`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`MERRILL COMMUNICATIONS LLC d/b/a MERRILL
`CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
` E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent 9,262,383
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. SMITH
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................4
`
`II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`Education, Background and Experience ....................................................................6
`
`B.
`
`Compensation ...............................................................................................................8
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW .............................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .............................................................................8
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness ................................................................................................................10
`
`C. Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitations .................................................................11
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................12
`
`A.
`
`“Markup Document” .................................................................................................12
`
`V. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ‘383 PATENT ...............................................16
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ‘383 PATENT ................................................................................48
`
`VII. THE APPLIED PRIOR ART ............................................................................................48
`
`A.
`
`Simpson (Ex. 1005) ....................................................................................................49
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Goldfarb (Ex. 1006)....................................................................................................51
`
`Lyons (Ex. 1007) ........................................................................................................54
`
`VIII. THE INSTITUTED GROUNDS ....................................................................................56
`
`A.
`
`Grounds 1 & 2: Simpson Or Simpson In View Of Goldfarb .................................56
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“code for identifying a first markup document including first
`numerical values and first tags reflecting first characteristics of the first
`numerical values” .................................................................................................56
`
`“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” ...................................................................................65
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`B.
`
`Grounds 3 & 4: Lyons Or Lyons In View Of Goldfarb .........................................71
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“code for identifying a first markup document including first
`numerical values and first tags reflecting first characteristics of the first
`numerical values” .................................................................................................71
`
`“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” ...................................................................................74
`
`C.
`
`Grounds 2 & 4: A POSA Would Not Be Motivated To Modify Simpson
`or Lyons In View Of Goldfarb ..................................................................................78
`
`1.
`
`Both Simpson And Lyon Disclose Existing Systems With Limitations
`The Claimed Invention Overcomes ....................................................................81
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................89
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`I, Dr. Michael J. Smith of Palo Alto, California, declare as follows:
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1)
`
`I have been retained by e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. (“ENUM”) in
`
`this Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) as an independent expert to provide opinions
`
`regarding the subject matter recited in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`(Ex. 1001, “‘383 patent”). In particular, I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinion as to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention (“POSA”) would have found claims 1, 17 and 18 of the ‘383 patent
`
`obvious in view of Alan Simpson & Elizabeth Olson, Mastering Access 97 (4th
`
`ed. 1997) (Ex. 1005, “Simpson”), or alternatively, in view of Simpson and
`
`Charles F. Goldfarb & Paul Prescod, The XML Handbook (1998) (Ex. 1006,
`
`“Goldfarb”), or alternatively, in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,189,608 (Ex. 1007,
`
`“Lyons”), or alternatively, in view of Lyons and Goldfarb, based on the
`
`arguments and evidence submitted by Petitioner Merrill Communications LLC
`
`d/b/a Merrill Corporation (“Merrill”) and its declarant, Dr. Hospodor.
`
`2)
`
`I understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“Board”) has instituted an IPR of the
`
`patentability of Claims 1, 17 and 18 of the ‘383 patent following the
`
`submission of a Petition by Merrill. I understand that Merrill also submitted a
`
`supporting declaration by Dr. Andrew David Hospodor.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`3)
`
`I understand the Board has instituted review on the following
`
`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`grounds:
`
`a.
`
`Claims 1, 17 and 18 of the ‘383 patent as obvious over Simpson
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103;
`
`b.
`
`Claims 1, 17 and 18 of the ‘383 patent as obvious over Simpson in
`
`view of Goldfarb pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103;
`
`c.
`
`Claims 1, 17 and 18 of the ‘383 patent as obvious over Lyons
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103; and
`
`d.
`
`Claims 1, 17 and 18 of the ‘383 patent as obvious over Lyons in
`
`view of Goldfarb pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103;
`
`4) My analysis and conclusions regarding the ‘383 patent and the
`
`instituted grounds are set forth below.
`
`5)
`
`In connection with forming my opinions, I have considered the
`
`references and materials submitted by the parties in this proceeding, and in
`
`particular those cited herein, including the following:
`
`Exhibit Reference Name
`N/A
`Merrill’s Petition
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383 to Davis
`1002
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`1003
`Declaration of Andrew D. Hospodor Regarding ʼ383 Patent
`1004
`Curriculum Vitae of Andrew D. Hospodor
`1005
`Alan Simpson & Elizabeth Olson, Mastering Access 97 (SYBEX Inc.
`1997)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`Charles Goldfarb & Paul Prescod, The XML Handbook (Prentice
`Hall PTR 1998)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,189,608 to Lyons et al.
`Declaration of Anne Rondoni Tavernier and Exhibits A-F
`Regarding Publication of Mastering Access 97
`Declaration of Peter Rolla and Exhibits A-B Regarding
`Publication of The XML Handbook
`1010 Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999)
`1011
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,355 to Davis
`1012
`e-Numerate’s original Complaint in Case No. 1:17-cv-00933-RGA
`in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Affidavit of Service of e-Numerate’s original Complaint in Case
`No. 1:17-cv-00933-RGA in the U.S. District Court for the District
`of Delaware
`e-Numerate’s Amended Complaint in Case No. 1:17-cv-00933-
`RGA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`Affidavit of Service of e-Numerate’s Amended Complaint in Case
`No. 1:17-cv-00933-RGA in the U.S. District Court for the District
`of Delaware
`Institution Decision
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`N/A
`
`2002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,249,328 to Davis
`
`
`
`6) My opinions set forth below are based on my education, training,
`
`experience, and the content of the references considered. My understanding of
`
`the relevant law, as discussed below, is based on my discussions with counsel
`
`for ENUM.
`
`
`
`II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Education, Background and Experience
`
`7)
`
`I am a United States permanent resident at Palo Alto, California.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`8) My curriculum vitae (CV) listing my educational background and
`
`work experience is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A.
`
`9)
`
`I have extensive knowledge and experience in the area of software
`
`tools for storing and transporting data. My work has included creating and
`
`working with commercial software tools and data processing for computer-
`
`aided design (CAD). Examples of my experience include Smith US5402358
`
`that involves generating and manipulating data and metadata including data
`
`import, export including to and from spreadsheet and other formats related to
`
`integrated circuit design data. A journal article: M. J. S. Smith et al., "Cell
`
`libraries and assembly tools for analog/digital CMOS and BiCMOS
`
`application-specific integrated circuit design," in IEEE Journal of Solid-State
`
`Circuits, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1419-1432, Oct. 1989 also describes my work in
`
`software tools and data manipulation for computer-aided design (CAD). My
`
`textbook: Smith, M. J. S., Application-specific integrated circuits; Reading,
`
`Mass: Addison-Wesley; contains several chapters on the use of different
`
`software tools and data formats, and the import, export and conversion of
`
`various data formats involving very large and complex data sets used in
`
`integrated circuit design. In 1997 I converted my textbook "Application-
`
`specific integrated circuits" and accompanying materials to HTML and
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`published the textbook as a website with IBS that represented one of the first
`
`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`ever online textbooks, "ASICs on the Web."
`
`B. Compensation
`
`10)
`
`I am being compensated at my customary hourly rate of $300 for
`
`my time on this matter.
`
`11)
`
`I have no financial interest in the Patent Owner, the ‘383 patent or
`
`in the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`12)
`
`I have been informed that claim construction and patentability is
`
`generally analyzed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the inventions (“POSA”).
`
`13)
`
`I understand that the POSA is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. I
`
`understand that factors that may be considered in determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) type of problems encountered in the
`
`art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) rapidly with which
`
`innovations are made; (4) sophistication of the technology; and (5) educational
`
`level of active workers in the field.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`14) The field in the art to which the ‘383 patent pertains is a computer
`
`markup language for use in a data browser and manipulator. More
`
`specifically, the ‘383 patent describes to a system, method, and computer
`
`program product for identifying two markup documents that include numerical
`
`values and tags reflecting characteristics of the numerical values. In addition,
`
`at least a part of the first markup document and at least a part of the second
`
`markup document are processed, resulting in a single markup document, for
`
`display1.
`
`15)
`
`I understand that Merrill assert that a POSA “would have been
`
`someone with at least a bachelor’s or graduate degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 3 to 5 years of work
`
`experience in developing software for data communication, manipulation, and
`
`reporting.”2 I had at least the qualification of a POSA under this definition in
`
`May of 1999. My opinions and analysis herein are from the perspective of the
`
`POSA as defined by Merrill.
`
`
`1 Exhibit 1001, Abstract.
`
`2 Petition, p. 11.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`16)
`
`I understand that subject matter claimed in a patent is obvious if
`
`the recited subject matter would have been obvious to a POSA at the time the
`
`alleged invention was made. I understand that the subject matter of multiple
`
`references may be combined to establish obviousness, if a POSA would have
`
`had a reason to combine or modify the disclosures of the references to arrive at
`
`the claimed subject matter. I understand that as part of this analysis, three
`
`factors should be considered: (a) the scope and content of the prior art; (b) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims; and (c) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art.
`
`17)
`
`I also have been informed that a combination of elements in a
`
`patent claim may be obvious when all of those elements were known in the
`
`prior art and there was a reason for a POSA to combine or modify the prior art
`
`to obtain the elements as claimed, with no change in their respective functions.
`
`Furthermore, I understand that a patent claim would not be obvious if a
`
`proposed modification would render the prior art unsuitable for its intended
`
`purpose or if the proposed modification would change the principle of
`
`operation of the prior art.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`C. Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitations
`
`18)
`
`I understand that claim limitations may be written in a format
`
`referred to as “means-plus-function.” I understand that this is commonly done
`
`by reciting the introductory language “means for,” followed by a function. I
`
`understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a means-plus-
`
`function claim limitation is the structure, material or act described in the
`
`specification as performing the entire claimed function, and equivalents to the
`
`disclosed structure, material or act.
`
`19)
`
`I understand that, in order to show that a means-plus-function
`
`limitation was present in the prior art, a challenger must show that both the
`
`claimed function was present in the prior art, and the corresponding structure
`
`(or its equivalent) for performing that function was present in the prior art.
`
`20)
`
`I understand that the test to determine whether a corresponding
`
`element in the prior art is equivalent can be applied in different manners. One
`
`manner is to analyze whether the element performs substantially the same
`
`function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result.
`
`Another manner is to analyze whether the difference in structure is an
`
`insubstantial change which adds nothing of significance to the structure,
`
`material, or acts disclosed in the patent.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`21)
`
`I understand that in its Petition, Merrill proposed constructions for
`
`several of the claim terms in the ‘383 patent and the Board has adopted those
`
`constructions.3 The Petitioner’s proposed constructions generally ignore the
`
`context of the terms within the claim.
`
`22) Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, I under that
`
`claim terms 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. Additionally, I under that the “appropriate context” to read a claim
`
`term includes both the specification and the claim language itself. I understand
`
`that if a term is “used differently by the inventor,” the inventor may provide a
`
`special definition if done with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision.”
`
`
`
`A. “Markup Document”
`
`23) The term “markup document” is used throughout the claims of the
`
`‘383 patent including independent claims 1, 17, and 18. For example, claims
`
`1, 17 and 18 recite “identifying a first markup document including first
`
`
`3 See Petition.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`numerical values and first tags reflecting first characteristics of the first
`
`numerical values associated with a first 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…”4
`
`24) Further, the specification also discusses markup documents in the
`
`context of RDML document.
`
`25) Markup documents, in accordance with the ‘383 specification are
`
`5
`
`text files6.
`
`
`4 Exhibit 1001, cols. 143-146.
`
`5 Id. at col. 19, ll 19-24.
`
`6 Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`…Continued
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`7
`
`26) Further, in accordance with the ‘383 specification, markup
`
`documents provide a set of tags and vocabulary to describe six aspects of a
`
`table of numbers including value, structure, format, semantics, provenance,
`
`and measurement8.
`
`9
`
`27)
`
`In addition, according to one embodiment, a markup document
`
`will instruct a computer how to transform, format, manipulate and display
`
`data stored in the markup document using the attributes describing the
`
`meaning of the data10.
`
`
`7 Exhibit 1001, col 46, ll 23-28.
`
`8 Id.
`
`9 Exhibit 1001, col. 24, ll 40-43.
`
`10 Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`28) Petitioner cites The Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999)
`
`which 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 contents11.” Thus, a markup document inherently must be readable by
`
`a computer.
`
`29) Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “markup
`
`document” is “a text file conforming to a markup language which includes
`
`sequences of characters providing information to a computer about the data it
`
`contains.”
`
`30) The Petitioner’s proposed construction of “markup document” is
`
`“a document including sequences of characters providing information about
`
`the data it contains.” As such, the fundamental differences between the
`
`Petitioner’s and the Patent Owner’s construction are “a text file conforming to
`
`a markup language” and “to a computer” clause added by the Patent Owner to
`
`the construction proposed by the Petitioner.
`
`31) For all these reasons, including the fact that the proposed
`
`construction by the Patent Owner is consistent with the citation relied upon by
`
`the Petitioner, and the specification of the ‘383 patent, the Patent Owner’s
`
`
`11 Exhibit 1010 at 282.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`construction of a “markup document” as “a text file conforming to a markup
`
`language which includes sequences of characters providing information to a
`
`computer about the data it contains” is the broadest reasonable construction
`
`and should be adopted in this proceeding.
`
`32)
`
`In its Petition, Merrill proposed constructions for several other
`
`claim terms in the ‘383 patent and the Board has adopted those constructions.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, I understand the Patent Owner does not
`
`dispute those other proposed and adopted constructions. I understand that the
`
`Patent Owner reserves the right to take a different position in any District
`
`Court proceeding.
`
`V. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ‘383 PATENT
`
`33)
`
`Inventor Russell T. Davis pioneered several inventions related to
`
`Reusable Data Markup Language including, but not limited to, the ‘383
`
`patent.12 As discussed below, these patents provided numerous advantages
`
`over prior art Markup Languages.13
`
`
`12 Exhibit 1001, 1:7-27.
`
`13 Exhibit 2002, US 7421648 (parent case to ‘383) 1:2-12.
`
`…Continued
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`34)
`
`In the late 1990’s when numbers were treated the same as letters
`
`(text) in software programs, both online and offline, e-Numerate’s key
`
`technical advancements allowed numbers to be substantively treated as the
`
`numerical values they represent.14 This opened the computer world, both
`
`online and offline, to vastly improve a user’s ability to identify, manipulate,
`
`compare, convert and process numbers in software like never before.15 The
`
`technical innovations of the ‘383 patent16 are embodied in software that
`
`improves and enhances the functionalities of computer systems over the prior
`
`art. The problem that they solve relates to the need for the intelligent
`
`identification and processing of numerical information on the Internet.
`
`The Problem
`
`35)
`
`In the late 1990’s, the Internet was replete with numerical data but
`
`(i) there was no way of distinguishing this numerical data from text, (ii) data
`
`
`14 Id. at 1:45-47.
`
`15 Id. at 2:36-47.
`
`16 Exhibit 1001.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`and analytic routines were not standardized, and (iii) calculations occurred at
`
`too low a conceptual level.17
`
`36) The advances of the inventions claimed in the ‘383 patent18 relate
`
`to deficiencies in the prior-art markup languages that existed at the time of the
`
`invention. These were Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML)19 and
`
`Extensible Markup Language (XML).20
`
`37)
`
`Internet browsers interpret and display documents formatted in
`
`HTML.21 In order to distinguish the text characters to be displayed from the
`
`information describing how the text characters are to be formatted,
`
`“annotations” that are not visible to the viewer of the displayed document are
`
`added to the document.22 The HTML specification describes the use of a
`
`
`17 Exhibit 2002 at 1:45-47.
`
`18 Exhibit 1001.
`
`19 Exhibit 2002 at 1:29-39.
`
`20 Id. at 1:61-67.
`
`21 Id. at 1:40-47.
`
`22 Id. at 1:47-48.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`…Continued
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`markup language to include these non-displayed annotations.23 A markup
`
`language is a system for inserting information about the formatting and display
`
`of a group of text characters by placing non-displayed “markup” text before
`
`and after the group of text characters.24 These markups, commonly known as
`
`“tags” in online and other documents in digital format, describe the structure
`
`and formatting of digital documents and instruct computer systems on how to
`
`display them.25
`
`38) HTML works only with text and images.26 Numbers in HTML
`
`documents are read and displayed as text characters.27 There is no HTML tag
`
`capable of annotating the context or meaning of numerical data appearing in a
`
`markup document for computer systems to interpret these numerical data as
`
`numbers representing a particular type of information instead of a simple string
`
`
`23 Id. at 1:34-37.
`
`24 Id.
`
`25 Id. at 1:37-39.
`
`26 Id. at 1:41-42.
`
`27 Id. at 1:45-47.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`of text characters.28 At most, HTML tags can be used only to indicate the
`
`display format (e.g., font, size, color, alignment) of numerical data.29 For
`
`example, a financial statement showing numbers could be displayed by
`
`computer systems running browsers, but HTML cannot be used to annotate a
`
`given number as “revenue” or “expense,” or as “dollars” or “Euros,” or as
`
`representing “thousands” or “millions,” but rather only as a text character to
`
`be displayed in a certain way according to embedded formatting tags.30
`
`Consequently, computer systems running web browsers could use HTML tags
`
`to display documents containing numbers, but the HTML tags do not enable
`
`computer systems to run analytical applications that read, manipulate,
`
`combine, compare, transform or analyze the numbers, load them into a
`
`spreadsheet, or display them in a graph directly from multiple online sources.31
`
`
`28 Id. at 1:52-54.
`
`29 Id. at 1:40-45.
`
`30 Id. at 9:45-51.
`
`31 Id. at 1:54-60.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`39) XML version 1.0 was developed in the mid-to-late 1990s to help
`
`overcome some of HTML’s limitations.32 XML, itself, does not include a set of
`
`pre-defined tags, but rather is a specification that governs the creation of tags
`
`by particular users or groups.33 The XML specification allows developers to
`
`create customized tags that, via a glossary of terms, describe the structure and
`
`meaning of online content.34 In other words, XML allows developers to create
`
`their own individual markup languages.35 Thus, a user can use XML to create
`
`their own markup tags that annotate data characteristics that are meaningful to
`
`that particular user.36 But at the time of the inventions of the ‘383 patent37, no
`
`set of XML tags had been promulgated for general use, so any XML tag
`
`taxonomy created by one user would not be compatible with the taxonomies
`
`
`32 Id. at 1:61-64.
`
`33 Id. at 1:64-67.
`
`34 Id. at 2:3-8.
`
`35 Id.
`
`36 Id.
`
`37 Exhibit 1001.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`created by other users.38 One user’s XML tag taxonomy, whether individuals
`
`or groups, is not ordinarily available to any other users or groups of users.39
`
`XML’s lack of standardization, and its separation of data from its annotations
`
`(metadata), left users with no way to manipulate, combine, compare,
`
`transform or analyze numerical data from singular or multiple online sources
`
`using differing custom created XML tag taxonomies.40 The only way to correct
`
`the deficiency of XML was to convert unrelated documents by hand.41
`
`
`
`Various Embodiments Covered by The Claimed Invention
`
`40)
`
`In contrast to XML, the Reusable Data Markup Language
`
`(“RDML”) represented a significant advance over HTML and XML. The
`
`patents-at-issue in this case solve these HTML- and XML-related problems
`
`with unique tools that allowed users for the first time to easily view, compare
`
`
`38 Exhibit 2002 at 2:8-12.
`
`39 Id.
`
`40 Id. at 2:36-39.
`
`41 Id. at 2:39-42.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`and analyze numerical data on the Internet.42 The Reusable Data Markup
`
`Language (“RDML”) and RDML companion innovations pair the metadata
`
`directly with the numerical data in machine-readable form so the numerical
`
`data could be easily identified and used in different program applications.43
`
`This is a dramatically different approach than previously used, which was to
`
`keep document metadata and data itself separate from each other.44 Without
`
`the pairing of metadata directly with the numerical data as described in the
`
`‘383 patent45, the capabilities presented in the XBRL standard would not be
`
`possible.46 RDML companion innovations also define standards for both data
`
`formats and analytic routines47 and enhance analytical calculation power by
`
`creating data objects at the line item and document levels.48 This overcomes
`
`
`42 Exhibit 2002 at 8:14-18.
`
`43 Id. at 5:45-49.
`
`44 Id. at 1:64-67.
`
`45 Exhibit 1001.
`
`46 Exhibit 2002 at page 2.
`
`47 Id. at 10:38-39.
`
`48 Id. at 15:59-63.
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`…Continued
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`the limitations of traditional spreadsheets which operate only at the cell (single
`
`number) level.49
`
`41) Reusable Data Markup Language provides RDML tags for data
`
`characteristics that HTML lacked and supplies a set of tags for content and
`
`meaning of numbers for general use, which is missing in XML.50
`
`42) A suite of software applications has been developed to create
`
`documents with RDML tag markups, read or parse the RDML documents,
`
`display them as graphs or in tree views, combine and compare data from
`
`multiple online sources, and manipulate, transform and analyze numerical
`
`data from multiple online sources.51 RDML permits the browsing and
`
`manipulation of numbers, and allows the “RDML Data Viewer” to act as a
`
`combination Web browser and spreadsheet/analytic application that
`
`automatically read numbers from multiple online sources, understand their
`
`meaning, and manipulate them without human intervention.52
`
`
`49 Id. at 2:31-35.
`
`50 Id. at 9:4-11.
`
`51 Id. at 17:1-7.
`
`52 Id. at 17:7-14.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`24
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`43) RDML encodes information about numbers in tags that relate to
`
`each number.53 The encoded information is connected with the numbers
`
`themselves and the tags move with the numbers when the numbers are
`
`ported.54 By associating the numbers with the numbers’ attributes and making
`
`it machine-readable, RDML facilitates browsing for and processing numbers.55
`
`44) The RDML Data Viewer is an “Application” in accordance with
`
`the XML Specifications.56 The RDML Data Viewer accesses information
`
`contained in an XML-formatted document by invoking the XML Processor to
`
`obtain individual data elements based on their “extended” tags that have been
`
`defined in accordance with the “extensibility” features of XML.57 The RDML
`
`Data Viewer automates the process of merging the tagged elements derived
`
`from documents written in different formats and languages into a single,
`
`
`53 Id. at 4:11-16.
`
`54 Id.
`
`55 Id. at 3:51-61.
`
`56 Id. at 8:46-52.
`
`57 Id. at 9:4-11.
`
`
`
`
`
`…Continued
`
`25
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`
`standardized data set.58 Where there are conflicts, the RDML Data Viewer
`
`automatically resolves the conflicts between the characteristics of the varying
`
`documents to create a standard set of tags using the RDML taxonomy.59 The
`
`RDML Data Viewer also provides