UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`World Programming Limited
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. Unassigned
`Patent 7,170,519
`____________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,170,519
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`Summary of Unpatentability Grounds .................................................. 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES, STANDING, AND FEES .................................. 1 
`  Mandatory Notices ................................................................................ 1 
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ................................................... 2 
`Fees ........................................................................................................ 2 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’519 PATENT ............................................................ 2 
`Subject Matter of the ’519 Patent .......................................................... 2 
`The Priority Date of the Challenged Claims ......................................... 5 
`IV.  SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART ......................................................................... 5 
`  U.S. Patent No. 6,920,608: Chart View for Reusable Data
`Markup Language (“Davis”) ................................................................. 6 
`XML Bible by Elliotte Rusty Harold (“Harold”) .................................. 7 
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 9 
`  Means-Plus-Function Terms ................................................................. 9 
`1. 
`“data source generating means” ................................................ 10 
`2. 
`“graph generator module” ......................................................... 12 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 15 
`VI.  THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .............................................................. 15 
`  Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 14-18, 21, 27, 29-30, 34-36, 39, 42-46,
`47, 49, 51-53, and 56 are obvious over Davis and Harold in
`view of the Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art............... 15 
`
`V. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`i
`
`

`

`1. 
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Davis
`with Harold ............................................................................... 15 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 17 
`2. 
`Claims 2 and 3 ........................................................................... 34 
`3. 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 36 
`4. 
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 39 
`5. 
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 40 
`6. 
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 44 
`7. 
`Claim 17 .................................................................................... 45 
`8. 
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 47 
`9. 
`10.  Claim 21 .................................................................................... 49 
`11.  Claim 27 .................................................................................... 50 
`12.  Claim 29 .................................................................................... 53 
`13.  Claim 30 .................................................................................... 55 
`14.  Claim 34 .................................................................................... 56 
`15.  Claims 35-36, 42-46, and 49 ..................................................... 63 
`16.  Claim 39 .................................................................................... 65 
`17.  Claim 47 .................................................................................... 66 
`18.  Claim 51 .................................................................................... 66 
`19.  Claims 52 and 53....................................................................... 69 
`20.  Claim 56 .................................................................................... 72 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 72 
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,170,519 to Patel (“the ’519 Patent”)
`
`1002 CV of Dr. Stephen Gray
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Stephen Gray
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,170,519 to Patel
`
`1005 U.S Patent No. 6,920,608 to Davis (“Davis”)
`
`1006
`
`XML Bible by Elliotte Rusty Harold (“Harold”)
`
`1007 Reserved
`
`1008 Reserved
`
`1009 Reserved
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`SAS Institute Inc’s Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic
`Evidence Pursuant to P.R. 4-2
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners request inter partes review of Claims 1-4, 14-18, 21, 27, 29-30,
`
`34-36, 39, 42-46, 47, 49, 51-53, and 56 of U.S. Patent No. 7,170,519 (“the ’519
`
`Patent”).
`
`Petitioners assert that there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable and request review of, and cancellation of, the challenged
`
`claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`Summary of Unpatentability Grounds
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Summary
`Claims 1-4, 14-18, 21, 27, 29-30, 34-36, 39, 42-46, 47, 49, 51-53,
`and 56 are obvious in view of Davis and Harold
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES, STANDING, AND FEES
` Mandatory Notices
`Real Party in Interest: The real parties-in-interest are Petitioner World
`
`Programming Limited, Yum! Brands, Inc., Pizza Hut, Inc., Pizza Hut, LLC, and
`
`Angoss Software Corporation.
`
`Related Matters: The ’519 Patent is subject to a pending lawsuit entitled
`
`SAS Institute Inc., v. World Programming Limited, et. al., Case No. 2-18-cv-00295
`
`(E.D. Tex.) (the “Litigation”) in which Petitioner World Programming Limited is a
`
`defendant. In addition, on the same day this Petition was filed, Petitioner
`
`concurrently filed one other Petition relating to the ’519 Patent.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Lead Counsel: Lead Counsel is Christopher V. Ryan (Reg. No. 54,759) and
`
`Back-up Counsel is Brian Oaks (Reg. 44,981), each of Baker Botts L.L.P.
`
`Service Information: Baker Botts L.L.P., 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite
`
`1500, Austin, Texas 78701-4078; Tel. (512) 322-2500; Fax (512) 322-2501.
`
`Petitioners consent to service by electronic mail at WPL_IPR@bakerbotts.com. A
`
`Power of Attorney is filed concurrently herewith under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
` Certification of Grounds for Standing
`Petitioners certify that the ’519 Patent is available for IPR. Petitioners are
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the ’519 Patent.
`
`
`Fees
`The Office is authorized to charge any fees that become due in connection
`
`with this Petition to Deposit Account No. 02-0384.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’519 PATENT
`
`Subject Matter of the ’519 Patent
`The ’519 Patent is directed to a computer system and method for generating
`
`a graph, such as a pie chart, bar chart, or x-y graph. Ex. 1001, Abstract; 2:12-19.
`
`The ’519 Patent explains that a graph is created using graph style data. Id.,
`
`Abstract; 2:20-23. Graph style data determines the display characteristics to be
`
`used in the graph. Id., 2:22-23. As an example, the graph style data may
`
`determine the display of major or minor tick marks or style of font, color scheme,
`
`or background of the graph. Id., 2:23-25; 2:31-35; 2:47-49. Graph style data
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`includes graph style metadata. Id., 2:60-61. The graph style metadata have
`
`descriptors designating the “statistical roles” of the data variables to be graphed.
`
`Id., 2:60-64.
`
`For example, in an embodiment of the ’519 Patent, the graph style metadata
`
`descriptors designate a year variable to have a “category” role and a sales variable
`
`to have a “response” role. Id., 4:60-66. The ’519 Patent refers to the “category”
`
`and “response” roles as “statistical” roles. Id., 10:56-61. The ’519 Patent explains
`
`that different graphs will use this graph style metadata differently. Id., 2:60-66.
`
`For example, if the graph is a pie chart, the pie chart will display the category
`
`variable as discrete slices of a pie and the response variable will be used to
`
`determine the size of a pie slice. Id., 2:67-3:7. In the case of a bar chart, the chart
`
`displays the category variable along the horizontal or x-axis and the response
`
`variable along the vertical or y-axis. Id., 2:67-3:9; 5:17-26.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 5 (annotated). Ex. 1003, ¶114. Figure 5 above illustrates the graph of the
`
`latter approach. Ex. 1001, 5:27-29.
`
`The ’519 Patent admits that graphs are generated by many types of software
`
`applications in the prior art. Id., 1:27-31. The ’519 Patent explains that
`
`traditionally, styles that define the appearance of graphs were tightly coupled with
`
`the software application generating the graphs, resulting in difficulties in using
`
`graphical styles defined in one software application in a different software
`
`application. Id., 1:27-33. The ’519 Patent purports to overcome this problem, id.,
`
`1:36-45, and the ’519 Patent’s prosecution history shows that the claims were
`
`allowed because the prior art supposedly did not disclose graph style metadata
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`having descriptors specifying the statistical roles of different data variables.
`
`Ex. 1004, pg. 191; Ex. 1003, ¶114. As shown in Section VI, however, graph style
`
`metadata having descriptors specifying the statistical roles of different data
`
`variables was well known prior to the ’519 Patent.
`
`
`The Priority Date of the Challenged Claims
`The ’519 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 10/122,584 on
`
`April 15, 2002 and claims priority to Provisional Application No. 60/368,896 filed
`
`on March 29, 2002. Ex. 1001. Accordingly, March 29, 2002 is the earliest priority
`
`date to which the claims of the ’519 Patent may be entitled.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART
`
`In addition to the extensive background knowledge that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSA”) would have brought to bear on the subject matter
`
`discussed in the ’519 Patent, the following prior art demonstrates that the subject
`
`matter of the challenged claims would have been known by or obvious to a POSA.
`
`
`1 In an Examiner interview summary, the Examiner stated that “Applicant’s and
`
`Representative discussed a proposed amendment and how it distinguishes over
`
`the cited prior art, in that the present invention uses metadata having statistical
`
`descriptors to define roles independent of data.” Ex. 1004, pg. 19. The Examiner
`
`subsequently issued a notice of allowance. Id., pg. 9.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,920,608: Chart View for Reusable Data Markup
`Language (“Davis”)
`Davis was filed on May 18, 2000 (Ex. 1005) and is § 102(e) prior art. Davis
`
`was not submitted to, or considered by, the Examiner or otherwise made of record,
`
`during the prosecution of the ’519 Patent.
`
`Like the ’519 Patent, Davis discloses a method and system for generating
`
`data graphical displays. Specifically, Davis describes “methods and systems to
`
`provide a ‘chart view’” in which numerical data and graphical metadata are
`
`“contained in RDML markup documents.” Id., Abstract. RDML is a markup
`
`language, like HTML or XML, that enables a browser-based viewer to present and
`
`manipulate the data in chart form. Id., 9:14-31; see also id., 10:50-51. Davis also
`
`discloses the use of RDSL style sheets to create output reports. Id., 9:54-64;
`
`16:46. “RDSL is a fully compliant implementation of Extensible Style Language
`
`(‘XSL’),” which is a W3C standard for creating style sheets that, according to
`
`Davis, is described in detail in the “XML Bible,” by Elliotte Rusty Harold. Id.,
`
`9:51-53.
`
`The RDML data viewer, depicted in Fig. 1 below, receives numerical data
`
`and graphical metadata in an RDML data document (102) and additional
`
`formatting metadata contained in an RDSL style sheet (106).
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Davis explains that the RDML data viewer includes plug-in components that work
`
`with Internet browser, XML parser, and other modules. Id., 17:13-20; 17:26-
`
`29. “The HTML browser may be a third party component,” but Davis explains
`
`that an XML browser could be used instead. Id., 49:23-29. The RDML data
`
`viewer creates a chart view that graphically displays the numerical data based on
`
`tags that have “attributes associated with the numerical data describing
`
`characteristics of the . . . numerical data,” including axes, titles, precision, and
`
`scales. Id., 4:35-43; 5:7-8; 18:1-7; 20:34-36. In this way, the tags and attributes
`
`(i.e., graphs style data items and metadata) are used to create various types of
`
`graphical displays, including bar charts, x-y plots, or pie charts. Id., 33:30-31;
`
`38:3-8.; Ex. 1003, ¶¶63-64.
`
` XML Bible by Elliotte Rusty Harold (“Harold”)
`XML Bible by Elliotte Rusty Harold (“Harold”) was published on August 5,
`
`1999. Ex 1010, ¶50, Attachment 1g. The public availability of Harold is confirmed
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`by the MARC record from the Memorial Library at the University of Wisconsin –
`
`Madison (“UW”), which indicates that its copy of Harold was cataloged on
`
`December 12, 1999, and the most recent modification of the MARC record occurred
`
`on February 15, 2000. Id., ¶¶42-43, Attachment 1a. The public availability of
`
`Harold is further confirmed by the MARC record from the Library of Congress,
`
`which indicates that Harold was received, cataloged, and indexed, by November 24,
`
`1999, and publicly available shortly after that date. Id., ¶49. The most recent
`
`modification of the MARC record occurred on March 21, 2000, as indicated in field
`
`005 (“20000321”). Id., ¶49, Attachment 1h. Accordingly, Harold is a printed
`
`publication predating the filing date of the ’519 Patent by more than a year, and
`
`therefore qualifies as prior art under § 102(b). Harold was not considered during the
`
`prosecution of the ’519 Patent.
`
`Harold discloses that Cascading Style Sheets (“CSS”) were well-established
`
`style sheets used to define “formatting properties like font size, font family, font
`
`weight, . . . and other styles” of HTML documents, while style sheets in an
`
`extensible style language (“XSL”) are used to format features such as colors, fonts,
`
`and border characteristics of XML documents. Ex. 1006, 11-12; 323. Harold
`
`explains that the formatting features of XSL style sheets were implemented to
`
`operate in substantially the same manner as the well-known CSS. As an example,
`
`Harold explains that element “fo:block {font-family: New York, Times New
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Roman, Times, serif}” is used to format the font in an HTML document, while the
`
`element below is used to format the font in an XML document. Id., 518.
`
`<fo:block
` font-family=”New York, Times New Roman, Times, serif”>
`
`
`Id.; Ex. 1003, ¶98.
`
`V. Claim Construction
`
`WPL interprets the claims of the ’519 Patent consistent with the standard
`
`used to construe the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b).
`
` Means-Plus-Function Terms
`Claims 27 and 49 recite limitations that include the term “means,” which
`
`creates a presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker
`
`Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Claims 34 recites limitations that
`
`include the term “module,” which is “a well-known nonce word that can operate as
`
`a substitute for ‘means’ in the context of § 112, para. 6.” Williamson v. Citrix
`
`Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, these limitations of
`
`claim 34 should be construed under § 112, para. 6. However, in litigation between
`
`the parties, the Patent Owner contends that in the case of the “graph generator
`
`module” recited in claim 34, the term should not be construed under § 112, para. 6.
`
`Ex. 1011, 7-8. Means plus function claim terms are limited to the structure
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`described in the specification as performing the recited function and equivalents
`
`thereof. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`1.
`“data source generating means”
`Claims 27 and 49 recite in part “the received data was generated by data
`
`source generating means.” Ex. 1001, 12:6-7, 13:56-57. The recited function is
`
`generating the received data. In litigation between the parties, Patent Owner
`
`contends that the corresponding structure for the “data source generating means”
`
`includes data sources (460) and (534), and data engine (486). Ex. 1011, 6. The
`
`specification refers to “data generated from many different data sources” and refers
`
`to “software 486 generating the data.” Ex. 1001, 8:45-53; 9:16. For purposes of
`
`this IPR, Petitioner adopts Patent Owner’s identification of the corresponding
`
`structure.
`
`The data sources are depicted in the highlighted excerpts of Figures 16 and
`
`18 of the ’519 specification.
`
`Fig. 16
`
`
`
`Fig. 18
`
`
`
`The ’519 Patent identifies “data generated from many different sources 460, such
`
`as a relational database management system (RDBMS) application, business
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`application, statistical application, ActiveX control, Java applet, third party
`
`application, etc.” Id., 8:42-51; Ex. 1003, ¶119. The ’519 Patent further explains
`
`that the “data source” can be “a Microsoft Access or Oracle database, or an OLAP
`
`system or a 4GL (generation language) statistical analysis language (such as 4GL
`
`SAS language from the SAS Institute Inc.), a spreadsheet program, or a word
`
`processing program (and regardless of whether the data is in a Microsoft Word or
`
`Excel or relational format or an OLAP format or other type of format).” Ex. 1001,
`
`9:42-51; see also id., Fig. 19 (showing that a data source can be relational database
`
`management systems, statistical models, or SAS data sets).
`
`The data engine (486) is shown in Figure 17.
`
`With regard to a web application making requests, the ’519 Patent describes the
`
`data engine as residing on the server-side computer, performing “requested
`
`operations” and says that “the graph styles data 40 and the software 486 generating
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`the data may exist in two different locations (such as two different files).” Id.,
`
`9:15-18. Ex. 1003, ¶119.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners propose that the term “data source generating
`
`means” be construed to encompass data sources (460) and (534) (e.g. one or more
`
`databases) and programs that generate data from the data sources, such as data
`
`engine 486, and equivalents thereof.
`
`2.
`“graph generator module”
`Claim 34 of the ’519 Patent recites multiple limitations beginning with “a [/
`
`said] graph generator module”: “a graph generator module that receives data to be
`
`displayed in a non-textual format,” “said graph generator module having data
`
`access to the graph style data structure,” and “said graph generator module
`
`generating at least one graphical output based upon the received data.” The first
`
`and third of these are functions, and the second is a characteristic of the recited
`
`“graph generator module.”
`
`The ’519 Patent specification does not recite the term “graph generator
`
`module,” but uses the terms graph generator, graph generator software module,
`
`graph generator software program, and graphical output generation system to refer
`
`to the system that generates graphical output using the data and the graph style data
`
`structure. Ex. 1001, 2:16-21, 3:66-4:2; 8:52-56, 12:42-61. “Graph generator
`
`module” is not a term of art, and with generic computing devices, the
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`corresponding structure must “disclose the algorithm that transforms the general
`
`purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the
`
`disclosed algorithm.” Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521
`
`F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation omitted); Ex. 1003, ¶120
`
`(graph generator module is not a known structure). Through its figures and
`
`corresponding description, the ’519 Patent describes the graph generator software
`
`creating charts from data and style data. Ex. 1003, ¶¶121-22. Though the
`
`specification does not clearly set forth an algorithm for generating graphical output
`
`based on the received data, it does say that Fig. 7 is a “flowchart that depicts an
`
`operational scenario for generating graphical output.” Id., 1:61-62; see Fig. 7.
`
`The disclosure of the generator module performing the receiving step is
`
`found at 3:64-4:2, in which the specification discloses the graphical output
`
`generation system receiving the XML data structure with data embedded in the
`
`file. Ex. 1003, ¶¶122-123. The same passage says that data could alternatively be
`
`provided by specifying external data sources within the file. Though a POSA could
`
`envision ways that such specification could lead to receiving data by the graph
`
`generator module, the disclosed method for performing the claimed receiving
`
`function appears to be accessing a data structure with both the styles data and data
`
`to be charted. Id.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`As for the generating function, Fig. 7 in the ’519 Patent is a “flowchart that
`
`depicts an operational scenario for generating graphical output.” Ex. 1001, 1:61-
`
`62; see Fig. 7. Steps 302 and 304 of Fig. 7 relate to defining styles data, and
`
`generating data to be graphically depicted, neither of which concerns the claimed
`
`step of generating at least one graphical output. Ex. 1001, 6:4-32; Ex. 1003, ¶123.
`
`However, steps 306 and 308 relate to the recited function. Ex. 1001, 6:4-32. The
`
`specification says that at process block 306, “[t]he graphic output rendering
`
`module determines […] the display characteristics for the generated data based
`
`upon the defined graph styles data.” Id., 6:33-35. And, “[a]t process block 308, the
`
`data is graphically displayed based upon the determined displayed characteristics.”
`
`Id., 6:35-37.
`
`
`
`Thus, the graph generator module should be understood to be a program that
`
`(a) receives a data structure comprising both the styles data and data to be charted,
`
`(b) determines display characteristics based on received graph styles data, and (c)
`
`generates an output using the data and the determined characteristics. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶124. As set forth in detail below, the Davis reference’s RDML data viewer and
`
`its chart view component disclose the claimed graph generator module, whether
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112 ¶6 as proposed by Petitioner, or construed to
`
`have its plain and ordinary meaning, as proposed by Patent Owner.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A POSA at the time of the ’519 Patent would have been someone with an
`
`undergraduate degree or equivalent in computer science, software engineering, or
`
`the equivalent, plus approximately two years of experience in software
`
`development, or an equivalent amount of relevant work and/or educational
`
`experience. Ex. 1003, ¶116.
`
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE2
` Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 14-18, 21, 27, 29-30, 34-36, 39, 42-46, 47,
`49, 51-53, and 56 are obvious over Davis and Harold in view of the
`Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`1.
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Davis with
`Harold
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Davis with Harold, because
`
`Davis incorporates by reference Harold making specific reference to its description
`
`of XSL style sheets, which Davis says are used to implement its reusable data style
`
`
`2 Claims 3, 4, 35, 36, and 41 are written in Markush form. See Abbott Labs. v.
`
`Baxter Pharm. Prod., Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (stating a
`
`Markush group is “typically expressed in the form: a member selected from the
`
`group consisting of A, B, and C”). The “entire element is disclosed by the prior
`
`art if one alternative in the Markush group is in the prior art.” Fresenius USA,
`
`Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`language (“RDSL”) style sheets. Ex. 1005, 8:51-54; 9:48-56. Winner Int’l Royalty
`
`Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Evidence of a suggestion,
`
`teaching, or motivation to combine prior art references may flow, inter alia, from
`
`the references themselves.”). Davis explains that an “RDSL is a fully compliant
`
`implementation of Extensible Style Language (‘XSL’) which is described in detail
`
`in ‘XML Bible,’ Elliotte Rusty Harold, IDG Books Worldwide, 1999.” Ex. 1005,
`
`9:51-54. Davis discloses use of its RDSL style sheets “to create specially
`
`formatted output reports,” and it would have been obvious for these style sheets to
`
`store additional style data. Id., 9:50-51; 16:46-60. Accordingly, a POSA would
`
`have been motivated to look to Harold’s description of XSL style sheets to
`
`understand how formatting graph style data is stored in Davis’s RDSL files.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶129. Harold explains that an XSL document contains attributes to
`
`“specify display characteristics, such as font, color, and border characteristics. Ex.
`
`1006, 518-519; 554-555; 560. XSL “formatting properties specify the details of
`
`formatting, such as size, position, font, color, and a lot more.” Id., 518. An
`
`exemplary font family attribute stored in the XSL document is shown below:
`
`<fo:block
` Font-family=”New York, Times New Roman, Times, serif”>
`
`Id., 518. Different RDSL style sheets allowed Davis to change the formatting
`
`applied to an RDML document. Ex. 1005, 16:46-61. Given Davis’s express
`
`teaching that “RDSL is a fully compliant implementation of Extensible Style
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Language (‘XSL’)” as described in the XML Bible, and Harold’s teaching that it
`
`was well known that an XSL style sheet includes metadata for formatting features
`
`such as fonts, colors, and borders, it would have been obvious to a POSA that the
`
`RDSL style sheet also includes graph style data to format fonts, colors, and
`
`borders, and is implemented to operate in the same manner as the XSL style sheet.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶129.
`
`2.
`Claim 1
`Claim element 1[pre]: “A computer-implemented method for generating
`
`data graphical displays, comprising the steps of:
`
`Davis states that “[m]ethods and systems in accordance with the present
`
`invention provide a chart view that automatically manipulates and graphically
`
`displays numerical data.” Ex. 1005, 4:43-48. Davis explains that “a chart view
`
`may be a component of a data viewer,” id., Abstract and Fig. 1, and that these
`
`“various components may reside in a memory 204 on a computer such as computer
`
`201.” Id., 15:1-2; Fig. 3. Davis’s chart manager creates charts in the chart view
`
`including area, bar, stacked bar, line, pie, and point charts. Id., 38:1-9; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶179. Davis therefore discloses the computerized method for generating data
`
`graphical displays of claim element 1[pre]. Ex. 1003, ¶¶130-134.
`
`Claim element 1[a]: “receiving data to be displayed in a non-textual format,
`
`said received data being indicative of a plurality of variables;”
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’519 Patent discloses that a non-textual format is a graphic format, such
`
`as a pie chart, bar chart, map, or x-y graph. Ex. 1001, 10:37-41. Davis discloses a
`
`viewer, depicted in Fig. 1, that generates graphical charts and reports using data
`
`received in an RDML document. Ex. 1005, 15:64-16:7; 8:21-24; Ex. 1003, ¶137.
`
`
`
`“After receiving any requested sets of numerical data, the data viewer may
`
`automatically transform and combine them . . . on a single graphical display.”
`
`Ex. 1005, 8:37-40. A non-textual format disclosed in Davis includes graphical
`
`displays, such as x-y graphs, bar charts, pie charts, and maps. Id., 17:53-57 (“X-Y
`
`plot”); 38:5-9 (“chart types (i.e., area, bar, stacked bar, line, pies, points, etc.)”);
`
`17:23-26 (“thematic map”).
`
`The RDML document is a file containing sets of “line items” each of which
`
`is “a collection of data values that is similar to a ‘record’ or ‘row’ in a relational
`
`database.” Id., 9:16-21; 15:24-25. Figure 9 below depicts the structure of an
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`RDML document, with a “line_item_set” (906) (highlighted in yellow) containing
`
`data for x- and y-variables (highlighted in green and blue respectively).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶139-40. Davis describes an RDML file, Ex. 1005, 15:23-25, that
`
`contains a line item set of the category type, in which data denoted by the
`
`<data_x> tag “includes the x-values and information regarding the x-values” of the
`
`line items in the document, and items denoted by the <data_y> tag “contain y-data
`
`values.” Id., 24:4-9; 24:35-38; 28:41-47. “The data and metadata of an RDML
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`document may be formatted inside tags which denote the beginning and ending
`
`points of each data element.” Id., 20:24-27. Appendix B depicts portions of an
`
`RDML file at 58:1-67:29. The RDML file includes a series titled “Company,” and
`
`comprises company name data (highlighted in yellow) indicative of the x- or
`
`category variable, as indicated by the “<data_x” and “</data_x>” tags (highlighted
`
`in green).
`
`
`
`Id., 59:36-52; Ex. 1003, ¶141. The RDML file also includes multiple, enumerated
`
`line items (sets of data), corresponding to y-variables. For example, line item
`
`ID=“3”, contains “Stock Price” data, with the y-data values indicated by the
`
`“<data_y>” and “</data_y>” tags (highlighted in blue below).
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, 61:13-51; Ex. 1003, ¶142-43. As explained in further detail in 1[c]
`
`below, Davis discloses that this received data is to be displayed in a non-textual
`
`manner, as in various chart types such as bar charts, x-y plots, and pie charts. Ex.
`
`1005, 38:8; Figs. 12A-C, 14A-F, 16-17, 20A-D.
`
`Because RDML documents contain data indicative of variables to display in
`
`a graph, and Davis discloses an RDML data viewer receiving the RDML
`
`documents, claim element 1[a] is disclosed. Ex. 1003, ¶143.
`
`Claim element 1[b]: “retrieving graph style data items from a data file, said
`
`graph style data items containing display characteristics to be used in displaying
`
`the data in a non-textual format; and”
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim element 1[c]: “accessing of the graph style data items in order to
`
`display non-textual formatted output based upon the graph style data items;”
`
`Davis describes its data viewer retrieving graph style data items from two
`
`data files—the RDML data file discussed in 1[a] above, and a style sheet, or RDSL
`
`file, highlighted in Fig. 1 below.
`
`
`
`Davis explains that after receiving the RDML data document, the RDML data
`
`viewer uses the data and its “documentation (metadata)” (i.e., graph styles data
`
`items) together to “interpret what the numbers mean, how they are to be used, and
`
`how they are to be displayed.” Ex. 1005, 10:14-19 (emphasis added). “Upon
`
`receiving RDML markup documents, the chart view transforms, format,
`
`manipulates data stored in the markup documents using the attributes describing
`
`the meaning of the data.” Id., 36:41-44.
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`An example of graph style data items in the RDML file is the “Category”
`
`“line_item_set_type” metadata, which specifies that “the x-values are categories.”
`
`Id., 32:64-33:1. The exemplary RDML document of Appendix B shows this graph
`
`style metadata at 59:26.
`
`
`
`In another example, the graph style metadata <data_x>, <data_y>, “x_title,” and
`
`“y_title” are retrieved from the RDML file, and operate as descriptors that identify
`
`which data and variables are the category data and variables to be displayed on the
`
`x-axis, and which data and variables are the response data and variables to be
`
`displayed on the y-axis. Id., 24:35-50; 29:11-12. In another example, the
`
`“x_scale” and “li_scale” graph style data items are used by the RDML data viewer,
`
`together with the “x_prec” and “li_prec” graph style data items, to set the scale for
`
`the x- and y-axes, and the format and precision of the labels and tick marks. Id.,
`
`24:64-25:21; 28:50-57; 40:46-52;