Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 1 of 154 PageID #: 3189
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 7A
`Has been filed with, and relates only to,
`the Opening Claim Construction brief
`regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,496, 854
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 2 of 154 PageID #: 3190
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 7B
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 3 of 154 PageID #: 3191(228 of 540)
`
`
`
`2015-2069, -2070, -2071
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`
`Cross-Appellants.
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2014-00206 and IPR2014-00207
`
`BRIEF FOR APPELLANT ARENDI S.A.R.L.
`
`BRUCE D. SUNSTEIN
`ROBERT M. ASHER
`SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
`125 Summer Street
`Boston, MA 02110-1618
`(617) 443-9292
`rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`bsunstein@sunsteinlaw.com
`Counsel for Appellant
`Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`NOVEMBER 24, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNSEL PRESS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (888) 277-3259
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 4 of 154 PageID #: 3192(229 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`No. 2015-2069, -2070, -2071
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`None
`
`Counsel for the Appellant, Arendi S.A.R.L., certifies the following (use “None” if
`applicable; use extra sheets if necessary):
`
`1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`
`
`
`2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the
`real party in interest) represented by me is:
`
`
`
`3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or
`more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
`
`
`
`4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the
`party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected
`to appear in this court are:
`
`
`
`Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP,
`Bruce D. Sunstein, Robert M. Asher, D. Chiang
`
`
`
`
`November 24, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ BRUCE D. SUNSTEIN
`Counsel for Appellant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 5 of 154 PageID #: 3193(230 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ............................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... v
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES UNDER FED. CIR. R. 47.5 ................... vii
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ........................................................................ 1
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................ 2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............................................................................. 3
`
`A. The technology claimed in the subject patent .......................................... 3
`
`B. The Petitions for Inter Partes Review and the Decisions to Institute .... 14
`
`C. The Final Decisions of the Inter Partes Reviews .................................. 15
`
`D. The Domini prior art reference ............................................................... 19
`
`E. The Hachamovitch prior art reference .................................................... 23
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................................... 26
`
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 27
`
`I. By interpreting an “application program” as an “independently
`executable” program that includes “dependent subsidiary programs”,
`the Board adopted a construction that is both internally inconsistent
`and inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence of record .................................. 27
`
`A. Standard of Review ................................................................................ 27
`
`B. The Board erred by adopting a construction that is inconsistent
`with the specification, in violation of Proxyconn .................................. 28
`
`C. The Board erred by construing “application program” in an
`internally inconsistent manner ................................................................ 38
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 6 of 154 PageID #: 3194(231 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`II. The Board erred by construing the “application program” to be an
`independently executable program and then inconsistently finding that
`Domini’s spell checker program and Hachamovitch’s word completion
`utility anticipate the claimed “application program” .................................... 41
`
`A. By construing “application program” to be an independently
`executable program, the Board adopted requirements that the prior
`art reference must meet to anticipate the limitation of the claim ........... 41
`
`B. The Board erred in failing to determine whether Domini discloses
`an “independently executable program” in accordance with the
`Board’s claim construction of “application program,” and because
`the spell checker module in Domini functions at the behest of the
`word processing application, the Board erred in finding that
`Domini discloses an “application program” ........................................... 42
`
`C. The Board erred in failing to determine whether Hachamovitch
`discloses an “independently executable program” in accordance
`with the Board’s claim construction of “application program,” and
`because the word completion utility of Hachamovitch functions at
`the behest of another application program, the Board erred in
`finding that Hachamovitch discloses an “application program” ............ 46
`
`III. The Board erred by ignoring the intrinsic evidence of the claims
`themselves and interpreting the claim term “associated” not to require a
`pre-existing relationship ................................................................................. 49
`
`A. Contrary to the requirements of Permahedge and Phillips, the
`Board failed to construe “associated” to account for the manner in
`which the term was recited throughout the claims ................................. 49
`
`B.
`
`In failing to account for the claim 1 as a whole, the Board failed to
`recognize that the past tense of “associated” requires a relationship
`to have been determined prior to the “entering a first information”
`step, and thus requires a pre-existing relationship between first and
`second information from the second application program ..................... 54
`
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 58
`
`ADDENDUM
`
`Final Written Decision for IPR2014-00206 ................................................. A-1
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 7 of 154 PageID #: 3195(232 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Final Written Decision for IPR2014-00207 ............................................... A-70
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,496,854 B2 .................................................................. A-149
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION,
`TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 6 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 8 of 154 PageID #: 3196(233 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State University,
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 28
`
`Page(s)
`
`Am. Permahedge, Inc. v. Barcana, Inc.,
` 105 F.3d 1441 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................. 49, 50, 51
`
`Autogiro Co. of America v. United States,
`384 F.2d 391 (Ct. Claims 1967) ........................................................................... 29
`
`Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp.,
`55 F.3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 55
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................. 28
`
`In re Cortright,
`165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 29
`
`In re Elsner,
`381 F.3d 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 28
`
`In re Giannelli,
`739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 28
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 29
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 29
`
`In Re Van Geuns,
`988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ..................................................................... 18, 30
`
`Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................... 50, 54
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................... 30, 37, 38
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 7 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 9 of 154 PageID #: 3197(234 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ................................................................................ 41, 43, 47
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 28, 29
`
`Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ....................................................................... 8, 35
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................... 8, 28, 30, 35, 36, 37, 38, 49, 51, 55
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..................................................................... 50, 55
`
`SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................... 36
`
`Snow v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co.,
`121 U.S. 617, 7 S. Ct. 1343, 30 L. Ed. 1004 (1887) ............................................ 36
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`574 U.S. ––, 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) ...................................................................... 28
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................. 29, 50, 54
`
`Statutes, Rules and Regulations
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ......................................................................................................... 54
`
`35 U.S.C. §141(a) ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §142 ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. §90.3(a) ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. Cir. R. 15 ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`Fed. Cir. R. 52 ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 8 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 10 of 154 PageID #: 3198(235 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES UNDER FED. CIR. R. 47.5
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,496,854 (the “’854 patent”) and related patents are
`
`currently at issue in the following cases pending in the United States District Court
`
`for the District of Delaware.
`
`
`
`Case Name
`
`Case No.
`
`1:2013cv00919
`1:2013cv00920
`1:2012cv01600
`
`1 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google Inc.
`2 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Yahoo! Inc.
`3 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. HTC Corp., et al.
`4 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Sony Mobile
`1:2012cv01602
`Communications (USA) Inc.
`5 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Nokia Corporation, et al. 1:2012cv01599
`6 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Blackberry Limited, et al. 1:2012cv01597
`7 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al. 1:2012cv01595
`8 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Motorola Mobility LLC
`1:2012cv01601
`9 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
`Ltd., et al.
`10 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.
`
`
`1:2012cv01598
`1:2012cv01596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 9 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 11 of 154 PageID #: 3199(236 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`Notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) have been filed and docketed for the following inter
`
`partes review decisions involving patents with subject matter related to the ’854
`
`patent:
`
`
`
`Case Name
`
`1 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. et al.
`
`2 Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. et al.
`
`
`Federal Circuit Docket No./
`
`IPR Docket No.
`
`15-2073
`IPR 2014-00208
`Not yet assigned
`IPR 2014-00452
`
`Appeals are pending in the Federal Circuit for the following ex parte
`
`decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) involving
`
`applications that have subject matter in common with the present patent:
`
`
`
`Application Serial No. Board Docket No.
`
`Federal Circuit Docket No.
`
`1 12/987,939
`
`2 13/449,086
`
`2012-008147
`
`2015-001447
`
`15-1893
`
`16-1093
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 10 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 12 of 154 PageID #: 3200(237 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`This court has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §141(a), granting the right to
`
`appeal a final decision of the Board to the Federal Circuit. The present appeal is
`
`timely under 35 U.S.C. §142, 37 C.F.R. §90.3(a), and Fed. Cir. R. 15 and 52, since
`
`the Notice of Appeal was filed with the Director of the United States Patent &
`
`Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the Federal Circuit on August 10, 2015, which is
`
`within 63 days after the date of the final Board decision on June 9, 2015.
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`By interpreting an “application program” as an “independently executable”
`
`program that includes “dependent subsidiary programs”, did the Board err
`
`by adopting a construction that is both internally inconsistent and
`
`inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence of record?
`
`2.
`
`Did the Board err by construing the “application program” to be an
`
`independently executable program and then inconsistently finding that
`
`Domini’s spell checker program and Hachamovitch’s word completion
`
`utility anticipate the “application program” limitation?
`
`3.
`
`Did the Board err by construing the term “associated” not to require a pre-
`
`existing relationship?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 11 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 13 of 154 PageID #: 3201(238 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`On December 2, 2013, Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`(collectively “Apple”) filed two petitions for inter partes review against the ’854
`
`patent. The petition docketed as IPR 2014-00206 challenged claims 19-35, 57-85,
`
`96, and 99 and the petition docketed as IPR 2014-00207 challenged claims 1-18,
`
`36-56, 86-95, 97, 98, 100, and 101. On March 12, 2014, Arendi filed preliminary
`
`responses to the petitions, and on June 11, 2014, the Board instituted the inter
`
`partes reviews based on subsets of the grounds in Apple’s petitions.
`
`On June 9, 2015, the Board rendered a Decision in IPR 2014-00206 finding
`
`that claims 19, 20, 22–26, 28–30, 57, 58, 60–74, 76–78, 85, and 96 were
`
`anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,085,206 to Domini (“Domini”). On the same day,
`
`the Board rendered a Decision in IPR 2014-00207 finding that claims 1-12 and 36-
`
`49 were unpatentable. In particular, the Board found claims 1, 2, 6–8, 12, 36, 37,
`
`42–44, and 49 anticipated by Domini, claims 1–12 and 36–49 anticipated by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,377,965 to Hachamovitch (“Hachamovitch”), and claims 3–5, 9–11,
`
`38–41, and 45–48 obvious over Hachamovitch.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 12 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 14 of 154 PageID #: 3202(239 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
`A. The technology claimed in the subject patent
`The technology of the ’854 patent overcomes problems posed by the
`
`inability of two independently executable programs, such as word processing
`
`programs and information management programs, to interact with one another. At
`
`the time the ’854 patent was filed, the lack of interaction between application
`
`programs complicated tasks that users wanted to perform, such as obtaining the
`
`address of an individual from a contact database and inserting it into a document.
`
`The Background section of the ’854 patent explains that because “[t]ypically, the
`
`information is retrieved by the user from an information management source
`
`external to the word processor, …[t]his requires the user to learn how to use and
`
`have access to the database.” See ’854 patent, col. 1, lines 45-46, A-167.
`
`For example, to insert an individual’s address into a document, the limited
`
`capabilities of the prior art would require a user to (1) leave the window of the
`
`word processor displaying the document, (2) open the contact database, (3) search
`
`the contact database for the individual, (4) retrieve the additional contact
`
`information about the individual, (5) return to the word processor window
`
`displaying the document, and (6) insert the contact information into the document.
`
`Thus, for this task as well as others, users would have to perform unwieldly
`
`sequences of actions to accommodate the constraints of application programs.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 13 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 15 of 154 PageID #: 3203(240 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`By enabling independently executable programs to interact, as well as
`
`automating parts of this interaction, the technology of the ’854 patent provides
`
`users with the benefit of remaining within a first independently executable program
`
`(like Microsoft WORD™) and accessing the functionality of a second
`
`independently executable program (like Microsoft OUTLOOK™), without having
`
`to open the second independently executable program. In fact, the user may access
`
`the functionality of the second program with a single execute command within the
`
`first program. As described in the following passage from the ’854 patent:
`
`The above and other objects are achieved according to the present
`invention by providing a novel method, system and computer readable
`medium for providing a function item, such as a key, button, icon, or
`menu, tied to a user operation in a computer, whereby a single click
`on the function item in a window or program on a computer screen, or
`one single selection in a menu in a program, initiates retrieval of name
`and addresses and/or other person or company related information,
`while the user works simultaneously in another program, e.g., a word
`processor.
`
`See ’854 patent, col. 2, lines 14-23, A-167 (emphasis added). In contrast to the
`
`multiple steps that were previously required, Arendi’s technology provides a
`
`significant simplification over the prior art.
`
`As Arendi explained to the Board in its Response, in describing the problem
`
`being solved, the specification the ’854 patent characterizes the nature of the
`
`programs in question. IPR 2014-00206 Response, 10-14, A-615 to A-619; IPR
`
`2014-00207 Response, 11-15, A-943 to A-947. The Background section of the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 14 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 16 of 154 PageID #: 3204(241 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`’854 patent frames the problem as automating the interaction between a “word
`
`processor” and a separate “information management” program, broad categories
`
`that are also explained in the same passage:
`
`In recent years, with the advent of programs, such as word data from
`the database, data related to the typed data, e.g., the processors,
`spreadsheets, etc. (hereinafter called “word processors”) users may
`require retrieval of information, such as name and address
`information, etc., for insertion into a document, such a letter, fax, etc.,
`created with the word processor. Typically, the information is
`retrieved by the user from an information management source external
`to the word processor, such as a database program, contact
`management program, etc., or from the word processor itself, for
`insertion into the document. Examples of such word processors are
`WORD™, NOTEPAD™, EXCEL™, WORDPAD™,
`WORDPERFECTTM, QUATROPRO™, AMIPRO™, etc., and
`examples of such information management sources are ACCESS™,
`OUTLOOK™, ORACLE™, DBASE™, RBASE™, CARDFILE™,
`etc.
`
`See ’854 patent, col. 1, lines 29-43, A-167. It can be seen from the above passage
`
`that the ’854 patent puts the prior art programs into two broad camps, “word
`
`processors”, a term including spreadsheet programs along with traditional word
`
`processor programs, exemplified by WORD™, NOTEPAD™, EXCEL™,
`
`WORDPAD™, WORDPERFECT™, QUATROPRO™, AMIPRO™, and
`
`“information management” programs, exemplified by ACCESS™, OUTLOOK™,
`
`ORACLE™, DBASE™, RBASE™, CARDFILE™. See also, to similar effect, the
`
`Abstract of the ’854 patent, A-149.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 15 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 17 of 154 PageID #: 3205(242 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`These broad word processor and database program categories are not only
`
`identified in the Background of the ’854 patent, they are also defined in its
`
`Detailed Description:
`
`Although the present invention is defined in terms of word processing
`documents, such as WORD™ documents and EXCEL™
`spreadsheets, the present invention is applicable to all types of word
`processing documents such as NOTEPAD™, WORDPAD™,
`WORDPERFECT™, QUATROPRO™, AMIPRO™.
`
`’854 patent, col. 9, line 64-col. 10, line 3, A-171.
`
`Although the present invention is defined in terms of information
`management or is [sic] database programs, such as OUTLOOK™,
`etc., the present invention is applicable to all types of information
`management or database programs such as ACCESS™, ORACLE™,
`DBASE™, RBASE™, CARDFILE™, including “flat files,” etc., as
`will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art.
`’854 patent, col. 10, lines 4-10, A-171.
`
`It is apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that these categories of
`
`programs defined by the specification of the ’854 patent, the “word processor” and
`
`the “database program”, and each of the programs listed in these categories, share
`
`the common feature of being “independently executable”. Levy Decl., paragraph
`
`43, A-675. Known characteristics of the programs indicate that they execute
`
`without having to be called by another program. For example, each of these
`
`programs can be invoked by double-clicking on an application program icon to
`
`initiate its execution in a separate process. Id. Each of these programs displays a
`
`separate and distinct window for managing user interaction. Id. Furthermore, each
`
`program runs asynchronously without being under the control of a separate
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 16 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 18 of 154 PageID #: 3206(243 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`application program. Id. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize that the programs’ ability to be independently executable binds the
`
`programs together to be classified as “application programs”. Id.
`
`All of the programs listed in the ’854 patent are independently executable
`
`for good reason. As explained above, the claimed technology of the ’854 patent
`
`provides, within a first independently executable program (like Microsoft
`
`WORD™), a method of accessing the functionality of a second independently
`
`executable program (like Microsoft OUTLOOK™) without having to open the
`
`second independently executable program. Thus, the claimed technology replaces
`
`the six manual steps enumerated above for inserting an individual’s address into a
`
`document with “a single click on the function item”.
`
`It is precisely because the word processing program and database are
`
`independently executable that a problem exists in accessing one of these programs
`
`within the confines of the other program. This problem is recognized and solved by
`
`’854 patent. If it were possible to access the database from within the word
`
`processor – that is, if the database program were not independently executable –
`
`there would be no need for the solution introduced by the ’854 patent. That
`
`solution, as discussed above, enables accessing and using information stored in the
`
`database while remaining in a document open in the word processor. This ease of
`
`access provides a significant simplification over the prior art.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 17 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 19 of 154 PageID #: 3207(244 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`The ’854 patent therefore lays out both (1) the problem posed by interaction
`
`between a first independently executable program, the word processor, and a
`
`second independently executable program, the database program, and (2) the
`
`solution to that problem achieved by automating the interaction so that it can be
`
`managed from within the word processor. This context in the’854 patent
`
`illuminates the meaning of its claims. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005), citing Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306,
`
`1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he best indicator of claim meaning is its usage in
`
`context as understood by one of skill in the art at the time of invention.”).
`
`Moreover, the specification of the’854 patent provides seven detailed
`
`examples to demonstrate how embodiments of the claimed invention automate the
`
`interaction between the two independently executable application programs, the
`
`word processor and the database applications. Six of these examples recite
`
`Microsoft WORD™ for the word processing application while the remaining
`
`example recites Microsoft EXCEL™, and all of the examples recite Microsoft
`
`OUTLOOK™ for the information management program. IPR 2014-00206,
`
`Response, 12, A-617.
`
`
`
`Figs. 3-5 depict the user interfaces for some of these examples, particularly
`
`the embodiments that begin with a word processing program, such as Microsoft
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 18 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 20 of 154 PageID #: 3208(245 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`WORD™.1 For example, when a user is viewing a document in Microsoft
`
`WORD™ that includes a name, a user can enter an execute command to cause a
`
`computer program to access a contact database to retrieve an address
`
`corresponding to the name. See ’854 patent, col. 5, line 63-col. 6, line 5, A-169.
`
`To begin, Fig. 3 illustrates a document displaying a name:
`
`
`
`
`1 See ’854 patent, Figs. 3-5, col. 2, lines 51-61, A-155 to A-157, and A-167. In
`particular, Examples 1, 3, and 5 refer to Fig. 3 to illustrate the application from
`which the embodiments begin, whereas Examples 4 and 6 refer to Fig. 4 and
`Example 2 refers to Fig. 5. See ’854 patent, col. 5, lines 63-65; col. 6, lines 11-13
`and 45-47; col. 6, line 66-col. 7, line 1; col. 7, lines 30-32; col. 8, lines 14-16, A-
`169 and A-170. Similarly, Fig. 14 depicts the user interface for an embodiment that
`begins with a spreadsheet program, such as Microsoft EXCEL™. See ’854 patent,
`Fig. 14, col. 3, lines 20-23, A-164 and A-168. Example 7 refers to Fig. 14 to
`illustrate the application from which the embodiments begin. See ’854 patent, col.
`8, lines 57-59, A-170.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 19 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 21 of 154 PageID #: 3209(246 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`When a user selects button 42, labeled “OneButton,” a computer program
`
`recognizes that the document includes a name, searches for that name in a contact
`
`database, and finds an associated address. Id. Then, the computer program inserts
`
`the retrieved address into the document after the name. Id. After the computer
`
`program completes these tasks, the document appears as depicted in Fig. 4:
`
`
`In contrast to the prior art, as discussed above, the claimed technology
`
`allows the user to continue looking at the document in the word processing
`
`program while accessing information from the contact database. To obtain the
`
`same output using the prior art, a user would have to leave the word processor
`
`window, open the contact database, search the contact database for the individual,
`
`retrieve the additional contact information about the individual, return to the word
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 20 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 22 of 154 PageID #: 3210(247 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`processor window displaying the document, and insert the contact information into
`
`the document. Because the prior art processes require a plurality of actions by the
`
`user, in contrast to the single execute command required by Arendi’s technology,
`
`the technology is a significant simplification over the prior art.
`
`In the example just described, once the computer program finds a name in
`
`the document, the computer program then uses the name to cause a search in the
`
`contact database for an address. See ’854 patent, col. 5, line 63-col. 6, line 5, A-
`
`169. However, the computer program takes different actions depending on the
`
`type of contact information found.
`
`These different paths are shown in logical flow diagrams in Figs. 1 and 2 of
`
`the ’854 patent. See ’854 patent, Figs. 1 and 2, A-153 and A-154. Fig. 1,
`
`reproduced below, shows various paths taken by the computer program in
`
`interacting with the two independently executable programs, depending on context:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25 Page: 21 Filed: 11/24/2015Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 23 of 154 PageID #: 3211(248 of 540)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`At step 2 in both figures, a user hits a button in a word processor. Id. As depicted
`
`in Fig. 1, in step 6, the computer program inquires about the type of data that the
`
`user typed, and depending on this type, the program proceeds to step 10, 12, or 14.
`
`See ’854 patent, Fig. 1, A-153. As just discussed, in one scenario, if the computer
`
`program finds a name in the document, the computer program uses the name to
`
`cause a search in the contact database for an address (i.e., step 12 of Fig. 1). If the
`
`computer program finds just one address, the program will insert the address (i.e.,
`
`step 22 of Fig. 1). In another scenario, the document may include a name and an
`
`address. In that situation, when a user selects the OneButton 42, the computer
`
`program recognizes that the document includes a name and an address (not just a
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 15-2069 Document: 25