the Petition
`
`Attachment B. List of Evidence and Exhibits Relied Upon in Petition
`
`Attachment C. Word Count Compliance Certificate
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`Petitioner Merrill Communications LLC d/b/a Merrill Corporation
`
`(hereinafter “Merrill” or “Petitioner”) respectfully petitions for inter partes review
`
`of claims 1, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383 (“the ʼ383 patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`I. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.104 (a))
`
`Petitioner certifies it is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review of the ʼ383 patent. Neither Petitioner, nor any party in privity with
`
`Petitioner, has filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ʼ383
`
`patent. The ʼ383 patent has not been the subject of a prior inter partes review by
`
`Petitioner or a privy of Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner also certifies this petition for inter partes review is filed within
`
`one year of the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement of a patent.
`
`Petitioner’s customer, Mattress Firm Holding Corp. (“Mattress Firm”), was served
`
`with a complaint alleging infringement of the ʼ383 patent on July 13, 2017,
`
`captioned No. 1:17-cv-00933 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
`
`Delaware. (See Ex. 1013, Affidavit of Service.) A copy of e-Numerate Solutions,
`
`Inc.’s (“e-Numerate”) Complaint is attached as Exhibit 1012. In the same suit,
`
`Petitioner and its parent, Merrill Corporation, were joined as defendants and served
`
`with an amended complaint alleging infringement of the ʼ383 patent on September
`
`-1-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`19, 2017. (See Ex. 1015, Affidavit of Service.) A copy of e-Numerate’s Amended
`
`Complaint is attached as Exhibit 1014.
`
`Because the date of this petition is less than one year from July 13, 2017,
`
`this petition complies with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 CFR § 42.15(a))
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 CFR § 42.15(a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 06-1910.
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b))
`
`i. Real Party in Interest (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties in interest for this petition are Petitioner Merrill
`
`Communications LLC, Petitioner’s parent Merrill Corporation, and Mattress Firm.
`
`Petitioner and its parent are located at One Merrill Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108, and
`
`Mattress Firm is located at 5815 Gulf Freeway, Houston, TX 77023.
`
`ii. Related Matters (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ʼ383 patent is the subject of a civil action in the U.S. District Court for
`
`the District of Delaware, captioned e-Numerate Solutions, Inc., and e-Numerate,
`
`LLC, v. Mattress Firm Holding Corp., Merrill Communications LLC, and Merrill
`
`Corp., No. 1:17-cv-00933 (“the district court lawsuit”). Petitioner is
`
`contemporaneously filing three additional inter partes review petitions for U.S.
`
`-2-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`Patent Nos. 7,650,355; 8,185,816; and 9,268,748, which are asserted in the district
`
`court lawsuit in addition to the ’383 patent.
`
`iii. Designation of Counsel and Service Information (37 CFR
`§§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Petitioner identifies the following counsel (a power of attorney accompanies
`
`this Petition):
`
`Lead Counsel
`Katherine J. Rahlin
`Reg. No. 75,181
`krahlin@fredlaw.com
`(612) 492-7370
`
`Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
`200 South 6th Street, Suite 4000
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Adam R. Steinert
`pro hac vice to be filed
`asteinert@fredlaw.com
`(612) 492-7436
`
`Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
`200 South 6th Street, Suite 4000
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Service information for counsel is provided above. Counsel may also be
`
`served by fax at (612) 492-7077.
`
`D.
`
`Proof of Service (37 CFR §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a))
`
`Proof of service of this Petition is provided in Attachment A.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE CLAIMS
`BEING CHALLENGED (37 CFR § 42.104(B)(1))
`
`This is a petition for inter partes review of claims 1, 17, and 18 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,262,383 (“the ʼ383 patent”), titled “System, Method, and Computer
`
`Program Product for Processing a Markup Document,” issued on February 16,
`
`2016, to Davis and assigned to e-Numerate. The ʼ383 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`-3-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`1001. The ʼ383 patent is generally directed to using a computer markup language
`
`to organize and manipulate data through the use of “tags” and “macros.” (See Ex.
`
`1001 at 3:5-15.)
`
`Claims 1, 17, and 18 of the ʼ383 patent are each independent claims. Claims
`
`1 and 18 are apparatus claims and claim 17 is a method claim. Claim 1 is
`
`representative of the alleged invention:
`
`1. A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory
`computer-readable medium comprising:
`
`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, 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, 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;
`
`-4-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`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;
`
`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
`
`code for causing a display of at least a portion of the single markup
`document.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Cl. 1.)
`
`The prior art references cited and discussed in this petition for inter partes
`
`review are Mastering Access 97, The XML Handbook, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,189,608 to Lyons et al. (“Lyons”).
`
`Mastering Access 97 by Alan Simpson & Elizabeth Olson is a textbook
`
`published ©1997 by SYBEX Inc. (Ex. 1005.) The book bears Library of
`
`Congress Card No. 96-71646 and ISBN 0-7821-1924-7. (See id.) The XML
`
`Handbook by Charles Goldfarb and Paul Prescod is a textbook published ©1998
`
`by Prentice Hall PTR. (Ex. 1006.) The book bears Library of Congress Card No.
`
`98-16708 and ISBN 0-13-081152-1. (See id.) Both references are prior art printed
`
`publications, because they were made sufficiently available to the public before
`
`-5-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`May 21, 1999, the earliest possible priority date of the ’748 patent (discussed in
`
`Section III(A) below).
`
`“When considering whether a given reference qualifies as a prior art printed
`
`publication, the key inquiry is whether the reference was made ‘sufficiently
`
`accessible to the public interested in the art’” before the priority date. See Voter
`
`Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc., 698 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Availability in a public library has long been considered sufficient to satisfy the
`
`public accessibility inquiry. See, e.g., In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986) (holding that a single reference indexed in one university library catalog was
`
`a publicly accessible printed publication). For library-housed references to be
`
`publicly accessible, an interested researcher must have been able to “locate and
`
`examine the reference.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The
`
`Federal Circuit has held that “competent evidence of general library practice may
`
`be relied upon to establish an approximate time when a [publication] became
`
`available.” Id. (quoting Hall, 781 F.2d at 899); see also Constant v. Advanced
`
`Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Evidence of routine
`
`business practice can be sufficient to prove that a reference was made accessible
`
`before a critical date.”).
`
`Mastering Access 97 is a third-party guide describing the structure and
`
`functionality of Microsoft’s commercially-available Access 97 database software
`
`-6-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`product. The MARC record for Mastering Access 97 confirms that the book was
`
`publicly accessible in the Library of Congress as of March 1997. (See Declaration
`
`of Anne Rondoni Tavernier, Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 3-10.) The Library of Congress uses
`
`MARC records, standardized cataloguing records widely used by libraries, to
`
`record the bibliographic data of a library item. (Id., ¶ 6.) The 955 line of the
`
`MARC record – used to track the location of a reference – indicates that the
`
`publisher sent the book to the Library of Congress on March 6, 1997. (Id., ¶¶ 11-
`
`14.) The final date listed in the 955 field is March 19, 1997, indicating that
`
`Mastering Access 97 was available to be checked out by members of the public no
`
`later than that date. (See id., ¶ 15.)
`
`Moreover, the MARC record for Mastering Access 97 contains two subject
`
`denotations under line 630: “Microsoft Access,” and “Microsoft Windows
`
`(Computer file).” (Id., ¶¶ 16-17.) The MARC record also contains a subject
`
`“topical term” codified in field 650, which lists Mastering Access 97 as a
`
`“Database management” subject reference. (Id.) Thus, a researcher would have
`
`been able to locate Mastering Access 97 in the Library of Congress as of March
`
`1997 by searching the subject index fields. Mastering Access 97 is a prior art
`
`printed publication under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).
`
`The XML Handbook is a textbook describing the structure, functionality,
`
`history, and potential uses of XML. It was publicly accessible in the University of
`
`-7-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`California - San Diego Library (“UCSD Library”) as of September 1998. (See
`
`Declaration of Peter Rolla, Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 6-9.) The XML Handbook was catalogued
`
`and made available to the public according to the UCSD Library’s regular business
`
`practices in September 1998. (Id., ¶¶ 7-11.) Specifically, the bibliographic record
`
`for The XML Handbook displays a Cataloging Date of September 10, 1998. (Id., ¶
`
`8.) Based on that Cataloging Date and the regular practices of the UCSD Library,
`
`The XML Handbook was publicly accessible within approximately one week of
`
`September 10, 1998. (Id., ¶ 11.)
`
`
`
`Furthermore, the UCSD Library bibliographic record indicates that The XML
`
`Handbook was assigned a MARC record subject of “XML (Document markup
`
`language)” codified in field 650. (Id., ¶ 8.) Therefore, a researcher would have
`
`been able to locate The XML Handbook as of mid-September 1998 by using the
`
`cataloging data assigned by the UCSD Library. The XML Handbook is a prior art
`
`printed publication under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Lyons is a U.S. patent directed to a database system that tagged financial
`
`records “with a particular Schedule, Entity, Period and Type” (SEPT) value for
`
`easier retrieval and manipulation. It was issued on February 23, 1993.
`
`Accordingly, Lyons is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).
`
`-8-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`Thus, the references relied on herein raise a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Merrill will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, and Merrill’s
`
`petition for inter partes review of the ʼ383 patent should be granted.
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE ʼ383 PATENT
`
`A. Effective Filing and Priority Dates of the ʼ383 Patent
`
`
`
`The ʼ383 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 14/724,792 (“the ʼ792
`
`application”), with a filing date of May 28, 2015. The ’792 application is a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Application No. 12/222,751, filed on August 15, 2008,
`
`which is a division of U.S. Application No. 09/573,778, which was filed May 18,
`
`2000, is now U.S. Patent No. 7,421,648, and claims priority to two provisional
`
`applications: U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/135,525, filed on May 21, 1999,
`
`and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/183,152, filed on February 17, 2000.
`
`Accordingly, the earliest possible priority date for the ʼ383 patent is May 21, 1999.
`
`B. Relevant Prosecution History of the ʼ383 Patent
`
`The file history for the ʼ383 patent is particularly helpful in understanding
`
`what e-Numerate claims it invented. The file history is attached as Exhibit 1002.
`
`The examiner initially rejected e-Numerate’s ’792 application as obvious
`
`over U.S. Patent. No. 6,199,046 (“Heinzle”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,510,468
`
`(“Hayne”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,548,749 (“Kroenke”). (Ex. 1002 at 0238-39.)
`
`With respect to the independent claims as filed, the examiner noted that while
`
`-9-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`Heinzle does not teach processing portions of two separate markup documents,
`
`resulting in a single markup document, Hayne teaches that element. (Id.)
`
`In response, e-Numerate did not dispute that Hayne discloses merging two
`
`separate markup documents into a single markup document. (Ex. 1002 at 0353-
`
`354.) Instead, e-Numerate argued that Heinzle fails to disclose:
`
`automatic transformation of at least a portion of the numerical
`values of at least one of the first markup document or the second
`markup document, so that the 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[.]
`
`(Id. (emphasis in original).)
`
`
`
`The examiner did not allow the ’383 patent to issue based on e-Numerate’s
`
`arguments and instead conducted an examiner interview to discuss amendments to
`
`the claims. (Ex. 1002 at 0379.) The examiner allowed the ’383 patent to issue
`
`after e-Numerate agreed to amend the independent claims to 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, via a computer-
`
`readable tagging association therebetween.” (Ex. 1002 at 0374, 0376-377.)
`
`-10-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)
`
`
`
`A POSITA 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. (See Declaration of Andrew
`
`D. Hospodor, Exhibit 1003, ¶ 15.)
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 CFR § 42.104(B)(3))
`
`
`
`In this proceeding, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. 37 CFR § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016).1 Also, if e-Numerate contends terms
`
`in the claims should be read to have a special meaning, those contentions should be
`
`disregarded unless e-Numerate also amends the claims consistent with 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112 to make them expressly correspond to those contentions. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48764 at II.B.6 (August 14, 2012); cf. In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`
`1 Merrill notes that the broadest reasonable construction is not the appropriate
`
`standard for claim construction in litigation. See generally Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also, e.g., Cuozzo Speed, 136 S. Ct.
`
`at 2144.
`
`-11-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`
`A.
`
`“Markup Document”
`
`Claims 1, 17, and 18 recite the limitations “a first markup document” and “a
`
`second markup document” throughout.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “markup document” was well-known to a
`
`POSITA. 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)….” (Ex. 1010 at 282.) The background of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,650,355 (attached as Exhibit 1011), 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.” (Ex. 1011 at 1:32-36.)
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “markup document”
`
`is “a document including sequences of characters providing information about the
`
`data it contains.”
`
`B.
`
`“Tags”
`
`Claims 1, 17, and 18 include the term “tag” throughout, including in the
`
`limitation “identifying a first markup document including first numerical values
`
`-12-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`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.”
`
`The specification of the ’383 patent includes a Glossary, which defines
`
`“[t]agging” as “adding metadata.” (Ex. 1001 at 3:2; see also id. at 15:59-61.) The
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of “metadata” was well-known to a POSITA. The
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999) defines “metadata” as “[d]ata about
`
`data.” (Ex. 1010 at 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
`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.)
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 16:42-53 (emphasis added).) As discussed, U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,650,355, which is incorporated by reference into the ’383 patent, states that “[a]
`
`-13-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`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.” (Ex.
`
`1011 at 1:32-36.)
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “tag” is “a sequence
`
`of characters that adds data about data.”
`
`C.
`
`“Semantic Tags”
`
`Claims 1, 17, and 18 recite 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.”
`
`As discussed in Section IV(B), the ’383 patent includes a Glossary, which
`
`defines “[t]agging” as “adding metadata.” (Ex. 1001 at 3:2; see also id. at 15:59-
`
`61.) The plain and ordinary meaning of “metadata” was well-known to a
`
`POSITA. The Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999) defines “metadata”
`
`as “[d]ata about data.” (Ex. 1010 at 288.) The specification uses “metadata”
`
`consistently with this definition. (See Ex. 1001 at 16:42-53.)
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “semantic” was likewise well-known to a
`
`POSITA. “Semantics” is defined by Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed.
`
`1999) to mean “[i]n programming, the relationship between words or symbols and
`
`-14-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`their intended meanings.” (Ex. 1010 at 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.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 46:46-52.)
`
`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”
`
`Claim 18 recites 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
`
`second characteristics of the second numerical values associated with the second
`
`unit of measure[.]”
`
`This element is a means-plus-function term governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6. The Federal Circuit has made clear that “[w]hen dealing with a ‘special
`
`purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation,’ we require the
`
`-15-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`specification to disclose the algorithm for performing the function.” Function
`
`Media, L.L.C., v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`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.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 20:11-12.) The specification does not provide any greater detail
`
`regarding the algorithm used to identify the documents. Accordingly, to the extent
`
`that this limitation is not indefinite, 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”
`
`Claim 18 recites 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.” This is a software means-plus-function
`
`term, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm that performs the recited
`
`function. See Function Media, 708 F.3d at 1318.
`
`Appendix C to the patent specification includes code for a “UnitList XML
`
`document.” (Ex. 1001 at Col. 91.) For each of the specified “unit names” (e.g.,
`
`“inch”), the code identifies a “conv_target” (e.g., “centimeter”) and a
`
`“conv_factor” (e.g., “2.5400050”). (See, e.g., id.) Likewise, the flowchart in
`
`Figure 10 of the ʼ383 patent includes the steps “Access Unit, Magnitude, Modifier,
`
`-16-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`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”
`
`Claim 18 recites 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[.]” This is a software means-plus-function
`
`term, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm that performs the recited
`
`function. See Function Media, 708 F.3d at 1318.
`
`In addition to physical microprocessors, the ʼ383 specification describes an
`
`“RDML Processor 708” as a software element that “receives the parsed text and
`
`creates a tree-shaped data structure of the data elements, matching the structure of
`
`the RDML DTD 702 hierarchy.” (Ex. 1001 at 28:40-42; see generally id. at
`
`28:40-29:11.) The specification does not detail how this process is performed.
`
`-17-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`Accordingly, to the extent that this element is not indefinite, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the corresponding structure is “software that converts
`
`parsed text into a structured record.”
`
`G.
`
`“Means for Causing a Display”
`
`Claim 18 recites the limitation “means for causing a display of at least a
`
`portion of the single markup document.” This element is a means-plus-function
`
`term governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. This is a software means-plus-
`
`function term, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm that performs the
`
`recited function. See Function Media, 708 F.3d at 1318.
`
`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).” (Ex. 1001
`
`at 3:21-24, 24:49-52.) The specification does not, however, provide any details
`
`regard the steps taken by the computer to cause the display to be generated.
`
`Accordingly, to the extent that this element is not indefinite, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the corresponding structure is “software that caus