`
`
`
`
`
`Merrill Communications LLC
`d/b/a Merrill Corporation
`Exhibit 1003
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 8,185,816
`
`Issue Date: May 22, 2012
`
`
`
`Title:
`COMBINING REUSABLE DATA MARKUP LANGUAGE DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREW DAVID HOSPODOR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`
`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 ’816 PATENT ......................................................................................... 9
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`A.
`“Markup Document” ............................................................................. 9
`B.
`“Tags” ..................................................................................................10
`C.
`“Means for Receiving” ........................................................................11
`D.
`“Means for Automatically Transforming” ..........................................12
`E.
`“Means for Combining” ......................................................................13
`F.
`“Means for Displaying” ......................................................................14
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART........................................................................14
`A. Access 1997 .........................................................................................14
`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 ..................................................33
`E.
`The Grounds for Challenge .................................................................36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`
`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. 8,185,816
`
`(“the ʼ816 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. 8,185,816
`
`
`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. 8,185,816
`
`
`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. 8,185,816
`
`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 ʼ816 patent was filed.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`10.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed, among other things, the
`
`following materials: (a) the ʼ816 patent and its prosecution history; (b) The
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999); (c) Mastering Access 97 published
`
`by Sybex in 1997 (“Mastering Access”); (d) The XML Handbook published by
`
`Prentice Hall in 1998 (“XML Handbook”); (e) U.S. Patent No. 5,189,608 to Lyons
`
`et al. (“Lyons”); and (f) 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. 8,185,816
`
`
`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. 8,185,816
`
`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
`
`ʼ816 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 ʼ816 patent is May 21, 1999. I
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`have not analyzed whether the ʼ816 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 ʼ816 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. 8,185,816
`
`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. 8,185,816
`
`VI. THE ’816 PATENT
`
`18. The claims of the ’816 patent are directed to using a computer markup
`
`language to merge two documents that contain numbers expressed in different
`
`formats into a single data set for display. (See ʼ383 patent abstract.) The ʼ383
`
`patent converts between numerical formats by multiplying the values in one format
`
`by a “conversion factor.” (See id. at 26:17-20 & Fig. 10.)
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“Markup Document”
`
`19. Claims 1, 10, 17, 26, and 27 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 the ’816 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.” (ʼ816 patent at 1:37-
`
`41.)
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`
`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, 10, 17, 26, and 27 include the term “tag,” including in the
`
`limitation “the first markup document and the second markup document containing
`
`numerical values and tags reflecting characteristics of the numerical values.”
`
`23. The specification of the ’816 patent defines “tagging” as “adding
`
`metadata.” (ʼ816 patent at 17:54-56.) 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 ’816 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.)
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`(’816 patent at 18:37-48.) As discussed above, the ’816 patent also 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.” (ʼ816
`
`patent at 1:37-41.)
`
`24. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “tag” is “a
`
`sequence of characters that adds data about data.”
`
`C.
`
`“Means for Receiving”
`
`25. Claim 26 includes the limitation “means for receiving a first markup
`
`document and a second markup document, both the first markup document and the
`
`second markup document containing numerical values and tags reflecting
`
`characteristics of the numerical values[.]” 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.
`
`26. The ʼ816 specification repeatedly refers to software “receiving”
`
`documents and data. (See, e.g., ʼ816 patent at 14:38-40 (“disk array 234 may
`
`receive data documents 102 from the database server 236 which may receive data
`
`from database storage 238”), 19:38-40 (“the RDML reader 704 finds and receives
`
`an RDML document 102 in text form formatted according to the structure of the
`
`RDML DTD 702 (step 802)”), 31:12-13 (“[T]he X-value transformer 710 receives
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`a new document 102 (step 1102).”).) I have been unable to identify any greater
`
`detail in the specification about the algorithm used by the computer to receive
`
`information. Accordingly, to the extent that the patent discloses sufficient
`
`structure, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the corresponding structure is
`
`“software that acquires a document.”
`
`D.
`
`“Means for Automatically Transforming”
`
`27. Claim 26
`
`includes
`
`the
`
`limitation “means
`
`for automatically
`
`transforming the numerical values of at least one of the first markup document and
`
`the second markup document, so that the numerical values of the first markup
`
`document and the second markup document have a common format.” 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.
`
`28. The ʼ816 specification teaches that “transformation” of numerical data
`
`synonymous with multiplying the data by a conversion factor. (See ʼ816 patent at
`
`26:17-20 (“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
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`numerical values expressed in one format by a conversion factor to express them in
`
`a different format.”
`
`E.
`
`“Means for Combining”
`
`29. Claim 26 includes the limitation “means for combining the first
`
`markup document and the second markup document into a single data.” [sic] 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 ʼ816 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.” (ʼ816 patent at 4:3-5.) It also
`
`states that “[t]he class designations permit validation and conforming of different
`
`data sets, thereby allowing the data viewer 100 to combine documents from
`
`unrelated sources into a single unified source.” (Id. at 27:59-62.) I have been
`
`unable to identify any greater detail in the specification about the steps taken by
`
`the computer to combine the documents. Accordingly, to the extent that the patent
`
`discloses sufficient structure, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`corresponding structure is “software that conforms data from two documents from
`
`unrelated sources and combines the data into a single data set.”
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`
`F.
`
`“Means for Displaying”
`
`31. Claim 26 includes the limitation “means for displaying the single data
`
`set.” 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. The ʼ816 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).” (’816 patent at 4:3-5, 26:17-20.) 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 sufficient structure,
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of the corresponding structure is “software
`
`that causes a dataset to be displayed on a screen.”
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART
`
`A. Access 1997
`
`33. 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
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`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.
`
`34.
`
`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.
`
`35. 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
`
`names (i.e. tags)), and the columns correspond to the individual data fields within
`
`each record.
`
`36. 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
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`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.)
`
`37. 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.”).)
`
`38. Mastering Access 97 teaches that by default, Microsoft Access 97 will
`
`attempt to identify the correct data type for a field based on the contents of the
`
`imported data. (See, e.g., id. at 225 (“Access looks at the first row of data and does
`
`its best to assign the appropriate data type for each field you import.”).) The user
`
`can, however, create an “import specification” that assigns particular data types to
`
`each imported field, identified by field name. (Id. at 234; see also id. at 231-237.)
`
`The field names located in the first line of the imported text file thus act as tags
`
`identifying the data type for the imported data fields.
`
`39. 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
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`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.
`
`40. 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.
`
`41. 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
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`include it in the next instance of the report when the report was printed or
`
`previewed.
`
`42. 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.
`
`43. 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.
`
`44. 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
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`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 then subsequently changes that value to 0.775 for the subset of records tagged
`
`with “CA” in the “State” field. (See id. at 744.) A POSITA would have
`
`understood that Access recognizes the sales tax rate associated with a particular
`
`subtotal based on the field name (tag), as well as the two-letter state identifier
`
`(another tag) stored in the “State” field of each record.
`
`45. Mastering Access 97 also teaches the use of macros and Visual Basic
`
`code to automatically perform a wide variety of operations on the data contained in
`
`a database, including imported tagged numerical data. (See generally Mastering
`
`Access at 731-63 (Chapter 20: “Using Macros to Create Custom Actions”), 853-66
`
`(Chapter 25: “Introducing Visual Basic for Applications”).) For example,
`
`Mastering Access 97 teaches the use of a macro to automatically reformat
`
`percentages entered as whole numbers (e.g., “30”) rather than decimals (e.g.,
`
`“0.30”). (See id. at 755-58.) The macro reformats the percentages entered as
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`
`whole numbers by dividing them with 100, so that they match the format of the
`
`percentages entered as decimals. (See id. at 756-57.)
`
`46. A POSITA would have found it obvious from the preceding examples
`
`that sales records for a company doing business in multiple countries would
`
`include a “Country” field as well as a “State” field. A POSITA would also have
`
`found it obvious from those examples that the country name or code appearing in a
`
`“Country” field could be used as a tag identifying the correct currency units for the
`
`transaction (e.g., dollars for records with a “US” country tag and yen for records
`
`with a “JP” country tag), and that Access 97 could be used to convert values
`
`between the currencies of different countries.
`
`47. Similarly, a POSITA would have found it
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
