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 
`  Microsoft Excel 2000 Bible by John Walkenbach
`(“Excel2000”) ........................................................................................ 8 
`Robust Regression and Outlier Detection by Peter Rousseeuw
`et al. (“Rousseeuw”) ............................................................................ 10 
`The Basics of S and S-Plus (“Krause”) ............................................... 15 
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 16 
`  Means-Plus-Function Terms ............................................................... 16 
`1. 
`“graph generator module” ......................................................... 17 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 19 
`
`V. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`VI.  THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .................................. 20 
`  Ground 1: Claims 5-6 and 37-38 are obvious over Davis and
`Harold in view of the Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in
`the Art .................................................................................................. 20 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 21 
`2. 
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 38 
`3. 
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 45 
`4. 
`Claim 34 .................................................................................... 47 
`5. 
`Claims 37 and 38....................................................................... 55 
`Ground 2: The Combination of Davis, Harold, and Excel in
`view of the Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Renders Claims 7-11 Obvious............................................................. 56 
`1. 
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Davis/Harold with Excel ........................................................... 56 
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 60 
`2. 
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 69 
`3. 
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 69 
`4. 
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 69 
`5. 
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 70 
`6. 
`Ground 3: The Combination of Davis, Harold, Rousseeuw, and
`Krause in view of the Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in
`the Art Renders Claims 22-26 Obvious .............................................. 71 
`1. 
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Davis/Harold with Rousseeuw and Krause .............................. 71 
`Claim 21 .................................................................................... 75 
`
`2. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`Claim 22 .................................................................................... 77 
`3. 
`Claim 23 .................................................................................... 81 
`4. 
`Claim 24 .................................................................................... 82 
`5. 
`Claim 25 .................................................................................... 82 
`6. 
`Claim 26 .................................................................................... 83 
`7. 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 84 
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`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 Microsoft Excel 2000 Bible by John Walkenbach (“Excel”)
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`
`
`Robust Regression and Outlier Detection by Peter Rousseeuw et al.
`(“Rousseeuw”)
`
`The Basics of S and S-Plus by Andreas Krause et al. (“Krause”)
`
`Expert Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`SAS Institute Inc’s Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic
`Evidence Pursuant to P.R. 4-2
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners request inter partes review of Claims 5-11, 22-26, and 37-38 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 5-6 and 37-38 are obvious in view of Davis and Harold
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Claims 7-11 are obvious in view of Davis, Harold, and Excel
`
`Claims 22-26 are obvious in view of Davis, Harold, Rousseeuw,
`and Krause
`
`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
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`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
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`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
`
`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
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`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
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
` 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.” Ex. 1005, 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 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
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`
`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”)
`Harold was published on August 5, 1999. Ex 1010, ¶50, Attachment 1g. The
`
`University of Wisconsin – Madison library’s MARC records, and those of the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`Library of Congress show public availability by or shortly after December 12, 1999
`
`and November 24, 1999 respectively. Id., ¶¶42-43, Attachment 1a; id., ¶49,
`
`Attachment 1h. 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
`
`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.
`
` Microsoft Excel 2000 Bible by John Walkenbach (“Excel2000”)
`Excel2000 was published on March 24, 1999. Ex. 1010, ¶62, Attachment 2i.
`
`The University of Wyoming library’s MARC records, and those of the Library of
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`Congress show public availability by or shortly after October 16, 1998 and April 7,
`
`2000 respectively. Id., ¶54, Attachment 2a; id., ¶60, Attachment 2j. A date due slip
`
`on a library copy shows that Excel2000 was checked out prior to March 15, 2000,
`
`further evincing its public availability. Id., ¶61, Attachment 2k. Excel2000 is a
`
`printed publication under § 102(b) that predates the filing of the ’519 Patent by more
`
`than a year and therefore qualifies as prior art. Excel2000 was not considered during
`
`the prosecution of the ’519 Patent.
`
` Excel2000 discloses a computerized method for generating data graphical
`
`displays. Ex. 1007, 425. Excel2000 discloses that “there are many types of charts:
`
`bar charts, line charts, pie charts, and so on.” Id., 415. Excel2000 describes using
`
`the spreadsheet data to create a column chart, an area chart, and a pie chart. Id., 416.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`
`Id. Ex. 1003, ¶¶84-86. Excel users could edit and save setting changes to charts,
`
`then open worksheet files containing the charts, to view and edit saved settings. Id.,
`
`¶¶83, 86-88.
`
` Robust Regression and Outlier Detection by Peter Rousseeuw et
`al. (“Rousseeuw”)
`Rousseeuw was published on October 19, 1987. Ex 1007, ¶74, Attachment
`
`3i. The University of Pittsburg library’s MARC records, and those of the University
`
`of Colorado – Boulder show public availability by or shortly after March 23, 1987
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`respectively. Id., ¶70, Attachment 3f; Id., ¶67, Attachment 3a. A due date slip shows
`
`that Rousseeuw was checked out before February 15, 1989, further evincing its
`
`public availability. Id., ¶65, Exhibit 1008. Rousseeuw is a printed publication under
`
`§ 102(b) that predates the filing of the ’519 Patent by more than a year and therefore
`
`qualifies as prior art. Rousseeuw was not considered during the prosecution of
`
`the ’519 Patent.
`
`Rousseeuw is a text about linear regression analysis and techniques to
`
`identify and deal with outlier data. Rousseeuw gives examples of the common
`
`technique of plotting x-y data with different formatting for outlier residuals (e.g.
`
`data points that lie outside a confidence interval).
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1008, 98, 101. Examples showing the underlying data and regression curves
`
`are also disclosed.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., 58, 59; Ex. 1003, ¶69.
`
`Rousseeuw describes algorithms for linear regression calculations and
`
`calculating weight factors that identify outliers. Ex. 1008, 197-208. Rousseeuw
`
`explains how to compute a weight factor, whose value is “1” for data points that lie
`
`within a confidence interval (if |ri / s0 | <= 2.5) and “0” for points that lie outside
`
`the confidence interval. Id., 202. Though determining that points fell outside a
`
`confidence interval wasn’t the reason for the calculation, Rousseeuw explains that
`
`“[i]f the residuals are normally distributed, then one can expect that roughly 98%
`
`of the standardized residuals will lie in the interval [-2.5, 2.5].” Id., 56; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶72.
`
`Rousseeuw discloses software called PROGRESS that implemented its
`
`algorithms. Ex. 1008, viii, 29-56, 203. For example, Rousseeuw describes its
`
`operation on a set of 20 observations of x-y data.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`Id., 22. To illustrate an outlier, Rousseeuw changes the 6th data point so that its x-
`
`“registered as 370 instead of 37.” Id., 23. The PROGRESS software generated
`
`tabular output data.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`Id., 38; Ex. 1003, ¶76. The output also shows computed weight factors, with the
`
`“0” value indicating a point outside the 98% confidence interval.
`
`Ex. 1008, 38, 56. Consolidating columns from the two output tables shows:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶76.
`
`Thus, Rousseeuw shows using different formatting to highlight x-y data that
`
`fall outside a confidence interval was known, as was the implementation in
`
`software of algorithms to identify such outlier data. Ex. 1008, viii.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`
`The Basics of S and S-Plus (“Krause”)
`Krause was published in 2000. Ex 1007, ¶86, Attachment 4i. The University
`
`of Wisconsin – Madison library’s MARC records, and those from the Library of
`
`Congress show public availability by or shortly after October 21, 1999 and July 5,
`
`2000 respectively. Id., ¶79, Attachment 4b; id., ¶85, Attachment 4j. Two date due
`
`slips on library copies show that Krause was checked out prior to March 13, 2001
`
`and October 2, 2000 respectively. Id., ¶77, Exhibit 1009; id., ¶78, Attachment 4a.
`
`Krause 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). Krause was not
`
`considered during the prosecution of the ’519 Patent.
`
`Krause describes how to use the S-Plus graphics program to generate charts.
`
`Ex. 1009, 114-138, 169. When it is desired to highlight points in an x-y graph
`
`whose values fall within or outside a given range, Krause teaches that “[t]he data are
`
`divided into . . . subcategories,” and different symbols or colors used to plot each
`
`subcategory on the same graph, as shown in Figure 7.8 below. Id., 190-91.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`
`
`Id. With reference to Figure 7.8, Krause explains breaking the data into three
`
`subsets for a set of x-y data—(A) points with x ≥ 67 and y ≤ 3.1, (B) points with x
`
`≥ 67 and y ≥ 3.1, and (C) points with x < 67 and y > 3.1. Plotting each subset
`
`using different symbols (e.g., A, B, C) and different colors, as shown in the graph
`
`(above), allows for visual identification of the different subsets of data. Id., 191.
`
`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 34’s “graph generator module” limitation uses the term “module,”
`
`which is “a well-known nonce word that can operate as a substitute for ‘means’ in
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`the context of § 112, para. 6.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339,
`
`1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Means plus function claim terms are limited to the structure
`
`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.
`“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 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. With generic computing devices,
`
`such as graph generator module, the 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.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(internal quotation omitted). Ex. 1005, ¶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.” Ex. 1001, 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, ¶¶122-23. 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 the both styles data and data
`
`to be charted. Id.
`
`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; Fig. 7. Steps 302 and 304 of Fig. 7 relate to defining styles data, and
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`generating data to be graphically depicted, neither of which concerns the claimed
`
`step of generating at least one graphical output. Id., 6:4-32; Ex. 1003, ¶123.
`
`However, steps 306 and 308 do 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. at 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. For the reasons set forth below, Davis discloses 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.
`
`
`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
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`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 UNPATENTABLE
` Ground 1: Claims 5-6 and 37-38 are obvious over Davis and
`Harold in view of the Knowledge of One of Ordinary Skill in the
`Art
`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 language (“RDSL”) style sheets. Ex. 1005, 8:51-54; 9:48-56.
`
`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.” Id., 9:51-54. Davis uses 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.”
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`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
`
`Language (‘XSL’)” as described in the XML Bible, and the 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.
`
`1.
`Claim 1
`Claim 1 is challenged in a concurrently filed Petition, but is not challenged
`
`herein. The disclosure of claim 1 by Davis in view of Harold is shown below to
`
`facilitate challenges to dependent claims.
`
`Claim element 1[pre]: “A computer-implemented method for generating
`
`data graphical displays, comprising the steps of:
`
`Davis states “[m]ethods and systems in accordance with the present
`
`invention provide a chart view that automatically manipulates and graphically
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`displays numerical data.” Ex. 1005, 4:43-48. Davis explains that “a chart view
`
`may be a component of a data viewer,” id., Abstract, 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. The chart manager creates numerous graphical chart types. 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, ¶¶130-34.
`
`Claim element 1[a]: “receiving data to be displayed in a non-textual format,
`
`said received data being indicative of a plurality of variables;”
`
`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.”
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`Ex. 1005, 8:37-40. Davis discloses non-textual graphical display formats, such as
`
`x-y graphs, bar charts, pie charts, and maps. Id., 17:53-57; 38:5-9.
`
`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
`
`RDML document, with a “line_item_set” (906) (highlighted in yellow) containing
`
`data for x- and y-variables (highlighted in green and blue respectively).
`
`23
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 7,170,519
`
`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
`
`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