`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`CONFIGIT A/S
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`___________________
`
`DECLARATION OF PAUL A. NAVRÁTIL IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Versata EX2001
`Configit v. Versata
`IPR2021-01055
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
`Qualifications............................................................................................... 2
`Summary and basis of opinions.................................................................... 4
`A.
`Relevant legal standards..................................................................... 4
`B. Materials considered .......................................................................... 4
`C.
`The ’766 patent .................................................................................. 4
`D.
`Statements during prosecution ..........................................................11
`E.
`Level of ordinary skill .......................................................................11
`IV. Claim construction ......................................................................................12
`A.
`Configuration error means an error that occurs when either (1) a
`rule or series of rules is not properly defined and produces an
`undesired effect; or (2) a series of improperly defined rules
`causes a part to be in more than one state at the same time. ..............12
`Test case means one or more sets of selections that should be
`made, and sets of parts and their expected states based on new
`rules, as well as rules previously included in parts relationships
`and product definitions. ....................................................................17
`User has its plain and ordinary meaning in view of the
`specification, which is limited to the person who programs the
`configuration engine. ........................................................................19
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................21
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`
`
`I.
`
`I, Paul A. Navrátil, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`Introduction
`I, Paul A. Navrátil, Ph.D., have been retained by Patent Owner,
`1.
`
`Versata Development Group, Inc., to provide my expert opinions as to certain
`
`issues in connection with its Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (“POPR”) in
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office in response to a petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review (IPR) (“the Petition”) challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766 (“the
`
`’766 patent”) filed by Configit A/S.
`
`2.
`
`This declaration is made based on my personal knowledge, expertise,
`
`training, and experience, as well as on my review of the materials cited by the
`
`Petition and the POPR. If required, I would testify competently and truthfully
`
`regarding the contents of this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I have no financial or other commercial interest in the outcome of this
`
`IPR. My compensation for this engagement is based on the hours of professional
`
`work performed and does not depend on the opinions that I provide or on the
`
`outcome of this IPR. I am being compensated by Patent Owner at my standard
`
`consulting rate of $450 per hour plus expenses. In the past four years, I have
`
`provided testimony in the matters listed below:
`
`•
`
`Harris County 55th Civil District Court No. 2019-38586. Aspen
`Energy Partners, LLC and RigMinder Inc. v. Trinidad Design &
`Manufacturing US, Inc. and Ensign Energy Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`D. Del. Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01115-LPS-CJB. Data Engine
`Technologies LLC v. Google Inc.
`
`200th J. Dist., Travis Co., TX NO. D-1-GN-17-006229. Business
`Automation Associates, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc.
`
`S.D. Tex. Civil Action No. 4:15-2172-MH. Digital Drilling Data
`Systems, LLC v. Petrolink Services, Inc. et al.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`4.
`
`I have been requested to provide my expert opinions regarding certain
`
`terms contained within the ’766 patent and how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(a “POSITA”) around the priority date, January 31, 2001, would have understood
`
`and interpreted those terms.
`
`5.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have considered my own knowledge,
`
`training, and experience, as well as the materials cited by the Petition and the
`
`POPR.
`
`6.
`
`I reserve the right to respond to further comments or questions
`
`regarding the IPR or POPR in order to clarify or supplement this declaration.
`
`II. Qualifications
`I am a Research Scientist and Director of Visualization at the Texas
`7.
`
`Advanced Computing Center (“TACC”) at the University of Texas at Austin. I am
`
`also President of Navrátil Designs LLC, a technology consultancy.
`
`8.
`
`I earned a B.S. degree in Computer Science and a B.A. degree in the
`
`Plan II honors program at the University of Texas at Austin in 1999. I earned an
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`M.S. degree and a Ph.D. degree, both in Computer Science, from the University of
`
`Texas at Austin in 2006 and 2010, respectively.
`
`9.
`
`I have over twenty-three years of software development and project
`
`management experience, including rule-based systems and system configuration.
`
`As part of my undergraduate thesis, I implemented a simulated robotic soccer team
`
`using the Venus active rule system that successfully competed in the 1998 World
`
`Cup of Robotic Soccer. From 1999 to 2001, I was a software engineer at Liaison
`
`Technology, where I co-invented the core business technology used to perform
`
`rule-based automatic extraction of data from semi-structured sources, including
`
`product webpages (U.S. Patent 6,782,505). My doctoral dissertation was on large-
`
`scale, memory-efficient ray tracing developed methods for complex and dynamic
`
`scheduling of certain data to facilitate efficient visual data analysis at petascales
`
`and beyond. Since 2007, I have worked at the Texas Advanced Computing Center,
`
`where I regularly participate in data analysis projects at extreme scales that
`
`leverage complex rules and logic. I have served as visualization technical lead for
`
`over one dozen supercomputers at TACC, and I currently serve as senior personnel
`
`for Stampede2 and Frontera, the two largest supercomputers in the portfolio of the
`
`U.S. National Science Foundation and among the largest supercomputers in the
`
`world.
`
`10. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as EX2002.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`III. Summary and basis of opinions
`A. Relevant legal standards
`I understand claims are to be given their ordinary and customary
`11.
`
`meaning to a POSITA in view of the claims, specification, and prosecution history.
`
`I also understand that Applicants can define their own claim terms in the
`
`specification, which will be used when interpreting the claims. The ’766 Patent
`
`provides a number of explicit definitions, some of which are terms that appear in
`
`the claims.
`
`B. Materials considered
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training,
`12.
`
`knowledge, and experience that are relevant to the ’329 patent. Furthermore, I have
`
`considered the Petition filed in this case and specifically the following documents
`
`listed below in addition to any other documents cited in this declaration:
`
`Exhibit # Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`1001
`Certified Prosecution History of the ’766 Patent
`1011
`U.S. Patent No. 5,825,651
`1012
`
`
`
`C. The ’766 patent
`13. The ’766 patent is about “testing the compatibility of parts included in
`
`a configuration.” EX1001, 1:7–10. The patent describes prior-art “configuration
`
`systems” or “configuration engines.” Id., 1:13–14. According to the patent, these
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`prior art devices “allow a user to configure a product by interactively selecting
`
`components from among various groups based on availability and compatibility of
`
`features and options.” Id., 1:14–17.
`
`14. The configurators allow “a user to configure a product by interactively
`
`selecting components.” Id., 1:14–23. The configured “product might consist of
`
`several hundred individual parts” that might be available on multiple products. Id.,
`
`1:27–29. When engineers design the configurator, they define a complicated
`
`product structure and then rules to fill in gaps:
`
`A product is modeled by describing which parts and part
`groups are available in that product and which choices
`must be made from within the part groups, and then by
`writing additional
`rules
`that describe part-to-part
`relationships which are not modeled by the product
`structure.
`
`EX1001, 1:28–33.
`
`15. After an engineer creates those descriptions and rules, a “compiler
`
`converts the product structure and rules into” defined, computer-readable rule
`
`types. Id., 1:33–40. The four types of compiled rules are:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“includes” rules, which are parts included by default;
`
`“excludes” rules, which are parts excluded by default;
`
`“removes” rules, which are parts that were previously included but are
`now deleted; and
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`“requires” choice rules, which are parts that requires “a choice among
`a group of parts.” Id., 1:27–50.
`
`•
`
`16. The configurator, however complex, must always find each and every
`
`“part” in one and only one state. Id., 1:50.
`
`17. A “removes” rules is generally not present in the initial configuration
`
`but is a valid rule state once another choice has been made.
`
`18. The specification envisions that there will be “several hundred,
`
`several thousand, or even more” rules. Id., 1:41–45. The patent describes a system
`
`without a simple, linear decision tree. At the beginning of a configuration, every
`
`part is in the “selectable” state, since no choices have been made. Id. Once any
`
`selection is made, the configurator rules must ensure that the state of all the other
`
`parts is in one and only one state. Id., 1:34–53.
`
`19. Because the configurator is complicated, the ’766 patent teaches that
`
`“errors may be difficult to find due to the large number of rules in the model, the
`
`unexpected effects of some configuration operations, and the complex interactions
`
`between rules.” Id., 1:62–65. In particular, the patent warns of two categories of
`
`“configuration errors.”
`
`20. This is why the patent teaches a “method and apparatus for testing a
`
`system for maintaining and configuring products.” Id., 3:55–58.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`21. The patent characterizes the kinds of configuration errors that can be
`
`introduced to a configurator: state errors and exception errors. Id., 6:41–45.
`
`22. The first type of configuration error occurs “when a rule or series of
`
`rules is not properly defined and produces an undesired effect.” Id., 1:52–57. An
`
`example of this, according to the specification, is “the exclusion of a part that
`
`should be selectable.” Id.
`
`23.
`
`“[S]tate error[s],” like this happen when a “part is put in a state which
`
`was not intended by the user.” Id., 6:46–47. Note that “user” here is not a customer
`
`end-user but rather is a user of the debugging/programming interface. See, e.g., id.,
`
`Fig. 3 (302) (noting the use of a configuration tester GUI). These state errors,
`
`according to the ’766 patent, occur “when a rule has been accidentally omitted or
`
`written.” Id., 7:8–10.
`
`24.
`
`In an exemplary state error of the ’766 patent, the configurator is
`
`supposed to permit PartC to be selectable when PartA and PartB are selected. Id.,
`
`7:9–12. The configurator, however, experiences a state error when PartC is
`
`“excluded rather than selectable” when PartA and PartB are selected. Id., 7:10–13.
`
`This state error can be caused by a complex web of interrelated rules. Id., 7:19–23.
`
`It’s important to note that this is not an error that occurs when the configurator rule
`
`correctly prohibits PartC from being selected in connection with PartA and PartB.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`25. The second type of configuration error occurs when rules cause “a
`
`part to be in more than one state at the same time.” Id., 1:57–61. This means, for
`
`instance, that a part is simultaneously defined as “‘included’ and ‘excluded.’” Id.
`
`26.
`
`“[E]xception error[s]” like this occur when a “part is put in more than
`
`one state at the same time.” Id., 6:48–49. The paradigmatic example of this,
`
`according to the ’766 patent, is “PartA includes PartB” and “PartB excludes
`
`PartA.” Id., 7:39–42. So here, for example, one rule will set “PartA” to “selected”
`
`and “PartB” to “include.” Another, simultaneous rule will set “PartA” to
`
`“exclude.” Id., 7:39–45. This is an exception error. Most exception errors are more
`
`complicated than this straightforward example. Id., 7:46–49.
`
`27. The ’766 patent then describes its innovative approach to debugging a
`
`configurator. In the inventive debugging system, the “user provides test cases that
`
`select at least one part to include in the product configuration.” Id., 2:7–11. Then,
`
`the “configuration tester processes the rule to determine whether” the choices in
`
`the test case “conflicts with the plurality of parts” in the configurator. Id. There are
`
`a number of different embodiments of the tester described, but they all select parts
`
`and determine whether there is an internal error in the configurator. This is
`
`designed to be used by the engineer who is in charge of designing and
`
`implementing the configurator and not by end users.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`In the claimed embodiment, the configuration tester includes a
`
`28.
`
`“listener” or “driver and listener.” Id., 2:27–32, Fig.3A (316). This component
`
`“detects state change events that result in the system being in the initialized part
`
`state.” Id., 2:27–34.
`
`29. To display the part state to the engineer, the ’766 patent discloses an
`
`“explainer.” Id., 2:39–42. The explainer “generates an explanation for the part
`
`state.” Id. This allows the debugging user to pinpoint where rule execution caused
`
`a disallowed state: “[t]he explanation(s) are based on selection of a part, execution
`
`of a rule, a part being in two states at the same time, a require[d] choice rule cannot
`
`be satisfied, or a look ahead process.” Id., 2:43–46.
`
`30. As the patent says, “the invention detects and analyzes configuration
`
`errors in a system for configuring products.” EX1001, 4:63–65 (emphasis added).
`
`This is not directed to analyzing errors received by the user of a configuration
`
`product.
`
`31. According to the specification of the ’766 patent, the system and
`
`method concerns a “Configuration Tester GUI.” EX1001, Fig.3 (302).
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`EX1001, Fig. 3 (annotated).
`
`
`
`32. Figure 3 of the ’766 patent includes a specific test case embodiment
`
`for use with the “Configuration Tester GUI.” EX1001, 7:59–8:5. In this example,
`
`the test case specifies that ProductA and PartA are selected. Id., 8:6–7. When the
`
`test case is run, it ensures that PartB and PartC are excluded and that PartD is
`
`included. Id., 8:8–9. In response to the system processing the test case, the
`
`“configuration tester modules [] run each test case.” Id., 8:10–15. “If a test fails,”
`
`the configuration determines the state problem. Id.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`Statements during prosecution
`D.
`33. During prosecution, the applicant’s attorney made statements about
`
`“test case.” Specifically, the applicant’s attorney stated that the “specification
`
`provides illustrative support for the term ‘test case.’” EX1011, 193. It continued
`
`“independent claims recite a specific type of test case, i.e. ‘a test case... to detect
`
`configuration errors in the product configuration.’” Id. The Petition quotes from
`
`the prosecution history that “the present invention is limited by the claims and not
`
`by specific embodiments set forth in the description.” Id.
`
`34. Those of skill reading this statement would not understand that it was
`
`intended to limit the definition in the specification.
`
`E.
`35.
`
`Level of ordinary skill
`I have been asked to assume that the level of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`a “person with a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer or Electrical
`
`Engineering, Engineering Science, an engineering major with a significant
`
`computational component, or a similar discipline, or with at least two years of
`
`research or experience in configurable systems including testing.”
`
`36.
`
`I have not independently formed an opinion as to whether this is the
`
`appropriate level of skill in the art for the ’766 patent.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`37. But I do not consider this level of skill to be unreasonable based on
`
`the ’766 patent disclosure and have applied that level of skill in rendering my
`
`opinions.
`
`IV. Claim construction
`I have examined the ’766 patent and have concluded that the terms
`38.
`
`“configuration error” and “test case” are defined by the specification. For the
`
`reasons cited below, it is my opinion that a POSITA would understand these terms
`
`according to the supplied constructions.
`
`A. Configuration error means an error that occurs when either (1) a
`rule or series of rules is not properly defined and produces an
`undesired effect; or (2) a series of improperly defined rules causes
`a part to be in more than one state at the same time.
`It is my opinion that those of skill would have understood the ’766
`
`39.
`
`patent defines the term “configuration error” to mean an error that occurs when
`
`either (1) a rule or series of rules is not properly defined and produces an undesired
`
`effect; or (2) a series of improperly defined rules causes a part to be in more than
`
`one state at the same time.
`
`40. The invention background describes these two types of configuration
`
`errors: “configuration errors may occur when a rule or series of rules is not
`
`properly defined and produces an undesired effect, such as the exclusion of a part
`
`that should be selectable[;]” and “[c]onfiguration errors may also occur when a
`
`series of improperly defined rules causes a part to be in more than one state at the
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`same time, such as ‘included’ and ‘excluded,’ or ‘selected,’ and ‘deleted.’”
`
`EX1001, 1:54–61. The detailed description elaborates on these contemplated error
`
`types: “There are many ways that errors can be introduced into a configuration,
`
`however, the effects of these errors can be categorized in 2 groups: 1) A part is put
`
`in a state which was not intended by the user (state error), or 2) A part is put in
`
`more than one state at the same time (exception error).” EX1001, 6:43–49.
`
`41. The specification further describes the state error type:
`
`State Errors
`The simplest types of state errors are caused when a rule
`has been accidentally omitted or written. For example,
`the user may select PartA and PartB, and then note that
`‘PartC’ is excluded rather than selectable. In the simplest
`case, this may be due to the following rule in the model:
`PartA Excludes PartC
`Or, there may be a rule:
`PartA Requires Choice (min/max=1/1)
`{PartB, PartC}
`Here, selecting PartA implies that either PartB or PartC
`must be selected. Selecting PartB causes configuration
`engine 200 to infer that PartC must be Excluded.
`Alternatively, multiple rules may cause a state change,
`for example:
`PartA Includes PartX PartX Excludes
`PartC
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`Here, selecting PartA causes PartX to be included, which
`then causes PartC to be excluded.
`State errors can also be caused by the look-ahead
`process. Suppose the following rules are written:
`ProductA Excludes PartA
`ProductB Includes PartB
`ProductB, PartB Excludes PartA
`ProductC RequiresChoice (min/max=1/1)
`PartA, PartC
`ProductC Includes PartC
`Even if the user has not made any selections, PartA will
`be excluded by the look ahead process for each of
`products A, B, and C. Detecting state changes that are
`caused by the look-ahead process is particularly difficult
`because for each product there may be a different rule
`chain or exception error that causes the state error.
`
`EX1001, 7:8–36.
`
`42. The specification also further describes the exception error type:
`
`Exception Errors
`Sometimes, rules may be inadvertently written that cause
`a conflicting state exception. The simplest case can be
`summed up by the rules:
`PartA includes PartB
`PartB excludes PartA
`If PartA is selected, then PartB will be Included. But then
`the second rule causes PartA to be excluded. This
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`conflicting state cannot be reconciled, and an exception is
`raised.
`Most exception conditions are more complex than this
`one. For example, selecting a part that is in a requires
`choice rule may cause the requires choice rule to be
`unsatisfiable as follows:
`PartA requires choice (min/max=1/1)
`{PartB, Part C}
`PartB includes PartC
`In the preceding rules, if PartA is selected, selecting
`PartB will cause an exception error because the requires
`choice rule will not be satisfiable.
`
`EX1001, 7:37–54.
`
`43. A POSITA would understand that such rules are written by a
`
`configuration engineer implementing a product definition system as opposed to an
`
`end-user using a product definition to configure a product within such a system. As
`
`part of the product definition process, the configuration engineer periodically tests
`
`whether the implemented system reflects the desired modeling intent, namely, that
`
`supported product selections can be made and unsupported product selections
`
`cannot. This is the purpose to which the invention embodied in ’766 Patent is
`
`targeted.
`
`44. This understanding of a POSITA is further confirmed by the
`
`description of related configuration and maintenance systems as described in the
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`related art within the ’766 Patent. The ’766 Patent includes reference to U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,825,651 entitled “Method and Apparatus For Maintaining and Configuring
`
`Systems” (the ’651 Patent), “which is assigned to the same assignee as the present
`
`invention, and is hereby incorporated by reference.” EX1001, 1:17–23.
`
`The ’651 Patent describes a maintenance and configuration system that contains a
`
`maintenance system “used to define a product” and a configuration system “used
`
`to configure a system using a definition created by the maintenance system.”
`
`EX1012, 2:38-40, 2:50–51. The ’766 Patent contemplates this two-phase operation
`
`by distinguishing between maintenance environment and configuration
`
`environment:
`
`Configuration engine 200 is used to configure a product
`using a definition created by the maintenance
`environment 202. Configuration environment 204
`ensures that the current configuration state is always
`valid. The user can select and unselect parts in any order.
`When user input is received, product
`specification/verification 212 validates the input based on
`the current state of the configuration. In addition, the
`product specification/verification 212 identifies
`selections that could cause a valid configuration to
`become invalid. Product specification/verification 212
`removes these selections from the set of possible
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`selections so that the user does not make an invalid
`selection.
`
`EX1001, 5:56-67. This describes how a configuration environment operates to
`
`preserve product validity assuming properly defined rules from the maintenance
`
`environment. The definition of “configuration error” above describes “rules [] not
`
`properly defined” and thus must mean errors introduced in the maintenance
`
`environment, where “a [product] definition is created.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`45.
`
`Test case means one or more sets of selections that should be
`made, and sets of parts and their expected states based on new
`rules, as well as rules previously included in parts relationships
`and product definitions.
`It is my opinion that those of skill would have understood the ’766
`
`patent defines the term “test case” to mean “one or more sets of selections that
`
`should be made, and sets of parts and their expected states based on new rules, as
`
`well as rules previously included in parts relationships and product definitions.”
`
`46.
`
`It is my opinion that this construction is well-supported by the
`
`specification of the ’766. This definition is found explicitly in the ’766 Patent
`
`specification. EX1001, 7:64–8:1. As described in the discussion of “configuration
`
`error” supra, the introduction of new rules occurs within the maintenance
`
`environment while creating a product definition, where “users [] enter new rules
`
`304 and define test cases 306 that describe the expected behavior of their models
`
`to test the configuration. New rules 304 are input to parts relationships 308 and
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`product definitions 310 in configuration engine 312.” Id., 7:59–64, (emphasis
`
`added). A POSITA would appreciate that the test cases contemplated by the ’766
`
`Patent are used by a configuration engineer rather than an end user, because only a
`
`configuration engineer would “describe the expected behavior of their models to
`
`test the configuration.” Id.,. The present invention describes means to detect and
`
`explain “errors [that] can be categorized in 2 groups: 1) A part is put in a state
`
`which was not intended by the user (state error), or 2) A part is put in more than
`
`one state at the same time (exception error).” Id., 6:43–49. A POSITA would know
`
`that a configuration user does not define rules nor create product models.
`
`47. As the ’766 Patent teaches: “[u]sing configuration engine 200, a user
`
`can configure a product given product definitions 210 and part relationships 208
`
`associated with product definitions 210. Configuration environment 204 accepts a
`
`configuration user's input and processes it in product specification/verification 212
`
`to verify the product configuration, and to update the specification based on the
`
`user's input, or to notify the user that the input is invalid based on product
`
`definitions 210 and user selections.” Id., 5:36–44. This describes a configuration
`
`system operating with properly defined rules, such that it validates the
`
`configuration user input based on the product definition (i.e., the properly defined
`
`rules).
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`48. A configuration engineer can assume the role of a configuration user
`
`during the product model testing process in order to validate that a given product
`
`model does not contain the configuration errors contemplated by the ’766 Patent
`
`(i.e., caused by improperly defined rules). Such errors are not indicated by whether
`
`the configuration user can specify any desired product configuration in the
`
`configuration environment, but rather whether the specified product configuration
`
`produces “an undesired effect” or “results in more than one state” according to the
`
`intent of the configuration engineer who created the product configuration in the
`
`maintenance environment.
`
`C. User has its plain and ordinary meaning in view of the
`specification, which is limited to the person who programs the
`configuration engine.
`I have been informed and understand that terms not construed in the
`
`49.
`
`patent are to be interpreted under their “plain and ordinary meaning” as understood
`
`by a POSITA around the priority date of the patent. I further understand that no
`
`construction for “user” has been proposed.
`
`50.
`
`It is my opinion that a POSITA would understand a user in the context
`
`of the ’766 Patent to be a configuration engineer using the invention to support
`
`product definition design and implementation, rather than a configuration user who
`
`uses a given product definition outside of the creation and maintenance process.
`
`The discussion of “configuration error” and “test case” above demonstrate that the
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`’766 Patent contemplates that the invention is to be used during the creation and
`
`maintenance of a product model, for example, by a configuration engineer. As
`
`noted above, a configuration engineer may assume the role of a configuration user
`
`in order to specify input selections to validate a configuration model, but such
`
`model validation is not performed by end users otherwise uninvolved in the model
`
`development and maintenance process.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01055
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`V. Conclusion
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be
`51.
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be
`
`subject to cross-examination in the case and that cross-examination will take place
`
`within the United States. If cross-examination is required of me, I will appear for
`
`cross-examination within the United States during the time allotted for such cross-
`
`examination at a time and place agreed by counsel.
`
`52.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions in the future to respond
`
`to any arguments that Petitioner raises and to take into account new information as
`
`it becomes available to me.
`
`53.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true,
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 or Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`Executed this 22 day of September, 2021 in San Francisco, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________________
`Paul A. Navrátil, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`