IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Career Destination Development, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case CBM: Unassigned
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MARTIN G. WALKER CONCERNING
`
`INVALIDITY OF US. PATENT NO. 8,374,901
`
`Monster Worldwide, .Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.1_/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.1/105)
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Career Destination Development, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case CBM: Unassigned
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MARTIN G. WALKER CONCERNING
`
`INVALIDITY OF US. PATENT NO. 8,374,901
`
`Monster Worldwide, .Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.1_/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.1/105)
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MARTIN G. WALKER
`
`I, MARTIN G. WALKER, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am a United States Citizen, and the following is based on my
`
`personal knowledge, education, and experience. If called upon to testify, I am
`
`prepared to testify as to the matters set forth herein.
`
`1 2.
`
`.
`
`I have been retained by Dechert LLP on behalfofPetitioner Monster
`
`Worldwide Inc. (“Monster”), in connection with the petition for Covered Business
`
`Method Review of US. Patent No. 8,374,901 (“‘901 Patent”). Ex. 1001. I am
`
`informed that Career Destination Development LLC has asserted the ‘901 Patent
`
`against Monster. See Ex. 1002. Although I am being compensated at my rate of
`
`$450 per hour for time spent on this matter, my compensation does not depend on
`
`the outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
`
`3.
`
`I received a BS. in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology (“MIT”) in 1973, an MS. in electrical engineering from
`
`Stanford University in 1976, and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford in
`
`1979. A true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae (“CV”) is attached below as
`
`Appendix 1. My CV provides a summary ofmy experience in the fields of
`
`Internet websites and applications.
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.2/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.2/105)
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I have experience in the fields of database schema, mail-list
`
`processing software, and stock brokerage software. For example, in 2000-2001, I
`
`served as Chief Technology Officer (“CTO”) of Knowledge Networks, a company
`
`which leveraged Internet technology to enhance market research. While at
`
`Knowledge Networks, I gained experience managing high-availability web-based
`
`systems for fielding interviews as well as internal systems used to analyze data and
`
`produce real time reports.
`
`5.
`
`While CTO at Knowledge Networks, I was responsible for the
`
`development and deployment of a web—based product designed to conduct
`
`interviews of a panel of consumers for the purpose of determining consumer
`
`preferences, including for instance, preferences for candidates in general elections,
`
`brand awareness, and incidence of disease symptoms.
`
`6.
`
`The system was entirely web based. It included an email server, web
`
`server, dedicated application servers, and a database server. Consumer
`
`characteristics were maintained in the database. These characteristics were
`
`searchable based on a multitude of requirements. Searching against minimum
`
`requirements was routinely performed to determine which panelists to interview
`
`for particular topics. All interaction with the panelists was conducted in an
`
`automated fashion through the web-based application servers and web servers.
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.3/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.3/105)
`
`
`
`Interview responses were logged in the online database. Requests for interviews
`
`were sent to panelists using the integrated email server.
`
`7.
`
`The system developed and deployed by Knowledge NetWorks in the
`
`2000-2001 time period had functions and features very similar to those described
`
`and claimed in the ‘901 Patent. Therefore, during the 2000-2001 time period, I
`
`gained first—hand experience in design, deployment, and operation of systems of
`
`the type described in the ‘901 Patent.
`
`8.
`
`In addition, I personally used various employment websites during the
`
`2000-2001 time period to hire software developers while I was CTO of Knowledge
`
`Networks. Therefore, I was at least familiar with the functions and features used
`
`by employment websites in the 2000-2001 time period.
`
`IL.
`
`' MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`9.
`In forming the opinions set forth below, I have considered the
`_ following materials:
`V
`
`0 Monster Worldwide Inc. v Career Destination Development LLC,
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review of US.
`
`Patent No. 8,374,901 Under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the
`
`Leahy—Smith America Invents Act (hereinafter “Petition”);
`
`0 US. Patent No. 8,374,901 (the “‘901 Patent” or Ex. 1001);
`
`Monster Worldwide, .Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.4/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.4/105)
`
`
`
`0 Dictionary of Occupational Titles (U.S. Dep’t of Labor 4th ed.
`
`1991), Introduction and Section 186.117—078 (Ex. 1008);
`
`0 Complete file history of US. Patent No. 8,374,901 (EX. 1025),
`
`including the following documents contained therein:
`
`0 Amendment filed June 28, 2012 (Ex. 1010);
`
`0 Notice of Allowance dated August 25, 2012 (Ex. 1011);
`
`0 Original Specification, July 29, 2010 (Ex. 1012);
`
`0 Preliminary Amendment dated July 29, 2010 (Ex. 1013);
`
`0 Reply to Office Action dated March 1, 2012 (Ex. 1014);
`
`0 Amendment After Notice of Allowance, dated December 6,
`
`2012 (Ex. 1015);
`
`o The “Cooper” prior art reference, PCT Patent Pub. No. W0
`
`99/ 17242 by Cooper et al, published April 8, 1999, (“Cooper”)
`
`(EX. 1 01 6);
`
`o The “Coueignoux” prior art reference, PCT Patent Pub. No. WO
`
`99/01834 by Coueignoux, published Jan. 14, 1999,
`
`(“Coueignoux”) (EX. 1017);
`
`o The “Pineda” prior art reference, PCT Patent Pub. No. WO
`
`01/82185 by Pineda, et 611., published Nov. 1, 2001, (“Pineda”)
`
`(Ex. 1018);
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.5/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.5/105)
`
`
`
`o The “Litvak” prior art reference, PCT Patent Pub. No. WO
`
`00/58866 by Litvak, et (11., published Oct. 5, 2000, (“Litvak”) (Ex.
`
`1019);
`
`0 The “Thomas” prior art reference, PCT Patent Pub. No. WO
`
`00/28438 by Thomas, et 611., published May 18, 2000, ( “Thomas”)
`
`(Ex. 1020);
`
`o The “Long” prior art reference, PCT Patent Pub. No. WO
`
`01/61611 by Long, et al. , published Aug. 23, 2001, (“Long”) (EX.
`
`1021); and
`
`0 North American Industry Classification System (1997) (EX. 1026).
`
`III.
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`
`10.
`
`I understand that Petitioner challenges the validity of all claims (z'.e. ,
`
`claims 1-33) of the ‘901 Patent. The table below summarizes the issues presented.
`
`--—_
`
`1-2, 8, 12, 18’ 20, 23, 25, 29
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`my, 12, 17-20, 234128-29 .
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.6/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.6/105)
`
`
`
`3—4, 10—1 1, 15-16, 21-22, 26-27,
`
`
`
` 30-33
`
`
`I § 103
`Cooper, Pineda
`5-6, 13-14, and 26-27
`’
`
` 1-2, 7-9, 12, 17-20, 23-25, 28-29
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 103
`
`
`' Cooper, Thomas
`
`
`§ 103
`
`Cooper, Long
`
`5-7, 13-14, 17, 24
`
`8
`
`Cooper, Coueignoux
`
`
`
`Cooper, Coueignoux,
`
`5—7, 13—14, 17, 24
`
`1 1
`
`§ 103
`
`5-6, 13-14, and 26-27
`
`Pineda
`
`12
`
`§ 103
`
`Cooper, Litvak
`
`1-2, 7-9, 12, 17-20, 23-25, 28—29
`
`3
`
`§ 103
`
` 3—4, 10-11, 15-16, 21-22, 26-27,
`Cooper, Coueignoux,
`
` Thomas
`30—33
`
`
`
`
`
` Long
`
`
`
`
`
` Cooper, Coueignoux,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3-4, 10—1 1, 15-16, 21-22, 26-27,
`
`Cooper, Litvak, Thomas
`
`
`
`30-33
`
`
`
`§ 103
`
`Cooper, Litvak, Long
`
`5-7, 13-14, 17, 24
`
`§ 103
`
`Cooper, Litvak Pineda
`
`5-6, 13-14, and 26-27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.7/105)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.7/105)
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`INVALIDITY ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
`
`11.
`
`I have been asked to analyze the validity of all claims (i.e., claims 1-
`
`33) of the ‘90] Patent in light the prior art materials listed above and the legal
`
`standards that have been described to me.
`
`A.
`
`‘901 Patent Priority Date
`
`12.
`
`The earliest filing date indicated on the face of the ‘901 Patent is
`
`March 19, 2002, which is a filing date of a parent US. Patent Application No.
`
`10/ 101,644. I reserve the right to supplement my opinions if it is later established
`
`that any claims of the‘901 Patent are entitled to an earlier priority date.
`
`B.
`
`The ‘901 Patent Relates to the Art of Designing and Developing
`Employment Websites
`
`13.
`
`The ‘901 Patent describes the “Field of the Invention” as relating to
`
`“network connected informatiOn systems” used for “optimizing individuals’
`
`employment searches and career opportunities, and optimizing employers’
`
`recruiting and hiring processes and decisions.” See EX. 1001 at 1:15-20. In other
`
`words, the ‘901 Patent relates to employment websites (also referred to as “on-line
`
`jobsites” or “job—placement websites”). Ex. 1001, 4:41-55 (discussing prior art
`
`“on-line job sites” including “Hotjobs.com” and “Monster.com”), 9:1-17236
`
`(describing a “Career Site”). An employment website is an Internet website that
`
`may be accessed by jobseekers (or “candidates”) and also. by one or more
`
`employers (or “recruiters” or “hiring managers”). See, e.g., EX. 1001, 4:41-44. By
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.8/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.8/105)
`
`
`
`the late 19903, many different employment websites like monster.com were being
`
`used to match employers with job seekers. See, e. g., EX. 1001, 4:14-65.
`
`14.
`
`The ‘901 Patent is one of many patents filed in the late 19905 and
`
`early 20003 that describe features of employment websites. See. e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`4:27-31 (stating that “the Monster.com site indicates that it is covered by US.
`
`Patent No. 5,832,497”); Ex. 1016, 2:21-31 (describing a “network based recruiting
`
`system”); EX. 1018, 1:22-24 (discussing a “job—placement website”); EX. 1019,
`
`4: 1-9 (describing an “on—line Internet match-making service
`
`used as an
`
`employment service”); Ex. 1020, 2: 14—20 (describing “online databases” that allow
`
`“job seekers” to search “job postings”); EX. 1021, 43-5 (discussing “web pages
`
`for matching a candidate and an employer”). These patents were filed during a
`
`time period when many different companies were racing to develop employment
`
`- websites to take advantage ofthe new electronic marketplace created by the
`
`proliferation of the Internet. Id. During this time period, employment websites
`
`began to compete directly with newspaper employment advertising sections. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:14-19 (describing online recruiting systems that were “basically
`
`improvements to the newspaper-based classified ad systems”). Not surprisingly,
`
`many (if not all) of the functions performed by employment websites are simply
`
`computer-automated versions of methodologies that had been performed by job
`
`seekers, recruiters, and human resources (“HR”) professionals for countless years
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.9/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.9/105)
`
`
`
`prior to the development of computers and the Internet. See, e. g., Ex. 1001, 3:10-
`
`4:15 (describing online recruiting systems that were “basically improvements to
`
`the newspaper—based classified ad systems”).
`
`15.
`
`The specification of the ‘901 Patent (the “Specification”) describes a
`
`“career site” in which information related to “talent-capability attributes is received
`
`from talent,” and “[j]ob description information is received fiom employers” and
`
`in which “matches are identified between employers and candidates.” EX.1001 at
`
`Abstract. As described in the ‘901 Patent, the “career site” merely performs
`
`computer automated versions of the same services that job recruiters and HR
`
`professionals had been providing for decades using pen and paper. Ex. 1001,~3:11-
`
`22 (“Known methods of recruiting include the process by which a manager will
`
`prepare a job description, and send the. description to a human resources (‘I-IR’)
`
`department, which may check its files of resumes”).
`
`16.
`
`The ‘901 Patent recites 33 claims. Of those, claims 1, 12, and 23, are
`
`independent claims. The independent claims each recite a method of searching “a
`
`plurality of candidate profiles” (claims 1 and 12) or “a plurality ofjob
`
`descriptions” (claim 23). Ex. 1001. At least in accordance with the preferred
`
`embodiment described in the Specification, all of these claimed methods are
`
`performed by a “career site.” 161., 921-1435, Fig, 1. Because all of the claims
`
`recite methods of searching for candidates or jobs that may be performed by a
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.10/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.10/105)
`
`
`
`“career site,” the relevant field of art to which the ‘901 Patent pertains is the design
`
`and development of employment websites. See EX. 1001, at 1:15-20.
`
`C.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`17.
`
`It has been explained to me that a fact-finder must evaluate issues
`
`concerning the validity of patent claims from the point of View of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention (the
`
`“Relevant Time Period”). In this case, the Relevant Time Period refers to the
`
`period preceding March 19, 2002, which is the earliest priority date of the ‘901
`
`Patent. As explained above in Section IV (B), the ‘901 Patent pertains to the art of
`
`designing and developing of employment websites. To determine the ordinary
`
`level of skill in this art during the Relevant Time Period, it has been explained to
`
`me that I Should consider the following factors: (1) the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those problems; (3) the rapidity
`
`with which innovations are made in the particular field of endeavor; (4) the
`
`sophistication ofthe technology; and (5) the educational level of active workers in
`
`the field.
`
`18.
`
`The types of problems encountered in the art generally relate to
`
`optimization of “employment searches” and “recruiting and hiring processes.” See
`EX. 1001' at 1:15-20. In other words, these problems generally relate to finding the
`
`right person for the right job, or vice versa. Ex. 1001, 1:24-26 (describing a need
`
`10
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.11/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.11/105)
`
`
`
`to find “qualified employees
`
`for specific jobs”); id. at 2:29—33 (describing a
`
`need for candidates to identify “employment opportunities that best match
`
`skills
`
`and objectives” specified by the candidate). More specific problems encountered
`
`in the art relate to:
`
`o determining optimal matches between candidates and employers (see, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1019, 524-22 describing different methods for “matching” candidates
`
`and employers including a “one-way match,” a “two way match,” a
`
`“complete match,” and a “partial match” using “identification attributes” and
`
`“request attributes” that may be designated “essential” or “non-essential”);
`
`0 how to arrange and present search results to employers and candidates in a
`
`way that allows them to determine which potential matches might be better
`
`than others (see, e.g., Ex. 1019, 10:21-26 explaining that when a
`
`“subscriber” is presented with “match ratings”, the subscriber can “quickly
`
`ascertain which .
`
`.
`
`. are better than others”);
`
`0 privacy considerations, such as maintaining anonymity of candidates who do
`
`not wish their present employer to know that they are seeking a new job
`
`(see, e.g., Ex. 1016, 7:14-17 explaining that candidate “profiles may be
`
`designated to be confidential”);
`
`o
`
`authorizing exchange of contact information between parties (Ex, 1016,
`
`11
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.12/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.12/105)
`
`
`
`9:11—14 describing ways to control “release of any and all private contact
`
`information”);
`
`o designing and developing graphical user interfaces that allow employers and
`
`candidates to describe their attributes and requirements in a more precise,
`
`more efficient manner, and more uniform manner (see, e. g., Ex, 1020,
`
`24:13—27, Figs. 3—4 and 14-15 describing and showing “templates” utilizing
`
`“text entry fields” and “menu selections” that may be used by candidates and
`
`employers to enter information relating to a “job description” or a “resume”;
`
`see also EX. 1016, 10:15-20, describing the need for employees and
`
`candidates to create profiles that are similar to each other so that the
`
`employees and candidates are “‘speaking’ the same language”; see also Ex.
`
`1001, 1:42-43 describing the problem that “employers’ articulation of the
`
`skills they seek to hire are imprecise”); and
`
`“ 0
`
`facilitating interviews between candidates and employers (see, e.g., Ex,
`
`1021, 16:1-7 describing the need for “facilitat[ing] interviews between and
`
`employers and candidates” by “arranging schedules” and providing
`
`“appropriate network connections”).
`
`19.
`
`Prior art solutions to the above problems include features of
`
`employment websites described in the prior art references discussed below. EX.
`
`1016-1021. All of these prior art references relate to the same field of technology
`12
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.13/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.13/105)
`
`
`
`as the ‘901 Patent, namely design and development of employment websites. See.
`
`EX. 1001, 4:13-5:57 (entitled “Career and Employment Services System and
`
`Apparatus”); see also prior art references EX. 1016 (entitled “On—Line Recruiting
`
`System With Improved Candidate and Position Profiling”), Ex. 1017, 42:25-28
`
`(describing a network system that determines a match “when the salary offered is
`
`greater than the minimum salary sought”), Ex. 1018 (entitled “Interactive
`
`Employment System and Method”), Ex. 1019, 4: 1-9 (describing an “on-line
`
`Internet match-making service
`
`used as an employment service” ), Ex. 1020,
`
`2: 14-16 (describing “use of databases
`
`found on the Internet, to post job
`
`opportunities”), EX. 1021 (entitled “System and Method for Matching a Candidate
`
`with an Employer”). Furthermore, during the Relevant Time Period, there existed
`
`numerous employment websites on the Internet. See, e.g., EX. 1001, 4:13-5:57
`
`(referring to “Monster.com” and “Hotj obs.com”). I personally used various
`
`employment websites during the Relevant Time Period to hire software developers
`
`while I was CTO of Knowledge Networks.
`
`20. During the Relevant Time Period, innovations were being made
`
`rapidly in the field of designing and developing employment websites. For
`
`example, numerous employment websites were present on the Internet, and most
`
`(if not all) of them used an Internet client/server model in which: (1) candidates
`
`could access the website Via web pages to post resumes and/or create profiles
`
`13
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.14/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.14/105)
`
`
`
`describing themselves and the type ofj obs they were seeking; and (2) employers
`
`could access the website via web pages to post job descriptions indicating
`
`requirements for successfill candidates. EX. 1001, 4:13-5:57 (“Monster.com
`
`collects resumes and allows posting of classified employment ads”); EX. 1016,
`
`6: 19-724 (describing a “recruiting system” that is accessible via “Web pages,” and
`
`that uses a “[m]atching module
`
`to compare profiles of candidates with profiles
`
`ofj ob openings), 16:5 (“profiles are preferably generated by an intuitive graphical
`
`interface”), Figs. 1, 8A, 8B; Ex. 1017, 7:8-12 & 42:25—28 (describing an
`
`employment website that “acquire[s] information about users,” and determines a
`
`“match” for an employee when “the salary offered is greater than the minimum
`
`salary sought), Figs. 1, 12A, 12; EX. 1018, 7:29—8:1 (describing an “interface, such
`as one or more pre—formatted web pages so that
`a candidate or an employer can
`
`interact with the server”), 3:25-6:15, 12:14-19, 13:9-15, Figs. 1—4; EX. 1019, 4:2-
`
`12:20 (describing an “on-line Internet matching making service” for employers and
`
`candidates who access the system via an “HTML page” that “contains a user
`
`interface for inputting subscriber data to database 100”), Figs. 1-3; EX. 1020, 8:11-
`
`9:6, 10:20-11:8, 20:21-24:27, Figs. 1, 3—6, 13-15; Ex. 1021, 3:30-5:30
`
`(“presentation of web pages for matching a candidate and an employer”), 8:6-
`
`15:11, Figs. 1A—1C.
`
`14
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.15/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.15/105)
`
`
`
`21.
`
`The sophistication level of the field of employment websites is
`
`moderate to low, requiring the comprehension of basic business methods, such as
`
`an employer’s hiring processes and employment needs, or a job candidate’s
`
`qualifications for employment. See Ex. 1001 3:10-22 (describing “methods of
`
`recruiting ”). Also required is comprehension of basic computer science,
`
`including rudimentary programming such as web site creation and graphical user
`
`interface components such as text fields, buttons, and drop down menus. Id. 8:54-
`
`62 (describing use of a “ColdFusion application server,” which was a common
`
`website development tool); 30:7-14 (describing a “drop down list of choices”).
`
`During the Relevant Time Period, it was well understood that graphical user
`
`interfaces (“GUIs”) could be developed in “point-and-click” software development
`
`environments like Microsoft Visual Basic or Adobe Dreamweaver, which were
`
`specifically designed for. users with little or no background in software
`
`development. Finally, a POSITA in the field of employment websites would need
`
`to understand the basics of using off-the-shelf database systems, including how to
`
`access and display information stored in the database on the web front-end, and
`
`how to allow users to submit new information to the database from the web front-
`
`end. EX. 1001, 10:33-36 (“talent
`
`searches the database for a desirable
`
`employment position”); EX.1016, 3:5-7 (“[a] database stores a plurality of the job
`
`profiles and receives the applicant description profile over the networ ”); Ex.
`
`15
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.16/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.16/105)
`
`
`
`1017, 36:30-37:2 (“the invention, can be implemented
`
`with an object database
`
`coupled to the interface computer”); Ex. 1018, 7: 1-3 (the system “maintains one or
`
`more databases, such as candidate profile database 36 and job profile database
`
`37”); Ex. 1019, 2:8-18 (“the subscriber database storing ...subscriber identification
`
`attributes and subscriber request attributes” and “an object database
`
`for at least
`
`one candidate object”); Ex. 1020, 5:11-14 (“inserting job information into
`
`the
`
`on—line database by the plurality of employers” ); Ex. 1021, 19:20—22(“systems
`
`sharing a common database”).
`
`22.
`
`Based on all of the considerations discussed above, as well as my
`
`experience in managing the development of web-based software applications, it is
`
`my opinion that a POSITA during the Relevant Time Period would have possessed
`
`a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science (or its equivalent), and 2 years
`
`experience working in the field of Internet website development. I would add that
`
`such a POSITA would also have had at least some general familiarity with
`
`standard methods used by recruiters and HR professionals to match candidates
`
`with job descriptions.
`
`23. Although my own level of skill in the art exceeds the ordinary level of
`
`skill in the art, all of my opinions about what the prior art teaches and what claim
`
`terms mean are from the perspective of a POSITA during the Relevant Time
`
`Period, and for that reason, I will not continually repeat that phraSe. The reader
`
`16
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.17/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.17/105)
`
`
`
`may presume that each statement of opinion could be followed with the statement,
`
`“this opinion is from or according to a POSITA during the Relevant Time Period.”
`
`V.
`
`COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT QUALIFICATION
`
`~ 24.
`
`The Specification discloses that the purported invention is carried out
`
`using “business logic” within a generic “server” hosting an employment website
`
`called a “career site” See EX. 1001 8:3 0-38 (“. . .the career site application
`
`comprises a web server” and “application information is structured based on
`
`business logic”).
`
`25.
`
`The “career site” described in the Specification is shown in Figure 1
`
`of the ‘901 Patent, which is reproduced below.
`
`E~MA1L
`
`SERVER
`fl
`
`120
`
`NETWORK
`
`wga
`SERVER
`3.5.9
`
`APPLlCATiON
`
`DATABASE
`SERVER
`n2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1
`
`26.
`
`Referring to Figure 1 (above), candidates and employers access the
`
`career site 140 Via the Internet 120 using client computers 110. Ex. 1001 7:64-
`
`17
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.18/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.18/105)
`
`
`
`8:53. As shown, the career site 140 includes: (1) e—mail and Web servers 142, 150
`
`for communicating with client computers 110 operated by candidates and
`
`employers; (2) a database server 170 for managing and interfacing with a database
`
`that stores information describing each of the candidates and employers; and (3) an
`
`application server 160. H. The “application server 160” performs, either alone or
`
`in conjunction with the aforementioned components, almost all ofthe functions
`
`described throughout the Specification and claims of the ‘901 Patent. The
`
`Specification states that “[a]pplication information is structured based on business
`
`logic contained in
`
`application server 160.” Ex. 1001 8:37-38. Based on this
`
`sentence, and also based on my ovvn understanding ofthe terms “application
`
`information” and “application server,” it is clear that a POSITA would have
`understood that almost all ofthe features and functions described throughout the
`
`Specification and claims of the ‘901 Patent may be implemented and performed by
`
`using “business logic.” This characterization ofthe “filnctions claimed and
`
`described throughout the ‘901 Patent as being performed by or relating to
`
`“business logic,” would not have been surprising to a POSITA during the Relevant
`
`Time Period because all of these functions and features are merely computer
`
`automated versions of standard business methods that had been used previously by
`
`jobseekers, recruiters, and HR professionals.
`
`18
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.19/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.19/105)
`
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`27. -
`
`V It has been explained to me that claim terms being reviewed during
`
`U.S. Patent Office proceedings for Covered Business Method Review are to be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patent specification. I
`
`understand that this standard of claim construction for such proceedings before the
`
`USPTO is different from standards for claim construction that would apply during
`
`litigation in a district court proceeding. Nevertheless, for purposes of this
`
`declaration only, I will construe all claim terms of the ‘901 Patent as having their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
`
`28.
`
`In addition to the Specification and claims, I have also reviewed the
`
`‘901 Patent file history. During prosecution of the ‘901 Patent, Applicant argued
`
`that the prior art does not teach a “threshold requirement” or attributes stored in a
`
`“structured format.” EX. 1010, pp. 19-22. The Examiner indicated these
`
`arguments “reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why claims 12-34 and 61-62 are
`
`allowable.” Ex. 1011, p. 3.
`
`A.
`
`Construction of “Attributes”
`
`29.
`
`Claims 1 and 23 require “attributes” associated with candidates. EX.
`
`1001, claim 1 (“candidate attributes”); claim 23 (“attributes of at least one
`
`candidate profile”). The Specification suggests that “candidate attributes” include
`
`“information” describing a candidate such as “skills
`
`and experience.” Id.,
`
`19
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.20/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.20/105)
`
`
`
`22:11-14, 13:11—46. In my opinion, a POSITA would construe “attribute” to mean
`
`to characteristic, and would likewise interpret the term “candidate attribute” to
`
`refer to a characteristic of a candidate.
`
`B.
`
`‘ Construction of “Threshold Requirements”
`
`30.
`
`The claim term “threshold requirements” appears in claims 1, 12, and
`
`23 of the ‘901 Patent. I do not believe that this is a term of art that would have had
`
`any particular meaning to a POSITA during the Relevant Time Period outside of _
`
`the context of the ‘901 Patent. The term “threshold” by itself is often used in
`
`computing to refer to a value or level above or below which a decision may be
`
`resolved in one way or another. For example, email client software might have a
`
`“threshold” size for attachments, meaning that if a user tries to attach a document
`
`exceeding that file size to. an outgoing email message, something specific will
`
`occur (like an error message). Claims 1 and 12 both recite a “method of searching
`candidate profiles having respective candidate
`threshold requirements.” Ex.
`
`1001, 52:14-16; 53:4—6. Also, claim 23 recites a “method of searching
`
`job
`
`descriptions having respective employer threshold requirements.” 161., 54:4-5.
`
`31.
`
`The term “threshold requirement” does not appear anywhere in the
`
`Specification. Id. The file history of the ‘901 Patent, however, does refer to
`
`“threshold requirements.” The original specification, submitted with the
`
`Applicantis patent application, stated that “[r]equirements are a special type of
`
`20
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.21/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.21/105)
`
`
`
`parameter, and are otherwise referred to as threshold requirements, because they
`
`will prohibit a match if a particular condition is not satisfied.” Ex. 1012, p. 40
`
`(emphasis added); compare EX. 1013, p. 40. Although this definition of “threshold
`
`requirements” was deleted fiom the Specification, it is consistent 'with use ofthe
`
`term “requiremen ” in the Specification as issued, which discusses “minimum
`
`compensation requirements” and “language requirements” that must be satisfied
`
`before a match can occur between an employer and a candidate. .Ex. 1001, 10:3 7-
`
`45; 20:53—22:42; 42:45-46; 44:21-29. If these employer requirements are not
`
`satisfied by a prospective candidates attributes, then no match is made. Id.
`
`32.
`
`Based on all of the above considerations, I believe that a POSITA
`
`would have understood the term “threshold requirement” to mean a parameter that
`
`will prohibit a match between a job description and a candidate profile if it is not
`
`satisfied.
`
`C.
`
`Construction of “Structured Format”
`
`33.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘901 Patent requires “storing candidate attributes
`
`received from a candidate in a structured format.” Ex. 1001, 52:19-21. The
`
`Specification uses the term “structured” in several places, including col. 17, lines
`
`50-60 stating:
`
`In one embodiment, information is intentionally structured to
`minimize variation between data entries. When allowing members of
`the public to provide information to a computer system, it is
`advantageous to maintain data in a consistent format. Accordingly,
`
`21
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.22/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.22/105)
`
`
`
`entries representing the same thing are written in exactly the same
`wa , i.e. “New York City” is always “New York City” and not
`occasionally “NYC.” This is because, when categorizing and cross—
`referencing employers and talent based on certain parameters, having
`an inconsistent data format will cause the employers and talent to be
`incorrectly categorized.
`
`EX. 1001, 17:50-60 (emphasis added).
`
`34. Another portion ofthe Specification states that “talent information is
`
`received and stored in a structured format,” which “includes informationm
`
`by talent from lists of information.” Id., 22:10-31 (emphasis added). Yet another
`
`portion of the Specification states that “a preexisting geographical database
`
`facilitates collection of structured data by providing the talent with an enumerated
`
`list of possible selections for each step.” 161., 30:35-40 (emphasis added).
`
`In a
`
`further embodiment, a “database facilitates collection of structured data by
`
`providing the employer with an enumerated list of possible selections.” Id., 40:3-7
`
`(emphasis added). In my own experience, the term “structured” or “structured
`
`fonna ” was understood by “those of ordinary skill during the Relevant Time Period
`to refer to data structured in any predetermined format. The example of
`
`“structured” information described in the Specification (i.e., “information selegtgd
`
`by talent from lists of information”) is at least consistent with this understanding.
`
`Therefore, I believe that a POSITA would have understood that “information
`
`selected
`
`from lists of information” is at least one example of “information
`
`received and stored in a structured format.” Based on the foregoing observations
`
`22
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.23/105)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.23/105)
`
`
`
`and analysis, it is my opinion that the claim language “attributes received fiom a
`
`candidate in a structured format,” as recited in claim 1 can at least include (z'.e.,
`
`broadly covers) attributes “selected from lists of information.” Id.
`
`D.
`
`Construction of “Sear
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
