`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`RESMAN, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`KARYA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`________________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`________________
`
`DECLARATION OF PETER KENT
`
`
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 1
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ......................................................................... 3
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ............................................................... 4
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 4
`B. Legal Standard for Claim Construction ............................................................ 6
`C. Legal Standard for Anticipation ....................................................................... 7
`D. Legal Standard for Obviousness ....................................................................... 7
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ʼ687 PATENT ................................................................ 9
`VI. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART FOR OBVIOUSNESS GROUNDS .............13
`A. Prior Art Considered .......................................................................................13
`B. U.S. Patent 5,584,025 to Keithley ..................................................................13
`C. U.S. Patent 6,594,633 to Broerman ................................................................17
`D. Motivation to Combine Keithley and Broerman ............................................20
`E. Additional Teachings of Keithley and Broerman ..........................................22
`VII. CLAIMS 1-21 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS BY KEITHLEY AND
`BROERMAN ...........................................................................................................24
`1. Independent Claim 1 ...................................................................................24
`2. Dependent Claim 2 ......................................................................................30
`3. Dependent Claim 3 ......................................................................................32
`4. Dependent Claim 4 ......................................................................................33
`5. Dependent Claim 5 ......................................................................................35
`6. Dependent Claim 6 ......................................................................................38
`7. Dependent Claim 7 ......................................................................................39
`8. Dependent Claim 8 ......................................................................................40
`9. Dependent Claim 9 ......................................................................................42
`Independent Claim 10 ..............................................................................43
`10.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`11. Dependent Claim 11 .................................................................................49
`12. Dependent Claim 12 .................................................................................51
`13. Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................................52
`14. Dependent Claim 14 .................................................................................55
`15. Dependent Claim 15 .................................................................................56
`16. Dependent Claim 16 .................................................................................58
`17.
`Independent Claim 17 ..............................................................................58
`18. Dependent Claim 18 .................................................................................66
`19. Dependent Claim 19 .................................................................................68
`20. Dependent Claim 20 .................................................................................69
`21. Dependent Claim 21 .................................................................................70
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................70
`
`iii
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`I, Peter Kent, declare as follows:
`
`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Peter Kent. I have prepared this declaration as an
`
`independent expert consultant for ResMan, LLC (“ResMan” or “Petitioner”). I am
`
`over twenty-one years of age and, if called upon to do so, I would testify as to the
`
`matters set forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by ResMan to assist in evaluating the claims and the
`
`disclosure of the ʼ687 Patent and to provide my opinions concerning whether the
`
`claims are obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`3.
`
`This report contains statements of my opinions formed to date, and the
`
`bases and rationale for these opinions. I may offer additional opinions based on
`
`further review of materials in this case, including opinions and/or testimony of other
`
`expert witnesses.
`
`4.
`
`For my efforts in connection with the preparation of this declaration, I
`
`have been compensated at a rate of $550/hour. My compensation is in no way
`
`contingent on the results of these or any other proceedings related to the ʼ687 Patent.
`
`I have no financial interest in the outcome of this matter.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I am a self-employed consultant, the Principal of Peter Kent Consulting,
`
`LLC. I have provided consulting services in the areas of online business, Web
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`development, and digital marketing strategies since 2002. I have over 26 years of
`
`experience in online business and marketing, including Web site development, web
`
`application development, user interface design, and e-commerce.
`
`6.
`
`I have worked in the software development business since 1981.
`
`During this time, I founded/co-founded several companies related to web
`
`development, online marketing and business services, and E-commerce. From
`
`1997-2003, I was the founder and President of Top Floor Publishing, a publisher of
`
`highly regarded books related to online business and marketing. From 1999-2001,
`
`I was a co-founder at BizBlast.com, which provided e-commerce software to small
`
`and medium-sized firms. From 2009-2011, I was the founder and CEO of
`
`LeadNation, LLP, which provided web site development services for businesses. I
`
`have also been employed in VP-level positions at several companies providing
`
`Internet business and marketing services.
`
`7. My consulting clients have included Amazon.com, Lonely Planet,
`
`Honey Baked Ham, Denver Post, Dun & Bradstreet, TowerRecords.com, and
`
`literally hundreds of small- to medium-sized businesses in a wide range of arenas,
`
`from real estate to law firms, from construction equipment to plumbing.
`
`8.
`
`In the real estate arena, I have consulted with firms such as Zillow.com,
`
`North America’s top real-estate firm, RealtyList.com, SavingStreet.com, Re-
`
`Analyst.com, and numerous individual real-estate agents.
`2
`
`
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`I have served as an expert witness in numerous legal proceedings
`
`9.
`
`relating to Internet technology and online business, including patent and trademark
`
`disputes on matters regarding online marketing technologies, software and website
`
`development, search engines, Internet billing systems, and e-commerce.
`
`10.
`
`I have published and lectured extensively on the topics of the Internet,
`
`online business and marketing, software development, and web development. I have
`
`authored numerous best-selling books on Internet business and technology. A
`
`selection of my publications and speaking engagements is listed in my resume, a
`
`copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (Ex. 1003A).
`
`11.
`
`I received a B.A. (Hons.) from the University of Sheffield in 1978.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`12.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`(hereinafter “the ’687 Patent,” Ex.1001) and its file history (Ex. 1002). I have also
`
`reviewed and considered various other documents in arriving at my opinions, and
`
`may cite to them in this declaration. For convenience, documents cited in this
`
`declaration are listed below.
`
`Ex. No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1010
`
`
`
`Brief Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,584,025 to Keithley
`
`3
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`
`Ex. No.
`1011
`
`Brief Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,594,633 to Broerman
`
`
`
`13. The opinions contained in this declaration are based on the documents
`
`and materials I have reviewed, my present knowledge, and my professional
`
`judgment. My opinions have also been guided by my understanding of how a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claims of the ʼ687 Patent at
`
`the time of the alleged invention. For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked
`
`to assume that the priority date of the alleged invention is the earliest claimed priority
`
`date: November 20, 2000.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`14. For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to opine on only
`
`certain issues including the technology at issue and the meaning of the claim terms.
`
`I have applied the following legal principles, explained to me by counsel, in arriving
`
`at the opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`A.
`
`15.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) is a hypothetical person whom is presumed to have known the relevant
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a
`
`person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`is presumed to be one who thinks along the line of conventional wisdom in the art.
`
`Factors that may be considered in determining the ordinary level of skill include the
`
`type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, the
`
`sophistication of technology in the field, and educational level of active workers in
`
`the field.
`
`16.
`
`I have been asked to give an opinion as to the level of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`17. Patent owner claims priority for the ’687 Patent under 35 USC §119(e)
`
`to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/252,285, filed Nov. 20, 2000, entitled
`
`“Completing a Lease for Real Property in an On-line Computing Environment.”
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that the ’687 Patent may not be entitled to the
`
`purported priority date. For the purpose of assessing the validity of the ’687 Patent,
`
`however, I have been asked to address the relevant timeframe as November 20, 2000.
`
`Unless specifically noted otherwise, when I refer to November 20, 2000, the ’687
`
`Patent filing date, or the earliest priority of the ’687 Patent, I am referring
`
`specifically to prior to November 20, 2000.
`
`19. By virtue of my education, experience, and training, I am familiar with
`
`the level of skill in the art of the ’687 Patent in the November 20, 2000 timeframe.
`
`20.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA in the relevant field relating to the ʼ687
`
`Patent, in November 2000, would include someone who has, through education or
`5
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`practical experience, at least three (3) years of experience in on-line computing
`
`environments and distributed computer networks, including working knowledge of
`
`databases and client-server environments, or other similar technologies.
`
`B.
`21.
`
`Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`I have been informed by counsel concerning the law regarding claim
`
`construction. I understand that a patent may include two types of claims,
`
`independent and dependent claims. 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. I understand that a dependent claim includes all
`
`the limitations that it recites in addition to all the limitations recited in the claim(s)
`
`from which it depends.
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that in proceedings before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”), claims are now construed consistently with district court
`
`litigation under the Phillips standard. Under the Phillips standard, claim terms are
`
`to be given the meaning the term would have to a POSITA, in view of the
`
`specification and file history.
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, particular construction is not necessary for any of the
`
`claim terms because the claim language would be well known to, and understood
`
`by, a POSITA. Therefore, I have applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`claim terms in reaching my opinions in this declaration.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`C. Legal Standard for Anticipation
`I have been informed concerning the law regarding anticipation, and I
`24.
`
`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`
`understand that a claim is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. §102, for lack of novelty,
`
`if each and every element of the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
`
`described, in a single prior art reference.
`
`D. Legal Standard for Obviousness
`I have been informed concerning the law regarding obviousness, and I
`25.
`
`understand that even if the claimed subject matter is not anticipated, the claimed
`
`subject matter may still be invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103, 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 to a POSITA at the time the invention was made.
`
`26.
`
`It is further my understanding that a determination of obviousness
`
`requires inquiries into: (1) the scope and contents of the art when the invention was
`
`made; (2) the differences between the art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art when the invention was made; and, to the extent
`
`they exist, (4) secondary indicia of obviousness.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claim can be found to be obvious if all the claimed
`
`elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined
`
`the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable
`
`results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that hindsight must not be used when comparing the prior
`
`art to the invention for obviousness. Thus, a conclusion of obviousness must be
`
`firmly based on knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the invention was made without the use of post-filing knowledge.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that in order for a claimed invention to be considered
`
`obvious, there must be some rational underpinning for combining cited references
`
`as proposed.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating that
`
`it would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to
`
`create the patented invention. Obviousness may be shown by showing that it would
`
`have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of prior art. In
`
`determining whether a piece of prior art could have been combined with other prior
`
`art or with other information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the following are examples of approaches and rationales that may be considered:
`
`a. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`b. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`c. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`d. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`e. Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to
`
`try” (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success);
`
`f. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives
`
`or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`g. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ʼ687 PATENT
`31. The ʼ687 Patent is titled Method and System for Completing a Lease
`
`for Real Property in an On-line Computing Environment. Ex. 1001.
`
`32. The application that issued as the ʼ687 Patent was filed on January 22,
`
`2001. I understand that the ʼ687 Patent purports to claim priority to U.S. provisional
`
`application Serial No. 60/252,285 filed on November 20, 2000.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`33. The ’687 Patent is generally directed to an Internet-based client/server
`
`system in which property owners can list their available property and potential
`
`tenants can search the property database for suitable property. When potential
`
`tenants find properties they are interested in, they can contact the property owners,
`
`negotiate a lease, and complete the lease through the online system.
`
`34. Claim 10 is representative and recites the following:
`
`10. A computer-implemented method for conducting a lease transaction for
`real estate property in a distributed computer network environment,
`comprising the steps of:
`storing property characteristics from an owner for a plurality of the
`owner’s real estate properties in an electronic database;
`
`defining a tenant’s property requirements for leasing a real estate
`property using a software module operating on a property services
`server;
`
`identifying with the software module a matching property from one of
`the owner’s real estate properties, the matching property comprising
`property characteristics from the owner that match the tenant’s property
`requirements;
`
`publishing with the software module the matching property that
`matches the tenant's property requirements;
`
`storing in the electronic database an electronic term sheet negotiated by
`the owner and the tenant using the software module operating on the
`property services server;
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`creating a lease agreement for the matching property by populating the
`property characteristics from the owner for the matching property and
`the terms of the electronic term sheet into a form lease agreement
`comprising lease terms and legal provisions; and
`
`publishing the created lease agreement for review by the tenant and the
`owner.
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:38-63.
`
`35.
`
`Similar features are recited in independent Claims 1 and 17. In general
`
`terms, Claim 1 is broadly directed to providing a computing system and software
`
`module—combined, the “property management services server”—that enables a
`
`lease transaction to be completed between a property owner and tenant. A database
`
`connected to the server stores information related to the available real estate
`
`properties, and this data can be reached from a plurality of client computers
`
`connected to the “on-line computing environment.” Client computers include those
`
`operated by property owners, who enter information about their properties, and those
`
`operated by tenants, who enter information about the type of properties they are
`
`seeking. Claim 17 is broadly directed to a similar system for enabling a lease
`
`transaction.
`
`36.
`
`The computing system also provides a mechanism through which
`
`tenant and owner negotiate an electronic term sheet; once the term sheet has been
`
`approved by both parties, the software module creates a lease agreement based on
`
`11
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`property data stored in the database and the information from the approved term
`
`sheet.
`
` The software module presents
`
`the
`
`lease agreement—along with
`
`“comparables” data (information about similar properties in the area)—to owner and
`
`tenant for approval.
`
`37. The dependent claims recite elements such as: client computers
`
`operable by lenders, site visit agents, property specialists (property appraisal
`
`specialists, property engineering specialists, and property environmental
`
`specialists), and deal agents; a call center client computer through which the tenant
`
`can select another user; a database maintained by the party responsible for the server;
`
`allowing the storage of the property information in a database maintained by third
`
`parties; storing information about “site visit agents” and selecting a site visit agent
`
`to assist with the lease; storing information about “deal agents” and selecting a deal
`
`agent to assist with the lease; storing information about “property specialists” and
`
`selecting a property specialist to assist with the lease; allowing the parties to revise
`
`and execute the lease agreement; and allowing the tenant to make a lease offer, the
`
`property owner to accept the offer, and both parties to modify the offer.
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, and as explained in further detail below, the claims of
`
`the ’687 Patent fail to identify anything new or significantly different from what was
`
`already known to individuals of skill in the field prior to the filing of the ’687 Patent,
`
`including prior to November 20, 2000.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`39. Web-based client/server applications and systems as described by the
`
`’687 Patent claims have been known prior to the ’687 Patent. For example, U.S.
`
`Patent 5,584,025 to Keithley et al. (hereinafter “Keithley,” Ex. 1010), filed on April
`
`12, 1995 and issued on December 10, 1996, describes a method of accessing industry
`
`specific information, such as real estate properties for sale, through multimedia
`
`personal computers. Similarly, U.S. Patent 6,594,633 to Broerman (hereinafter
`
`“Broerman,” Ex. 1011), filed on July 7, 1999 and issued on July 15, 2003, describes
`
`methods for brokering real-estate transactions in a Web-based client/server
`
`environment.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART FOR OBVIOUSNESS GROUNDS
`Prior Art Considered
`A.
`40.
`I have considered the following patents that I understand are prior art
`
`to the ʼ687 Patent:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,584,025 to Keithley et al. (Ex. 1010); and
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,594,633 to Broerman (Ex. 1011).
`
`B. U.S. Patent 5,584,025 to Keithley
`I have been advised that the following reference is prior art for this
`41.
`
`proceeding: Keithley (Ex 1010), filed on April 12, 1995 and issued on December 10,
`
`1996.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`I have reviewed Keithley and considered the ’687 Patent claims in view
`
`42.
`
`of this reference. As set forth in further detail below, it is my opinion that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time would view Keithley and Broerman, in
`
`combination, as disclosing each and every aspect recited in the claims of the ’687
`
`Patent. A person of ordinary skill would view the claims of the ’687 patent as being
`
`rendered obvious by Keithley and Broerman.
`
`43. Keithley is directed to a system and methods for a server with a
`
`database that can store information about real estate. Users working with end-user
`
`terminals can “enter, transmit, receive and display data to and from the file server.”
`
`Ex. 1010, Abstract.
`
`44. Like the ’687 Patent, which “relates to completing a lease for property
`
`in an on-line computing environment” (Ex. 1001, Abstract), Keithley “relates to a
`
`method of accessing industry specific information, such as real estate properties for
`
`sale, through multimedia personal computers. The disclosed invention includes an
`
`interactive multimedia communications system.” Ex. 1010, 1:13-17. More
`
`specifically, Keithley teaches an “End User” is “looking to lease and/or purchase
`
`real property.” Id., 5:6-7.
`
`45. The real estate information is entered into the system by a real estate
`
`agent, and can then be accessed by end users at end user terminals.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`46. Keithley discloses a client-server network, as shown in Figures 1 – 6.
`
`Figures 1 and 4 are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`16
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`C. U.S. Patent 6,594,633 to Broerman
`I have been advised that the following reference is prior art for this
`47.
`
`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`
`proceeding: Broerman (Ex. 1011), filed on July 7, 1999 and issued on July 15, 2003.
`
`48.
`
`I have reviewed Broerman and considered the ’687 Patent claims in
`
`view of this reference. As set forth in further detail below, it is my opinion that one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time would view Keithley and Broerman, in
`
`combination, as disclosing each and every aspect recited in the claims of the ’687
`
`Patent. A person of ordinary skill would view the claims of the ’687 Patent as being
`
`rendered obvious by Keithley and Broerman.
`
`49. Broerman is directed to system and methods for “A real estate computer
`
`network [that] facilitates a real estate transaction between a buyer and a seller by
`
`electronically communicating between the parties and third parties such as a real
`
`estate facilitating entities (e.g., lawyer, mortgage provider, title provider) over a
`
`network.” Ex. 1011, Broerman, Abstract. The network as disclosed by Broerman
`
`is a client-server system as shown in Fig. 1, below.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`
`
`
`50. As shown in Fig. 3, Broerman discloses connections across a network,
`
`such as the Internet, between client computers and servers, allowing numerous
`
`parties to communicate: real-estate buyers, real-estate sellers, a brokerage system,
`
`and “third parties such as a facilitator (e.g., a lawyer, mortgage provider, and/or title
`
`provider) and payment transaction system.” Ex. 1011, 6:5.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`51. The system disclosed by Broerman includes the ability or property
`
`owners to list property information; potential buyers seeking property to search for
`
`a property in the property database, and both parties to negotiate via an electronic
`
`purchase contract, and to schedule associated events (such as property showings)
`
`and deadlines (such as closing and mortgage filings). Ex. 1011.
`
`52. Broerman also discloses that other real estate services may also be
`
`available through the networked system, services such as an electronic mortgage
`
`calculator, an electronic mortgage application, the ability to search for comparable
`
`sales (“comparables” in the language of the ’687 patent), electronic document
`
`delivery and more. Id.
`
`53. Broerman describes a server providing the parties with contract
`
`negotiation software tools, indeed discloses in detail a negotiation process. See, e.g.,
`
`id., Figure 9. Broerman also discloses the creation of an agreement (an “offer”)
`
`based on the negotiations and presenting this document to both parties for execution.
`
`Id., 2:25-2:44.
`
`54. Broerman also teaches the concept of providing third-party access to
`
`the network for various service providers; Broerman talks of “associated services”
`
`that “may include an electronic application to a mortgage provider, contact
`
`information such as hypertext markup language (HTML) links to services such as
`
`home inspection and movers, and information resources such as a mortgage
`19
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`calculator” (id., 8:67-9:6), and explains that “bundling additional real estate services
`
`not specifically illustrated here would be beneficial in some applications.” Id., 7:14.
`
`D. Motivation to Combine Keithley and Broerman
`55. Keithley and Broerman relate to the same field of technology.
`
`56. Keithley and Broerman also identify the same problems in the prior art.
`
`Compare Ex. 1010, 1:64-67 (“The prior art system is, at best, time consuming and
`
`inefficient. Everyone involved in the house hunt must be prepared to devote a
`
`substantial amount of time to viewing properties.”) with Ex. 1011, 1:11-13 (“Selling
`
`and buying real property is generally a time consuming process requiring the
`
`assistance of several professional services at a considerable cost.”). These teachings,
`
`suggestions, or motivations in the prior art would have led a POSITA to combine
`
`the teachings of Keithley and Broerman to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`57.
`
`It would have been obvious for a POSITA to substitute Broerman’s
`
`“real estate transaction between a buyer 13 and a seller 12” with Keithley’s “End
`
`User of real estate looking to lease and/or purchase real property” and “any type of
`
`real property offerings marketed by owners.” Ex. 1011, Abstract; Ex. 1010, 5:6-7,
`
`6:31-32.
`
`58. The teachings of Keithley and Broerman with respect to buyers and
`
`sellers render obvious the claimed invention’s “tenant” and “owner.” Ex. 1001,
`
`Claim 10.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`ResMan Exhibit 1003
`
`ResMan, LLC v. Karya Property Management, LLC
`IPR2021-00844
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00844
`U.S. Patent No. 7,636,687
`
`59. This substitution also results predictably in, at least, a lease and renders
`
`obvious the ’687 Patent’s claimed “lease agreement … by the tenant and the owner.”
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 10. Indeed, Keithley teaches “[t]he commercial real estate market
`
`is almost identical to the residential market in regard to how properties are reviewed
`
`and chosen.” Ex. 1010, 2:11-13; see also id., Fig. 9 (showing both “LEASE” and
`
`“PURCHASE”) (red annotations added).
`
`
`60. A POSITA would have used the known technique of Broerman with
`
`respect to “utilizing an online real time interactive communication interface … to
`
`negotiate via an electronic purchase contract 96” to improve the methods and
`
`systems of Keithley in the same way as Broerman in order to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention’s “populating the property