UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`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
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`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 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
