UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ADOBE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2021-_________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287
`
`DECLARATION OF IAN CULLIMORE, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,471,287
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 001 of 169
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ADOBE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2021-_________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287
`
`DECLARATION OF IAN CULLIMORE, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,471,287
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 001 of 169
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED ............................................................................ 5
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 8
`V.
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................. 9
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’287 PATENT ..........................................................12
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................21
`VIII. STATE OF THE ART ...................................................................................24
`A.
`The Internet, Websites, and Web Browsers ........................................25
`B. Web Services and Registries ...............................................................26
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................31
`A.
`Huang ..................................................................................................31
`B.
`Shenfield ..............................................................................................46
`THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES OR SUGGESTS ALL OF THE
`FEATURES OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........................................49
`A.
`Grounds Challenging Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11-13, 15, 17, 19-20, 25, and
`27 of the ’287 Patent ...........................................................................49
`Ground 1: Huang in View of Shenfield Render Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11-
`13, 15, 17, 19-20, 25, and 27 of the ’287 Patent Obvious ..................49
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................50
`2.
`Claim 3 ....................................................................................145
`3.
`Claim 5 ....................................................................................148
`i
`
`X.
`
`B.
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 002 of 169
`
`
`
`Claim 6 ....................................................................................149
`4.
`Claim 7 ....................................................................................151
`5.
`Claim 11 ..................................................................................152
`6.
`Claim 12 ..................................................................................155
`7.
`Claim 13 ..................................................................................156
`8.
`Claim 15 ..................................................................................158
`9.
`10. Claim 17 ..................................................................................163
`11. Claim 19 ..................................................................................163
`12. Claim 20 ..................................................................................164
`13. Claim 25 ..................................................................................164
`14. Claim 27 ..................................................................................165
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................166
`
`ii
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 003 of 169
`
`
`
`I, Ian Cullimore, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner Adobe Inc. (“Adobe” or “Petitioner”)
`
`as an independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $500/hour for my services in this
`
`proceeding, which is my regular and customary rate.
`
`3.
`
`My compensation is in no way contingent on the nature of my findings,
`
`the presentation of my findings in testimony or this declaration, or the outcome of
`
`this or any other proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain references disclose and/or
`
`suggest the features recited in claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11-13, 15, 17, 19-20, 25, and 27 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 (“the ’287 patent”) (Ex-1001).1 My opinions are set forth
`
`below.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I am an independent consultant. All of my opinions stated in this
`
`declaration are based on my own personal knowledge and professional judgment. In
`
`forming my opinions, I have relied on my education, knowledge, and some 40 years
`
`1 Where appropriate, I refer to exhibits I understand will be attached to the petition
`for inter partes review of the ’287 patent (the “Petition”).
`1
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 004 of 169
`
`
`
`of experience in the field of computer science and software engineering, including,
`
`among other things, the development of interfaces for web services and programs
`
`designed to operate across multiple devices.
`
`6.
`
`I received a bachelor’s degree [B.Sc. (Hons)] in Mathematics from
`
`King’s College, London, in 1981. Additionally, I received a Ph.D. in Cognitive and
`
`Computer Science from the University of Sussex in 2000. I also attended an M.Sc.
`
`course at Imperial College, London, in 1985. I was for a time an Honorary Senior
`
`Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham, UK. I am currently a Visiting
`
`Lecturer at the University of Hereford, UK. I have undertaken various other
`
`Continuous Professional Development courses over the years.
`
`7.
`
`For the majority of my working career, I have been self-employed as a
`
`software, firmware, and hardware designer and developer, with a specialization in
`
`operating system design and development for mobile devices, ultra-low power
`
`management, IoT (“Internet of Things”) devices, and computer communications. I
`
`remain a very “hands-on” developer for both software and hardware. I run my own
`
`consulting company, Crushproof Ltd., and from time to time am involved in other
`
`startups, as well as software and hardware, and business development, consulting
`
`for other companies. I currently reside in the UK, but I have lived and worked
`
`extensively in the US, especially in Silicon Valley.
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 005 of 169
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I have been involved in the design and development of mobile and
`
`wireless device software and hardware since 1984. From 2012 to 2015, I served as
`
`Chief Technology Officer at Paqet Systems Corp., a startup I co-founded that
`
`specializes in ultra-low power software operating systems for machine-to-machine,
`
`sensor hubs, wearables, Internet of Things, and other cutting-edge mobile
`
`technologies. Prior to that, from 2010 to 2012, I was Chief Technology Officer at
`
`IOTA Computing, Inc., another startup I co-founded that focused on software
`
`development for similar technology. Both companies were based in Silicon Valley.
`
`Between 2008 and 2010, I was an independent consultant and provided software and
`
`hardware development guidance for a series of technology companies. From 2006
`
`to 2008, I worked as Chief Technology Officer at Martian Gaming Ltd., a London-
`
`based online mobile gaming platform that I co-founded. Additionally, I led the
`
`development of mobile server and client development in the course of serving as
`
`Chief Technology Officer for Cibenix Ltd., a Dublin-based (Ireland) mobile
`
`software developer, from 2004 to 2006. From 1997 to 2003, I served as Chief
`
`Executive Officer and Chief Technology Officer at Informal Software, a company I
`
`co-founded to implement an interface I had developed as part of my doctoral
`
`research.
`
`9.
`
`Additionally, I have extensive professional experience in computer
`
`system design of many disciplines: software (from low-level embedded to high-level
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 006 of 169
`
`
`
`applications and User Interfaces), hardware and communications, as well as server
`
`technologies. From 1996 to 1997, I worked as Chief Technology Officer and
`
`consultant to Two Way TV, an innovative interactive television company that
`
`developed user-interactive television and games. Between 1994 and 1996, I served
`
`as Software Director at Xircom, Inc., where I created award-winning Ethernet and
`
`modem installer software products and software for mobile Palm handheld devices
`
`to enable receipt and transmission of text messages, as well as Local Area Network
`
`connectivity for handhelds and laptops via innovative adapters and the first PC Card
`
`(“PCMCIA”) LAN adapters. Prior to that, from 1992 to 1994, I developed DOS
`
`power management systems and a secure-login software client at Digital Research
`
`Inc., acquired by Novell Inc. From 1988 to 1991, I was Vice President of Software
`
`Research and Development at Poqet Computer Corp., which I also co-founded; in
`
`that role, I developed power-managing ROM BIOS and created other software and
`
`hardware power management techniques to enhance battery life. Between 1986 and
`
`1988, I served as Chief Technology Officer at D.I.P. Ltd., a company I co-founded
`
`that developed the world’s first “pocket PC.” From 1984 to 1986, I was a Software
`
`Engineer at Psion Ltd., a video game developer; there, I developed a PDA operating
`
`system and communications software. From 1983 to 1984, I was a Video Games
`
`Programmer at Thorn EMI, and from 1981 to 1983, I was a Software Programmer
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 007 of 169
`
`
`
`at British Aerospace, where I wrote various programs for mainframes (including for
`
`the Concorde program).
`
`10.
`
`I have served as a technical consultant in connection with intellectual
`
`property relating to various computer and mobile device engineering technologies
`
`since 1985. In just the past five years, I have been engaged as a consultant on ten
`
`projects, many of which involved mobile software and hardware development.
`
`11. My work has involved projects specifically including web services and
`
`the development of software capable of operating on multiple devices, operating
`
`systems, and/or platforms. For example, I have developed an interface for web
`
`services for Toyota’s salesforce designed to operate on hand-held devices to connect
`
`to back-end servers. I have also developed for a group at Sheffield University a
`
`device-dependent program to run device-independent XML content to dynamically
`
`present content to and obtain information from a user.
`
`12.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and, if I am called upon to do so, I would be
`
`competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein. I have provided a copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae as Ex-1003, which contains additional details regarding my
`
`background and experience.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`13.
`
`The opinions contained in this declaration are based on the documents
`
`I reviewed, my professional judgment, as well as my education, experience, and
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 008 of 169
`
`
`
`knowledge regarding inventions, electrical engineering, computer science, web
`
`services, registries, and efforts in the field to achieve cross-functionality on various
`
`platforms, such as mobile phones.
`
`14.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I reviewed the
`
`following materials:
`
` The ’287 patent (Ex-1001);
`
` Prosecution History of the ’287 patent (Ex-1004);
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0118844 to Jin Huang et al.
`
`(“Huang”) (Ex-1005);
`
` U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0079282 to Pawan Nachnani et al
`
`(“Nachnani”) (Ex-1006);
`
` U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0200749 to Michael Shenfield
`
`(“Shenfield”) (Ex-1007);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 (“the ’755 patent”) (Ex-1008);
`
` Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 (Ex-1009);
`
` Memorandum Opinion (Dkt. 121), Express Mobile, Inc. v.
`
`GoDaddy.com, LLC, C.A. No. 19-1937-RGA (D. Del. June 1, 2021)
`
`(Ex-1011);
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 009 of 169
`
`
`
` Memorandum Order (Dkt. 137), Shopify Inc. et al. v. Express Mobile,
`
`Inc., C.A. No. 19-439-RGA (D. Del. June 23, 2020) (Ex-1012);
`
` Order on Claim Construction (Dkt. 142), Shopify Inc. et al. v. Express
`
`Mobile, Inc., C.A. No. 19-439-RGA (D. Del. June 30, 2020) (Ex-1013);
`
` Joint Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 117), Shopify Inc. et al. v. Express
`
`Mobile, Inc., C.A. No. 19-439-RGA (lead case) (D. Del. May 8, 2020)
`
`(Ex-1015);
`
` Alan Grosskurth and Michael W. Godfrey, A Reference Architecture
`
`for Web Browsers, Journal of Software Maintenance & Evolution:
`
`Research & Practices 2006; 00:1-7 (2006) (Ex-1016);
`
` Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0, IETF (Nov. 1997), available at
`
`https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1866 (Ex-1017);
`
` Francisco Curbera et al., Unraveling the Web Services Web, IEEE
`
`Internet Computing Vol. 7, Issue 2 86-93 (Apr. 2002) (Ex-1018);
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0067421 (Ex-1019);
`
` Google Search WSDL Document, available at
`
`https://cs.au.dk/~amoeller/WWW/webservices/
`
` GoogleSearch.wsdl (Rev. Aug. 16, 2002) (Ex-1020);
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 010 of 169
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0009523 (Ex-1021);
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0034202 (Ex-1022);
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0186888 (Ex-1023);
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0221190 (Ex-1024);
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0100836 (Ex-1025);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,191,160 (Ex-1026);
`
` Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Web Services: Beyond the Hype, Computer
`
`35(2):18-21 (Feb. 2002) (Ex-1027);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,873,625 (Ex-1028); and
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0230462 (Ex-1029).
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`15.
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion on the level of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art with respect to the alleged invention of the ’287 patent as of April 7, 2008.
`
`Based on my review of the types of problems encountered in the art, prior solutions
`
`to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations were made, the sophistication
`
`of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field, I believe
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 011 of 169
`
`
`
`Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent, plus two years working
`
`experience. More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.
`
`16. All of my opinions in this declaration are from the perspective of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as I have defined it here during the relevant timeframe
`
`(i.e., mid-2008) (“POSITA”).
`
`V.
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`17.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in the course of
`
`my work, I have had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims
`
`from the perspective of a person skilled in the art.
`
`18.
`
`For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about certain
`
`aspects of the law that are relevant to forming my opinions. My understanding of the
`
`law is as follows:
`
`19.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a patent claim is invalid as
`
`“anticipated” if each and every limitation of the claim is found, either expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention or is
`
`described in a single publication or patent that predates the claimed invention.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that, in patent law, these previous devices,
`
`methods, publications, or patents are called “prior art.”
`
`20.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that claim limitations that are not
`
`expressly found in a prior art reference are inherent if the prior art necessarily
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 012 of 169
`
`
`
`functions in accordance with, or includes, the claim limitations. I understand that,
`
`for a claimed limitation to be inherently present, the prior art need not expressly
`
`disclose the limitation, so long as the claimed limitation necessarily flows from a
`
`disclosure in the prior art. I also understand that it is acceptable to examine evidence
`
`outside the prior art reference (extrinsic evidence) in determining whether a feature,
`
`while not expressly discussed in the reference, is necessarily present in that
`
`reference.
`
`21.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the application was filed.
`
`I am informed this means that, even if all of the requirements of a claim are not found
`
`in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the differences between
`
`the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the claim would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA at the time the of the invention.
`
`22.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a determination of whether a
`
`claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
` the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
` the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
` what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 013 of 169
`
`
`
`23.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that a single reference can render
`
`a patent claim obvious if any differences between that reference and the claims
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA. Alternatively, I understand that the
`
`teachings of two or more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed
`
`in the claims, if such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary
`
`skill in the art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single
`
`reference or multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to
`
`consider, among other factors:
`
` whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
` whether a POSITA could implement a predictable variation, and would see
`
`the benefit of doing so;
`
` whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of known
`
`design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of success by those
`
`skilled in the art;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to combine
`
`known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
` whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`11
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 014 of 169
`
`
`
` whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`24.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art has ordinary creativity and is not an automaton. Petitioner’s counsel has also
`
`informed me that in considering obviousness, obviousness may not be determined
`
`using the benefit of hindsight, including hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’287 PATENT
`
`25.
`
`The ’287 patent is titled “Systems and Methods for Integrating Widgets
`
`on Mobile Devices.” It “generally relates to providing software for mobile devices,
`
`and more particularly to a method and system for authoring Applications for
`
`devices.” (Ex-1001, 1:7-9.)
`
`26.
`
`The ’287 patent describes a “system” with “a database of web services
`
`obtainable over a network and an authoring tool” that “generate[s] code to provide
`
`content on a display of a platform.” (Ex. 1001, 1:33-36.) The ’287 patent states that
`
`“[t]he authoring tool is configured to define an object for presentation on the display,
`
`select a component of a web service included in said database, associate said object
`
`with said selected component, and produce code that, when executed on the
`
`platform, provides said selected component on the display of the platform.” (Id.,
`
`1:36-42.) One “mechanism for binding the outputs of the web service to the UI
`
`12
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 015 of 169
`
`
`
`components is through symbolic references that matches each output to the symbolic
`
`name of the UI component.” (Ex-1001, 9:22-25.) The generated code includes a
`
`device-independent “Application” and a device-dependent “Player.” (See id.,
`
`Abstract, 1:59-2:3.)
`
`27.
`
`The ’287 patent explains that Figure 1A, reproduced below, shows “a
`
`system including an authoring platform and a server for providing programming
`
`instructions to a device over a network.” (Ex-1001, 2:14-17.)
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 016 of 169
`
`
`
`(’287 patent, Fig. 1A.)
`
`Specifically, Figure 1A “is an illustrative schematic” of “a system 100 including an
`
`authoring platform 110 and a server 120 for providing programming instructions to
`
`a device 130 over a network N.” (Ex-1001, 2:65-3:1.) The ’287 patent explains that
`
`“[i]n general, a user of authoring platform 110 may produce programming
`
`instructions or files that may be transmitted over network N to operate device 130,
`
`including instructions or files that are sent to device 130 and/or server 120.” (Id.,
`
`3:6-10.)
`
`28.
`
`The ’287 patent explains that “[i]n one embodiment, system 100
`
`provides permits [sic] a user of authoring platform 110 to provide instructions to
`
`each of the plurality of devices 130 in the form of a device- or device-platform
`
`specific instructions for processor 135 of the device, referred to herein and without
`
`limitation as a ‘Player,’ and a device-independent program, referred to herein and
`
`without limitation as an ‘Application.’” (Id., 5:13-19.) “[D]evice 130 utilizes a
`
`Player and an Application to execute programming from authoring platform 110”
`
`and, because “[t]he programming is parsed into instructions used by different device
`
`platforms and instructions that are independent of device platform,” “authoring
`
`platform 110 may be used to generate programming for a plurality of devices 130
`
`having one of several different device platforms.” (Ex-1001, 5:19-28.) Put
`
`differently, one device-independent Application can run on multiple devices through
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 017 of 169
`
`
`
`the use of multiple device-specific Players that translate the Application into
`
`instructions that can be recognized by the specific device. (See id., 5:46-59, 6:8-21.)
`
`The ’287 patent contemplates that the “Player” need not necessarily be a stand-alone
`
`executable, and it can be “activated by a web browser or other software on device
`
`130.” (Ex-1001, 5:31-32.)
`
`29.
`
`The ’287 patent explains that “code in a device-independent format,”
`
`which the ’287 patent refers to as a “Portable Description Language (PDL),” is
`
`“conceptionally viewed as a device, operating system and virtual machine agnostic
`
`representation of Java serialized objects.” (Ex-1001, 6:8-10, 6:54-58.) As a result,
`
`a device-independent Application coded in PDL “no longer ha[s] any dependencies
`
`from the original programming language (Java) that they were defined in.” (Id.,
`
`7:21-25.)
`
`30.
`
`Figure 2A of the ’287 patent, reproduced below, “illustrat[es] the
`
`communications between different system components.” (Id., 8:4-6.)
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 018 of 169
`
`
`
`(Ex-1001, Fig. 2A.)
`
`31.
`
`The ’287 patent explains that “authoring platform 110 permits a user to
`
`design desired displays for screen 137 and actions of device 130”—i.e., “authoring
`
`platform 110 is used to program the operation of device 130.” (Ex-1001, 4:16-19.)
`
`One aspect of the authoring system is that it allows “a user to assign actions to one
`
`or more of an input object, an output object, or an action object,” and the user can
`
`“bind one or more of [such objects] with web services or web components.” (Id.,
`
`6:44-53.) The ’287 patent explains that “[w]eb service 230 is a plurality of services
`
`obtainable over the Internet.” (Id., 8:26-27.)
`
`16
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 019 of 169
`
`
`
`32.
`
`The ’287 patent explains that “[a] user of authoring platform 110 of
`
`system 200 may define associations with web services as WebComponent
`
`Bindings,” such as “associat[ing] certain objects for display that provide input or
`
`output to components of web service 230.” (Id., 8:56-60.) The ’287 patent discloses
`
`the use of “web component registry 220,” which “may contain consumer inputs
`
`related to each web service 230, environmental data such as PIM, time or location
`
`values, persistent variable data, outputs related to the web service, and/or optional
`
`hinting for improving the user’s productivity,” “so that a user of the authoring
`
`platform may bind web services 230 to elements to be displayed on device 130. (Id.,
`
`8:32-33; 8:44-55.) In one embodiment of the ’287 patent, “the mechanism for
`
`binding the outputs of the web service to the UI components is through symbolic
`
`references that match each output to the symbolic name of the UI component.” (Id.,
`
`9:22-28.)
`
`33. At a high level, the ’287 patent relates to systems and methods that
`
`allow for designing cross-functional web pages, utilizing device-independent
`
`Applications that define the content and a set of device-specific Players that translate
`
`the Applications to run on various devices. The Applications contain user interface
`
`objects that may be bound to web services through “symbolic references” or
`
`“symbolic names.”
`
`17
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 020 of 169
`
`
`
`34.
`
`Exemplary claims 1 and 15 of the ’287 patent are representative of the
`
`independent claims of the ’287 patent. They are reproduced below.
`
`1. A system for generating code to provide content on
`a display of a device, said system comprising:
`computer memory storing a registry of:
`a) symbolic names required for evoking one or
`more web components each related to a set of
`inputs and outputs of a web service obtainable
`over a network, where the symbolic names are
`character strings that do not contain either a
`persistent address or pointer to an output value
`accessible to the web service, where each
`symbolic name has an associated data format
`class type corresponding to a subclass of User
`Interface (UI) objects that support the data
`format type of the symbolic name, and has a
`preferred UI object, and
`b) the address of the web service;
`an authoring tool configured to:
`define a (UI) object for presentation on the display,
`where said UI object corresponds to the web
`component included in said registry selected
`from the group consisting of an input of the
`web service and an output of the web service,
`where each defined UI object is either: 1)
`selected by a user of the authoring tool; or 2)
`automatically selected by the system as the
`preferred UI object corresponding to the
`symbolic name of the web component
`selected by the user of the authoring tool,
`access said computer memory to select the
`symbolic name corresponding to the web
`component of the defined UI object,
`associate the selected symbolic name with the
`defined UI object, where
`the selected
`symbolic name is only available to UI objects
`that support
`the defined data
`format
`associated with that symbolic name, and
`18
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 021 of 169
`
`
`
`produce an Application including the selected
`symbolic name of the defined UI object,
`where said Application
`is a device-
`independent code, and
`produce a Player, where said Player is a device-
`dependent
`code, wherein, when
`the
`Application and Player are provided to the
`device and executed on the device, and when
`the user of the device provides one or more
`input values associated with an
`input
`symbolic name to an input of defined UI
`object,
`1) the device provides the user provided one or
`more input values and corresponding input
`symbolic name to the web service,
`2) the web service utilizes the input symbolic
`name and the user provided one or more input
`values for generating one or more output
`values having an associated output symbolic
`name,
`3) said Player receives the output symbolic
`name and corresponding one or more output
`values and provides instructions for the
`display of the device to present an output
`value in the defined UI object.
`
`15. A method of displaying content on a display of a
`device having a Player, where said Player is a device-
`dependent code, said method comprising:
`defining a user interface (UI) object for presentation on
`the display, where said UI object corresponds to a
`web component included in a registry of one or
`more web components selected from a group
`consisting of an input of a web service and an output
`of the web service, where each web component
`includes a plurality of symbolic names of inputs and
`outputs associated with each web service, and
`where the registry includes: 1) symbolic names
`required for evoking one or more web components
`each related to a set of inputs and outputs of the web
`19
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 022 of 169
`
`
`
`service obtainable over a network, where the
`symbolic names are character strings that do not
`contain either a persistent address or pointer to an
`output value accessible to the web service, and b) an
`address of the web service, and where each defined
`UI object is either: 1) selected by a user of an
`authoring tool; or 2) automatically selected by a
`system as a preferred UI object corresponding to a
`symbolic name of the web component selected by
`the user of the authoring tool;
`selecting the symbolic name from said web
`component corresponding to the defined UI
`object, where the selected symbolic name has an
`associated data format class type corresponding
`to a subclass of UI objects that support the data
`format type of the symbolic name, and has the
`preferred UI object;
`associating the selected symbolic name with the
`defined UI object; and
`producing an Application including the selected
`symbolic name of the defined UI object, where
`said Application is a device-dependent code,
`wherein, when the Application and Player are
`provided to the device and executed on the
`device, and when a user of the device provides
`one or more input values associated with an
`input symbolic name to an input of defined UI
`object,
`1) the device provides the user provided one or more
`input values and corresponding input symbolic
`name to the web service,
`2) the web service utilizes the input symbolic name
`and the user provided one or more input values
`for generating one or more output values having
`an associated output symbolic name,
`3) said Player receives the output symbolic name
`and corresponding one or more output values
`and provides instructions for the display of the
`device to present an output value in the defined
`UI object.
`
`20
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 023 of 169
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`35.
`
`I understand that claim terms are typically given their ordinary and
`
`customary meanings, as would have been understood by a POSITA at the time of
`
`the alleged invention. I have been asked to assume for purposes of this declaration
`
`that the time of the alleged invention is the filing date of the earliest provisional
`
`application to which the ’287 patent claims priority, which is April 7, 2008. I also
`
`understand that the meanings of claim terms are not determined in a vacuum but
`
`rather in the context of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that Express Mobile has stipulated to the following claim
`
`constructions, which district courts have adopted:
`
`Term
`“authoring tool” /
`
`Stipulated Construction
`“a system, with a graphical interface, for generating code
`
`“authoring tool
`
`to display content on a device screen” (Ex. 1011, 10.)
`
`configured to”
`
`“device-dependent
`
`“code
`
`that
`
`is specific
`
`to
`
`the operating system,
`
`code”
`
`programming language, or platform of a device” (Ex-
`
`1011, 10.)
`
`21
`
`Ex. 1002
`Page 024 of 169
`
`
`
`Term
`“device-independent
`
`Stipulated Construction
`“code that is not specific to the operating system,
`
`code”
`
`programming language, or platform of a device” (Ex-
`
`1011, 10.)
`
`“for evoking one or
`
`“for calling up one or more web components” (Ex-1011,
`
`more web components”
`
`10.)
`
`“preferred UI object”
`
`“a UI object associated with a data type that is favored
`
`over the other UI object candidates for that data type”
`
`(Ex-1013, 3; Ex-1015, 3.)
`
`37.
`
`I understand that district courts have provided claim constructions for
`
`the following terms:
`
`Term
`“registry”
`
`Courts’ Construction
`“a database that is used for
`
`Exemplary Intrinsic
`Evidence
`Ex-1001, 1:34-42, 1:51-
`
`computing
`
`functionality”
`
`58, 7:8-10, 8:4-8, 8:26-30,
`
`(Ex-10
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
