`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`World Programming Limited
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SAS Institute, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Patent 7,447,686
`____________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DAVID MAIER
`
`
`
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 1 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................... 3
`A.
`Overview ................................................................................................................. 3
`B.
`Education and Employment .................................................................................... 5
`C.
`Awards and Honors................................................................................................. 6
`D.
`Participation in Professional Organizations ............................................................ 6
`E.
`Publications ............................................................................................................. 7
`UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................... 7
`A.
`Legal Standard for Prior Art ................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Legal Standard for Obviousness ........................................................................... 10
`C.
`Legal Standard for Claim Construction ................................................................ 15
`D.
`Level of Skill of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................ 21
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 22
`A.
`Overview of Relational Database Systems ........................................................... 22
`B.
`Overview of Database Gateways and Federated Database Systems .................... 35
`C.
`Overview of SQL Dialects .................................................................................... 35
`THE ’686 PATENT .......................................................................................................... 37
`A.
`Summary of the ’686 Patent ................................................................................. 37
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’686 Patent ................................................................. 42
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ....................................................................................... 46
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................. 46
`VI.
`VII. ANALYSIS OF THE PRIOR ART .................................................................................. 47
`A.
`InterViso: Dealing with the Complexity of Federated Database Access by
`Marjorie Templeton et al. ..................................................................................... 47
`Implementation of a Database Factory by Asokan R. Selvaraj et al. ................... 54
`B.
`VIII. Motivation to Combine ..................................................................................................... 68
`A.
`Motivation to Combine InterViso with Selvaraj. .................................................. 68
`Claims 1-40, 43-48 and 50 are Obvious in Light of InterViso in View of Selvaraj and the
`Knowledge of a POSITA, Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................... 87
`A.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................................................. 87
`B.
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................................ 127
`C.
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................................ 129
`D.
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................................ 130
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`i
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 2 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................................ 131
`E.
`Claim 6 ................................................................................................................ 133
`F.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................................ 134
`G.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................................ 135
`H.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................................ 136
`I.
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................................. 138
`J.
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................................. 139
`K.
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................................. 142
`L.
`Claims 13-15 and 25-26 ...................................................................................... 143
`M.
`Claims 16-18 ....................................................................................................... 147
`N.
`Claim 19 .............................................................................................................. 148
`O.
`Claims 20-24 and 29 ........................................................................................... 149
`P.
`Claims 27-28 ....................................................................................................... 152
`Q.
`Claims 30-32 ....................................................................................................... 154
`R.
`Claim 33 .............................................................................................................. 155
`S.
`Claims 34 and 35 ................................................................................................ 155
`T.
`Claims 36, and 38-39 .......................................................................................... 158
`U.
`Claims 37 and 40 ................................................................................................ 159
`V.
`Claim43 ............................................................................................................... 161
`W.
`Claims 44-45 ....................................................................................................... 162
`X.
`Claim 46 .............................................................................................................. 164
`Y.
`Claim 47 .............................................................................................................. 165
`Z.
`AA. Claim 48 .............................................................................................................. 165
`BB. Claim 50 .............................................................................................................. 166
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ....................................................................................... 167
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 167
`
`ii
`
`X.
`XI.
`
`
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 3 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`1. My full name is Dr. David Eugene Maier. I have prepared this
`
`declaration as an expert witness on behalf of World Programming Limited (“WPL”).
`
`In this declaration, I give my opinions as to whether claims 1-40, 43-48, and 50 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686 (“the ’686 patent,” Ex. 1001) are valid. I provide technical
`
`bases for these opinions as appropriate.
`
`2.
`
`This declaration contains statements of my opinions formed to date and
`
`the bases and reasons for those opinions. I may offer additional opinions based on
`
`further review of materials in this case, including opinions or testimony of other
`
`expert witnesses, or both.
`
`3.
`
`I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and, if
`
`called upon to testify, would testify competently to the matters contained herein. For
`
`my efforts in connection with the preparation of this declaration I have been
`
`compensated at my standard rate of $525 per hour for this type of work. My
`
`compensation is in no way contingent on the results of these or any other proceedings
`
`relating to the above-captioned patent.
`
`4.
`
`I have considered the following materials in connection with this
`
`declaration, together with my 40-plus years of professional experience in the field:
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 4 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`Exhibit Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`1002
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`CV of Dr. David Maier
`
`File History of the ’686 Patent
`
`IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards
`Terms, (7th ed. 2000) (“IEEE Dictionary”)
`
`InterViso: Dealing with the Complexity of Federated
`Database Access, by Marjorie Templeton et al., VLDB
`Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 2 (April 1995) (“InterViso”)
`
`SQL in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference, by Kevin
`Kline & Daniel T. Kline (1st ed. 2001) (“Nutshell”)
`
`Informix Guide to SQL: Tutorial, by Informix Press (2nd ed.
`2000) (“Tutorial”)
`
`Transact-SQL Programming, by Kevin Kline et al. (1st ed.
`1999) (“Transact”)
`
`SQL: The Complete Reference, by James R. Groff & Paul N.
`Weinberg (1st ed. 1999) (“Groff”)
`
`The C Programming Language, by Brian Kernighan &
`Dennis Ritchie (2nd ed. 1988) (“Ritchie”)
`
`SunWorld Online - New Products, advertisement for
`InterViso 3.0 (December 1995)
`
`Implementation of a Database Factory, by Asokan R.
`Selvaraj & Debasish Ghosh, ACM SIGPLAN Language Tips,
`Vol. 32, Issue 6 (June 1997) (“Selvaraj”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 5 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`I summarize in this section my educational background, career history,
`
`publications, and other relevant qualifications. My full curriculum vitae and resume
`
`are attached as Exhibit 1002 to this declaration.
`
`A. Overview
`I am currently a professor in the Department of Computer Science in
`
`6.
`
`the Maseeh College of Engineering and Computer Science at Portland State
`
`University. I have more than forty years’ technical experience in the computer
`
`science field, including extensive experience with database systems. I worked on the
`
`development of the GemStone and O2 object-oriented database systems, and the
`
`StreamInsight data-stream engine (Microsoft), and have served as a technical
`
`consultant on database systems for a range of companies, including Mentor
`
`Graphics, IBM, Microsoft, Informix, Oracle and NCR-Teradata. I have published
`
`over 230 papers and written or edited five books in the areas of databases and
`
`programming languages. I am also an inventor on five patents related to database
`
`technologies. Recent papers in the field of database technologies include; Query
`
`From Examples: An Iterative, Data-Driven Approach to Query Construction.
`
`PVLDB 8(13): 2158-2169 (2015); and Fast and Adaptive Indexing of Multi-
`
`Dimensional Observational Data, PVLDB 9(14): 1683-1694 (2016).
`
`7.
`
`Some specific papers that I authored or contributed to that are relevant
`
`
`
`3
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 6 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`to this matter include The BigDAWG Polystore System, SIGMOD Record 44(2),
`
`June 2015; Minimizing Data Movement through Query Transformation, Proc. 2014
`
`IEEE International Conference on Big Data, October 2014; Federation in Cloud
`
`Data Management: Challenges and Opportunities, IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and
`
`Data Engineering 26(7), July 2014; Data Movement in Hybrid Analytic Systems: A
`
`Case for Automation, Proc. 26th International Conference on Scientific and
`
`Statistical Database Management (SSDBM ’14), June – July 2014; Updatable and
`
`Evolvable Transforms for Virtual Databases, Proc. VLDB Endowment 3(1),
`
`September 2010; and Selected Research Issues in Decision Support Databases,
`
`Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 11(2), September-October 1998.
`
`8.
`
`I have taught a range of courses related to database systems at Portland
`
`State and elsewhere, including Introduction to Database Management Systems,
`
`Cloud and Cluster Data Management, Principles of Database Systems, Object-
`
`Oriented Database Systems, Data Stream Management and Information Retrieval on
`
`the Internet. I have also supervised 23 PhD students and 14 Master’s projects and
`
`theses. My research has been supported by a variety of federal, state and private
`
`sources. Some of my funded projects include the Revelation project on optimization
`
`in object-oriented database systems, the Niagara project for query processing on the
`
`Internet, the Lambda-DB project, which also targeted optimization of object-
`
`oriented queries, the Columbia project on query-optimizer frameworks and cost-
`
`
`
`4
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 7 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`based plan search, the CMOP project on coastal margin observation and prediction,
`
`the LATTE project on stream-query processing, the RxSafe project on integrating
`
`medication records, the SciDB project on array-oriented databases for scientific data,
`
`the SciFlex project on data sharing for long-tail science, the BigDAWG Polystore
`
`project on multi-model database federation, and the BuDS project on building-
`
`performance monitoring and analysis.
`
`B.
`
`Education and Employment
`I graduated from the University of Oregon Honors College with a B.A.
`
`9.
`
`in Mathematics and Computer Science (double major) in 1974. I earned my Ph.D.
`
`in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from Princeton University in 1978.
`
`10. During the 40-plus years since receiving my Ph.D., I have held
`
`numerous positions as a professor and researcher in the field of computer science. I
`
`have held faculty positions in Computer Science at the State University of New York
`
`at Stony Brook, the Oregon Graduate Institute, Oregon Health and Science
`
`University, and, currently, Portland State University. I have had sabbatical or
`
`visiting appointments at INRIA (French National Informatics Laboratory),
`
`University of Wisconsin, Microsoft Research and the National University of
`
`Singapore. I have also been a participant in the Intel Science and Technology Center
`
`for Big Data.
`
`11.
`
`In addition to my Portland State position, I am currently an Affiliate
`
`
`
`5
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 8 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`Professor in the Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology at
`
`Oregon Health & Science University. My complete professional resume is included
`
`in my attached CV (Exhibit 1002) and provides a more complete overview of my
`
`working history back to 1978.
`
`C. Awards and Honors
`12. My research work has been recognized by multiple organizations. I
`
`received one of the first NSF Presidential Young Investigator Awards in 1984, the
`
`SIGMOD Innovations Award in 1997, an ACM Fellow in 1997 and the Microsoft
`
`Outstanding Contributor Award in 2016. At the university level, I have received
`
`multiple awards for teaching and research, including the Branford Price Millar award
`
`at Portland State, which recognizes excellence in research and teaching.
`
`D.
`13.
`
`Participation in Professional Organizations
`I am a Fellow in the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), and
`
`a member of the ACM Special Interest Group on the Management of Data
`
`(SIGMOD). I am General Co-Chair for the SIGMOD 2020 conference. I am a Senior
`
`Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), including
`
`the IEEE Computer Society and the IEEE Technical Committee on Data
`
`Engineering. I am also a member of the Society for Industrial and Applied
`
`Mathematics (SIAM). I have served on the Board for Mathematical Sciences and
`
`Analytics (BMSA) of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and
`
`
`
`6
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 9 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`Medicine, and have been a member of two expert study panels convened by BMSA.
`
`E.
`14.
`
`Publications
`In total, I have been an author on more than 240 scholarly publications,
`
`dating back to 1973. These publications include articles in peer-reviewed journals,
`
`papers in selective conferences, books, book chapters and reports resulting from
`
`agenda-setting panels. As of last count, these publications involve 375 distinct co-
`
`authors, including faculty from Stanford, MIT, Wisconsin, UC Berkeley,
`
`Washington, Brown, Edinburgh, U Penn, U Virginia, Michigan, CMU, Stony Brook,
`
`Illinois and National University of Singapore as well as researchers from IBM and
`
`Microsoft.
`
`15.
`
`I am still active in multiple research projects at Portland State
`
`University, most recently around the topics of Urban Informatics, Data Productivity
`
`and Exploratory Search. I also have current collaborations with faculty and students
`
`from Worchester Polytechnic Institute on Data-Stream Processing and Oregon State
`
`University on Data Integration.
`
`II. UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`16.
`I have applied the following legal principles provided to me by counsel
`
`in arriving at the opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`A. Legal Standard for Prior Art
`17.
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as prior
`
`art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim. I have been informed and
`7
`
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 10 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`understand that a patent or publication can qualify as prior art to a challenged patent
`
`in several different ways and may be prior art in more than one way.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to a
`
`challenged patent if the date of issuance of the patent is more than one year before
`
`the effective filing date of the challenged patent (i.e., more than one year before
`
`November 22, 2002, the date the application leading to the ’686 patent was filed). I
`
`further understand that a printed publication, such as a book, an article published in
`
`a magazine or trade publication, or a published patent application, similarly is prior
`
`art to a challenged patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the publication occurs more
`
`than one year before the effective filing date of the challenged patent (again, more
`
`than one year before November 22, 2002, with regard to the ’686 patent).
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that prior art under § 102(b) (i.e.,
`
`patents and publications published more than one year before the filing date of the
`
`challenged patent) would be prior art even if the inventor argues that the invention
`
`claimed in the challenged patent was actually invented before the day the patent was
`
`filed.
`
`20. As noted above, I have been informed that in some instances a patent
`
`owner may argue that the invention claimed in a patent was actually invented before
`
`the filing date for the patent. I understand that another way a U.S. or foreign patent
`
`qualifies as prior art to a challenged patent is if its date of issuance is prior to the
`
`
`
`8
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 11 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`invention of the challenged patent. I further understand that a printed publication,
`
`such as a book, an article published in a magazine or trade publication, or a published
`
`patent application, also qualifies as prior art to a challenged patent under § 102(a) if
`
`the date of publication is prior to the invention of the challenged patent.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that an issued U.S. patent also qualifies as prior art to a
`
`challenged patent under § 102(e)(2) if the application for that patent was filed in the
`
`United States before the invention of the challenged patent.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a publication of a U.S. patent application qualifies as
`
`prior art to the challenged patent under § 102(e)(1) if the application was filed in the
`
`United States before the invention of the challenged patent.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that to qualify as prior art, a reference must contain an
`
`enabling disclosure that allows one of ordinary skill to practice the claims without
`
`undue experimentation.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art can
`
`be used to invalidate a patent claim as either “anticipated” or as “obvious.”
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the first step in an invalidity analysis is “claim
`
`construction” to understand the proper meaning of the claims, as set forth in more
`
`detail below beginning at Section II.C.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that each claim of an issued patent is considered a separate
`
`invention, and that an invalidity analysis must proceed on a claim-by-claim basis.
`
`
`
`9
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 12 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a “dependent claim,” such as claim 2 of the ’686
`
`patent, includes all of the limitations of its associated “independent claim,” (here,
`
`claim 1), and also adds one or more further limitations. I understand that a dependent
`
`claim may still be valid even if the broader independent claim from which it stems
`
`is invalid as anticipated or obvious.
`
`B.
`28.
`
`Legal Standard for Obviousness
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding obviousness,
`
`and understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`29. Here, the application leading to the ’686 patent was filed on November
`
`22, 2002, and so I understand that the relevant time for obviousness is late 2002,
`
`unless the inventor of the ’686 patent is entitled to an earlier date of invention.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`provides a reference point from which the prior art and the claimed invention should
`
`be viewed. This reference point prevents a person of ordinary skill from using one’s
`
`insight or hindsight in deciding whether a claim is obvious. I have been cautious not
`
`to use hindsight in reaching my conclusions.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`
`
`10
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 13 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`consideration of various factors such as: (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the challenged claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of “secondary considerations”
`
`of non-obviousness such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs,
`
`failure of others, and more. I understand that all these factors must be considered in
`
`making such an analysis.
`
`32.
`
`I am informed that secondary considerations or secondary indicia of
`
`non-obviousness may include: (1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was
`
`satisfied by the invention of the patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered
`
`by the patent; (3) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) failure of others;
`
`(5) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (6) taking of licenses under
`
`the patent by others; and (7) deliberate copying of the invention. I also understand
`
`that there must be a relationship between any such secondary indicia and the
`
`invention, sometimes called a “nexus.” I understand that when a nexus is shown, the
`
`above factors, if present, may provide some evidence that an invention is not
`
`obvious. I further understand that another factor, contemporaneous and independent
`
`invention by others, is a secondary consideration that, where present, may provide
`
`some evidence that an invention is obvious.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that, unlike an anticipation analysis, an obviousness
`
`evaluation can be based on a combination of multiple prior art references. I
`
`
`
`11
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 14 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`understand that the prior art references themselves may provide a suggestion,
`
`motivation, or reason to combine the references together, but other times the nexus
`
`linking two or more prior art references is simple common sense. I further
`
`understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that market demand, rather than
`
`scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a motivation to combine
`
`references may be supplied by the direction of the marketplace.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device or
`
`method, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices or methods in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`
`unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`35.
`
`I also understand that practical and common-sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art looking to overcome a problem will often be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple publications together like pieces of a puzzle, although the prior
`
`art need not be like two puzzle pieces that must fit perfectly. I understand that
`
`obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ under the circumstances.
`
`36.
`
`I understand further that a particular combination may be proven
`
`obvious by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when
`
`
`
`12
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 15 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good
`
`reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp because the
`
`result is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods may be proven obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and
`
`other market forces can prompt variations upon it, either in the same field or a
`
`different one. I understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability.
`
`38.
`
`It is also my understanding that there are additional considerations that
`
`may be used for further guidance as to when a claim is obvious, including the
`
`following:
`
` the claimed invention is a simple substitution of one known element for
`another to obtain predictable results;
`
` the claimed invention uses known techniques to improve similar
`devices or methods in the same way;
`
` the claimed invention applies a known technique to a known device or
`method that is ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
`
` there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there
`was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.
`39.
`It is also my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis focuses
`
`on what was known or obvious to a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art
`13
`
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 16 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`at the time of the invention, not just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any
`
`need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
`
`addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
`
`manner claimed.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common sense
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill could have combined two
`
`pieces of prior art or substituted one prior art element for another if the substitution
`
`can be made with predictable results, even if the swapped-in element is different
`
`from the swapped-out element. In other words, the prior art need not be like two
`
`puzzle pieces that must fit perfectly together. The relevant question is whether prior
`
`art techniques are interoperable with respect to one another, such that that a person
`
`of skill would view them as a design choice, or whether a person of skill could apply
`
`prior art techniques into a new combined system.
`
`42.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and
`
`knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing the
`
`inventor, would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in the
`
`
`
`14
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 17 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`43.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the obviousness analysis
`
`requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language of each claim to the
`
`prior art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`44.
`
`I have been informed that the Patent Office determines questions of
`
`unpatentability using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which means that
`
`the evidence proves that is more likely than not that the claim or claims are
`
`unpatentable. I have been informed that when a District Court examines questions
`
`of patent validity, it applies a clear and convincing standard, which means that to
`
`invalidate a patent claim, the Court must determine that the evidence clearly and
`
`convincingly shows the claim to be unpatentable.
`
`C. Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`45.
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding claim
`
`construction and patent claims, and I understand that a patent may include two types
`
`of claims, independent claims and dependent claims. As noted above, I understand
`
`that an independent claim stands alone and includes only the limitations it recites. A
`
`dependent claim can depend from an independent claim or another dependent claim.
`
`
`
`15
`
`World Programming Limited EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 18 of 170
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. David Maier for U.S. Patent No. 7,447,686
`
`I understand that a dependent claim includes all the limitations that it recites in
`
`addition to all the limitations recited in the claims from which it depends.
`
`46.
`
`It is my understanding that claim terms of are given the meaning the
`
`terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Invention,
`
`in view of the specification and file history.
`
`47.
`
`In comparing the claims of the ’686 Patent to the prior art, I have
`
`carefully considered the ’686 Patent and its file history in light of the understanding
`
`of a person of ordinary skill at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`48.
`
`I understand that to determine how a person of ordinary skill would
`
`understand a claim term, one should look to those sources available that show what
`
`a person of skill in the art would have understood the claim language to mean. Such
`
`so