`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 64
`Entered: January 15, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-01385
`U.S. Patent No. 7,984,081 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`Background
`A.
`International Business Machines Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a
`Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–4,
`10–13, and 21–24 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,984,081
`B1 (Exhibit 1004, “the ’081 Patent”). We instituted trial for all the
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`§103(a)
`
`Asserted Prior Art
`VanderDrift ’9451 and
`Chau2
`Oracle applications3
`
`challenged claims on the grounds of unpatentability below. Paper 7
`(“Decision to Institute” or “Inst. Dec.”).
`Claims
`Basis
`Claims 1–4, 10–13,
`§103(a)
`and 21–24
`Claims 1–4, 10–13,
`and 21–24
`After institution of trial, Intellectual Ventures I LLC (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 31, “PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a
`Reply to the Patent Owner Response (Paper 44, “Pet. Reply”).
`A hearing was held on November 4, 2015. The transcript has been
`entered into the record. Paper 63 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons given herein, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`Petitioner identifies, as related proceedings, the co-pending district
`court cases IV v. Capital One Fin. Corp., No. 8:14-cv-111 (D. Md.), and IV
`v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-4638 (S.D.N.Y.). Pet. 1.
`
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,455,945 (“VanderDrift ’945”) (Ex. 1005).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,721,727 (“Chau”) (Ex. 1006). Petitioner also submitted
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/168,659 (“Chau Provisional”), upon
`which Chao claims the benefit, filed December 2, 1999 as Exhibit 1007.
`3 Oracle 8i Application Developer’s Guide — XML, Release 3 (8.1.7) (Sept.
`2000) (Exhibit 1008) (“Oracle”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`The ’081 Patent
`C.
`The ’081 Patent relates to a system and method for dynamically
`retrieving, updating, and displaying data from sources of Extensible Markup
`Language (XML) documents. Ex. 1004, Abstract. Figure 1 of the ’081
`Patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a preferred embodiment of the system
`of the ’081 Patent for extracting and displaying data. Ex. 1004, 2:27–29. As
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`shown in Figure 1, central processing unit (CPU) 12 connects with display
`and input device 16 and program memory 18. Id. at 3:16–18. Program
`memory 18 stores dynamic documents 20, management record types 24, and
`primary record types 26. Id. at 3:21–29.
`According to the ’081 Patent, a user imports an XML record format,
`creates or identifies primary record types, and then defines a management
`record type by selecting primary record types for inclusion in the
`management record type. Id. at 5:30–53. The ’081 Patent describes an
`example of a customer order having a customer and a customer order header,
`the latter of which can be defined by the user as identifying the management
`record type. Id. at 5:6–12.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`Claims 1, 10, and 21 are the independent claims challenged by
`Petitioner. Each of claims 2–4 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 1,
`each of claims 11–13 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 10, and
`each of claims 22–24 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 21.
`Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
`1. A computer-implemented method of manipulating
`XML documents, comprising:
`organizing data components of the XML documents into
`data objects;
`identifying a plurality of primary record types for the
`XML documents;
`mapping the data components of each data object to one
`of the plurality of primary record types;
`organizing instances of the plurality of primary record
`types into a hierarchy to form a management record type;
`defining a dynamic document for display of an instance
`of the management record type through a user interface; and
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`detecting modification of the data in the dynamic
`document via the user interface, and in response thereto
`modifying a data component in at least one of the XML
`documents.
`Ex. 1004, 18:12–29.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`Legal Standard
`1.
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1277–1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`enacting the AIA,”4 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim
`terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`
`Decision to Institute
`2.
`As a step in our analysis in the Decision to Institute, we determined
`the meaning of the claims. In particular, we determined that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of “organizing instances of the plurality of primary
`record types into a hierarchy to form a management record type,” in light of
`the Specification of the ’081 Patent, is organizing instances of the plurality
`
`4 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`of primary record types into a hierarchy to form an instance of a
`management record type. Inst. Dec. 7. Additionally, we determined that
`“manipulating XML documents” recited in the preamble of claims 1 and 21
`is limiting. Id.
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner disputes our constructions, except
`Patent Owner proposes a construction for “management record type” within
`the first larger phrase noted above. Pet. Reply 2–6; PO Resp. 6–12. Other
`than our clarification of the construction of “management record type,” as
`discussed below, we discern no reason, based on the complete record now
`before us, to change our claim constructions thereof.
`
`“a management record type”
`3.
`Each of claims 1, 10, and 21 recites “a management record type.”
`Patent Owner contends that “a management record type” means “a data type
`that defines a grouping of primary record types and does not include any
`redundant data.” PO Resp. 12. Petitioner counters that Patent Owner’s
`proposed claim construction should not be adopted because: (1) it is not the
`broadest reasonable construction; (2) it is inconsistent with the district court
`claim construction; and (3) the Specification and prosecution history of the
`’081 Patent do not support such a narrow construction. Pet. Reply 2–6. For
`the reasons discussed below, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed
`claim construction as it would import improperly a limitation—namely,
`“does not include any redundant data”—from a preferred embodiment into
`the claims. See Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012) (“[A] claim construction must not import limitations from the
`specification into the claims.”); see also Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1257
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`(“[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning.’” (citation omitted)).
`
`The Summary of the Invention set forth in the Specification of the
`’081 Patent describes data types as follows:
`The system has three major data types: primary record
`types (PRTs), management record types (MRT), and dynamic
`documents (DD). A PRT is similar to a relational database
`table; they contain most of the data. A MRT is a grouping of
`PRTs; they contain pointers to individual PRT records and
`some calculated data. A DD is a restructuring of a set of MRT
`instances for analysis and presentation; they contain pointers to
`the MRT components and some calculated data.
`Ex. 1004, 2:4–12 (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner relies upon another portion of the ’081 Patent
`Specification, which states “a MRT does not have any redundant data.” Ex.
`1004, 4:47–48. That portion of the Specification, however, is directed to a
`preferred embodiment. Id. at 3:10–11, 4:47–48, 17:65–66. The Summary of
`the Invention omits any mention of excluding any redundant data. Id. at
`1:52–2:23. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner admitted in a district
`court proceeding that the Specification of the ’081 Patent discloses multiple
`embodiments of an MRT and argued that limitations of one embodiment
`should not be read into the claims. Pet. Reply 4; Ex. 1046, 29–30.
`Further, although we are not bound by the district court’s construction
`interpreting the claim terms at issue here, we have considered the District
`Court Claim Construction Order, which construes a “management record
`type” as a “collection of primary record types organized into a hierarchy”
`(Ex. 1049, 4). See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1326
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The fact that the board is not generally bound by a
`previous judicial interpretation of a disputed claim term does not mean,
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`however, that it has no obligation to acknowledge that interpretation or to
`assess whether it is consistent with the broadest reasonable construction of
`the term.”). The district court’s claim construction for “management record
`type” is broader than the Patent Owner’s proposed construction in that the
`district court’s claim construction does not include the extraneous
`limitation—“does not include any redundant data.” Compare Ex. 1049, 4,
`with PO Resp. 12. Patent Owner does not provide, nor can we discern, a
`sufficient reason as to why we should adopt a claim construction that is
`narrower than the district court’s claim construction. See Facebook, Inc. v.
`Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 F. App’x 864, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`(nonprecedential) (“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term
`may be the same as or broader than the construction of a term under the
`Phillips5 standard. But it cannot be narrower.”).
`For the reasons given above, we are persuaded that in light of the ’081
`Patent Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “management
`record type” is “collection of primary record types organized into a
`hierarchy,” which is the same as the district court’s claim construction.
`
`B. Obviousness over VanderDrift ’945 and Chau
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–4, 10–13, and 21–24 of the ’081
`Patent are unpatentable as they would have been obvious over the
`combination of VanderDrift ’945 and Chau. Pet. 12–29. In support of this
`
`
`5 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`(“[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning’” and “[t]he Patent and Trademark Office (‘PTO’) . . . giv[es]
`claims their broadest reasonable construction.”)
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`ground, Petitioner also presents a Declaration by Dr. Paul C. Clark (see, e.g.,
`Pet. 12, 13 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 78, 115–190)).
`Patent Owner submits its Patent Owner Response disputing certain of
`Petitioner’s contentions, as discussed further below. PO Resp. 13–33. In
`support of its contentions, Patent Owner also presents a Declaration by Dr.
`Yannis Papakonstantinou (Ex. 2007).
`
`Principles of Law
`1.
`The question of obviousness, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), is resolved on
`the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and
`content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject
`matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art6; and (4)
`objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. See
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In that regard, an
`obviousness analysis can take account of the inferences and creative steps
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`
`6 Dr. Clark proposes a definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`which is similar to that proposed by Dr. Papakonstantinou. Compare Ex.
`1001 ¶¶ 66–69 (describing one of ordinary skill as “a person with a Bachelor
`of Science degree in Computer Science or similar degree and at least one
`year of work experience related to database systems”), with Ex. 2007 ¶ 15
`(describing one of ordinary skill as “a person with a Bachelor of Science
`degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer
`Science and either five years or industry experience . . . or a Master of
`Science degree.”). We adopt Petitioner’s definition. Additionally, we note
`the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record.
`See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`VanderDrift ’945
`2.
`VanderDrift ’945 teaches a system and method for extracting,
`updating, and displaying data from a database. Ex. 1005, Abstract. Figure 1
`of VanderDrift ’945 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a preferred embodiment of the system
`of VanderDrift ’945 for extracting and displaying data. Ex. 1005, 2:51–53.
`As shown in Figure 1, CPU 12 connects with display 14, input devices 16,
`and program memory 18. Id. at 3:50–52. Program memory 18 stores
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`dynamic documents 20, management records 24, and primary records 26.
`Id. at 3:58–66.
`According to VanderDrift ’945, underlying or production databases
`are read into the system and stored as primary records 26 in memory 18. Id.
`at 3:54–58. Then a user defines a management record by selecting primary
`records for inclusion in the management record. Id. at 6:15–37.
`VanderDrift ’945 teaches an example of a customer order having a customer
`and a customer order header as primary records, the latter of which can be
`defined by the user as identifying the management record. Id. at 5:52–61.
`
`Chau
`3.
`Chau teaches computer-implemented database systems for processing
`XML documents. Ex. 1006, 1:13–15. Chau teaches an XML system that
`allows customers to do e-business anywhere by enabling XML with
`Business to Business (B2B) and Business to Consumer (B2C) applications.
`Id. at 5:46–49. Chau teaches a technique for parsing an incoming XML
`document by processing an XML formatted Data Access Definition (DAD)
`with application specific mapping and generating two Document Object
`Model (DOM) trees. Id. at 75:20–24. One DOM tree is an XML document
`and the other DOM tree is a DAD DOM tree, which identifies relational
`tables and columns. Id. at 75:24–26. In accordance with the parsing
`technique, data in the incoming XML document DOM tree are mapped to
`columns in relational tables, according to the DAD DOM tree. Id. at 75:27–
`29.
`
`Unchallenged that VanderDrift ’945 and Chau are Prior Art
`4.
`The effective filing date of the ’081 Patent is October 15, 2001.
`Petitioner contends that VanderDrift ’945 is prior art under
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it issued on October 3, 1995. Pet. 3.7 Petitioner
`contends that Chau qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 3.
`We agree because Chau was issued as a patent from an application that was
`filed on November 29, 2000, before the effective filing date (October 15,
`2001) of the ’081 Patent.
`Patent Owner does not dispute that VanderDrift ’945 and Chau are
`prior art to the ’081 Patent. See, generally, PO Resp. 13–33; see also Tr.
`36:15–37:4 (“[F]or the purposes of this case, there’s no dispute that [Chau
`and VanderDrift ’945 are] prior art.”) Accordingly, we determine that
`VanderDrift ’945 qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and Chau
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`5.
`
`Overview of VanderDrift ’945 and Chau as Applied to the
`Challenged Claims
`As Petitioner notes, VanderDrift ’945 is very similar to the ’081
`Patent. Pet. 7–9; see also Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 89–91 (Dr. Clark testifies regarding
`similarities of ’081 Patent and VanderDrift ’945).8 In particular,
`VanderDrift ’945 substantively is the same as the’081 Patent, except,
`according to VanderDrift ’945, data from underlying or production
`databases are read into the system and stored as primary records 26 (Ex.
`1005, 3:56–58), whereas the ’081 Patent more specifically describes that the
`data read into the system are from XML documents (Ex. 1004, Abstract).
`
`7 We note that both the ’081 Patent and VanderDrift ’945 identify as the sole
`inventor Mr. Richard William VanderDrift. Compare Ex. 1004, at [75], with
`Ex. 1005, at [76].
`8 Although we reviewed and considered Dr. Clark’s Declaration, we do not
`include in our analysis below all the citations in the Petition to his
`Declaration.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`Compare Ex. 1005, 2:55-64, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4A–F (illustrating block diagram
`of system, the context in which the system operates, an exemplary
`embodiment of a management record, and a flowchart for initializing and
`operating the system, respectively), with Ex. 1004, 2:30-37, Figs. 1, 2, 3,
`4A–D (illustrating the same).
`Petitioner contends that Chau addresses this deficiency in VanderDrift
`’945. Pet. 9. Chau teaches computer-implemented systems for processing
`XML documents. Ex. 1006, 1:13–15. More specifically, Chau teaches a
`flexible “XML System” that transforms data between XML documents and
`tables. Id. at 7:43–45. For instance, Chau teaches a technique for generating
`one or more XML documents from relational database tables (id. at 49:46–
`48) as well as a technique for parsing an incoming XML document to map
`data in the incoming XML document to columns in relational tables (id. at
`75:20–29).
`
`6.
`
`Claim 1
`a. Patent Owner Response
`In its responsive brief, Patent Owner contends that the combination of
`VanderDrift ’945 and Chau fails to teach “organizing instances of the
`plurality of primary record types into a hierarchy to form a management
`record type,” “defining a dynamic document for display of an instance of the
`management record type,” and “detecting modification of the data in the
`dynamic document via the user interface, and in response thereto modifying
`a data component in at least one of the XML documents,” recited in claim 1.
`PO Resp. 14–31. Patent Owner does not address any other limitations of
`claim 1. Patent Owner, however, also contends that Petitioner has not
`articulated sufficiently a reason to combine VanderDrift ’945 and Chau. PO
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`Resp. 31–33. In support of its contentions, Patent Owner also presents the
`testimony of Dr. Papakonstantinou (see, e.g., PO Resp. 23 (citing Ex.
`2007 ¶ 61)).
`Each of Patent Owner’s disputes is discussed below. As for the
`remaining elements recited in claim 1, which were not disputed by Patent
`Owner, we also find that the combination of VanderDrift ’945 and Chau
`teaches those elements as shown by the comparisons of the teachings of
`VanderDrift ’945 and Chau presented in the Petition and the claim
`limitations. Pet. 12–29.
`
`b. “organizing instances of the plurality of primary record types
`into a hierarchy to form a management record type”
`Patent Owner contends that the teachings identified by Petitioner in
`VanderDrift ’945 and Chau include redundant data. PO Resp. 14. Petitioner
`counters that each of the references discloses a management record type,
`even under the Patent Owner’s narrowing construction. Pet. Rely 6–10
`(noting that “VD 945 states that MRs are made up of unique PRTs,”
`Ex. 1005, 26:47–27:40, and that “one embodiment in Chau describes the
`mapping for document composition and decomposition as ‘one-to-one,’
`which a POSITA would have understood occurs when the database schema
`is normalized and does not contain redundancies,” Ex. 1006, 43:24–29).
`As discussed with respect to claim construction, we did not adopt
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction including the limitation, “does not
`include any redundant data.” Instead, we determined that “management
`record type” means “collection of primary record types organized into a
`hierarchy.” VanderDrift ’945 teaches the following:
`The present invention interfaces with the underlying
`databases 38, 40 by grouping the data stored in the databases
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`38, 40 into recognizable business objects referred to as
`“management records” (MRs) 24 . . . A “management record”
`(MR) 24 is a user defined collection of “primary records” 26 all
`of which are “hooked” 44 to each other either directly or
`indirectly (through another primary record 26 which is in the
`MR 24).
`Ex. 1005, 4:36–55.
`VanderDrift ’945 further teaches that “hooks [ ] include pointers and
`foreign keys” to link data (id. at 5:1–5) and result in “management records
`24 [that] are drastically smaller in size than views [of a relational database]”
`(id. at 5:28–30) (emphasis added).9 Petitioner points to additional evidence
`to support that VanderDrift ’945 teaches “management record type, recited
`in claim 1. Pet.15–16 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 148–153; Ex. 1005, 4:51–54, Ex.
`1006, 49:51–56).
`Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`VanderDrift ’945 teaches “management record type,” recited in claim 1.
`
`c. “defining a dynamic document for display of an instance of the
`management record type”
`Patent Owner contends that the combination of Chau and VanderDrift
`’945 does not teach the above referenced limitation. PO Resp. 19–22.
`Patent Owner contends that VanderDrift ’945 does not teach “management
`record type” for the reasons discussed above and, therefore, focuses on
`
`
`9 VanderDrift ’945’s teaching (id.) is very similar to that of the ’081 Patent
`Specification, which Patent Owner relies on for its claim construction (PO
`Resp. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:47–54)). VanderDrift 945’s Figure 3
`illustrating a graphical representation for a management record and
`accompanying description (Ex. 1005, 2:58–59, 5:64–6:13, Fig. 3) is similar
`to that of the ’081 Patent Specification (Ex. 1004, 2:33–34, 5:13–29, Fig. 3).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`Chau. Id. For the reasons given, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`contentions regarding “management record type.”
`We turn to Petitioner’s contentions regarding the combined teachings
`of VanderDrift ’945 and Chau. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 154–158; Ex.
`1005, 12:64–65, Ex. 1006, 6:52–55, 49:51–56). As Petitioner notes (id.),
`VanderDrift ’945 teaches “Dynamic Documents (DD) are used to display
`data base information to the user” (Ex. 1005, 12:63–64). VanderDrift ’945
`further teaches “DDs are a rearranged and reformatted MRT.” Id. at 12:64–
`65.
`
`Although VanderDrift ’945’s teaching is sufficient, we further note
`that Patent Owner’s contentions regarding Chau refer to particular portions,
`rather than considering the teachings of Chau together. For instance, Patent
`Owner points to a portion of Chau that teaches defining a dynamic document
`and contends that the portion says nothing about display. PO Resp. 22
`(citing Ex. 1006, 49:52–57). Chau, however, teaches “putting [XML
`documents] on a web site for viewing” (Ex. 1006, 6:54–55), which are
`generated by a technique that “traverses a Document Object Model (DOM)
`tree generated from an XML formatted Data Access Definition (DAD)” (id.
`at 49:51–56). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that the combination of VanderDrift ’945 and Chau teaches
`“defining a dynamic document for display of an instance of the management
`record type,” recited in claim 1.
`
`d. “detecting modification of the data in the dynamic document
`via the user interface, and in response thereto modifying a data
`component in at least one of the XML documents”
`Patent Owner contends that “[t]he Petition fails to establish that the
`Chau-VanderDrift ’945 combination teaches modifying a data component in
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`an XML document in response to detecting modification of the data in the
`dynamic document via the user interface.” PO Resp. 23 (citing Ex.
`2007 ¶ 61) (emphasis in Patent Owner Response). For instance, Patent
`Owner contends “VanderDrift ’945 does not even use the term ‘XML.’” PO
`Resp. 25.
`Petitioner points to the combination of VanderDrift ’945 and Chau for
`teaching the above-referenced recitation. Pet. 16–18, 24–26 (citing Ex.
`1001 ¶¶ 154–164; Ex. 1005, 2:28–32, 8:32–35, 12:64–65, 18:23–31, 19:3–5,
`Claim 1, Claim 27; Ex. 1006, 1:55–57, 6:44–48, 6:52–55, 7:9–22, 8:52–64,
`49:51–56). In particular, with respect to XML, Petitioner asserts that
`“[p]rior to the priority date of the ’081 Patent, XML databases were
`commercially available,” including “one example of such an XML database”
`taught by Chau. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 78; Ex. 1006, Fig. 2).
`In its contentions, Patent Owner does not take into account
`sufficiently the teachings of VanderDrift ’945 with respect to the above-
`referenced recitation. In particular, VanderDrift ’945 teaches “[t]he dynamic
`documents are easy for the user to modify and provide a user interface for
`extracting or updating information in the database that requires little
`understanding of the database.” Ex. 1005, 2:28–32; see also id. at 18:23–31
`(“All changes to any data is entered by the user through DDs [dynamic
`documents] . . .when the user enters a change, the present invention first
`updates the affected PRT [primary record type] and then the MRPIs
`[management record pointer instance] and finally the DDPs [dynamic
`document pointers] that user that PRT.”).
`We further note that we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`contention that “[n]owhere do the cited portions of Chau or the Petition
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`provide any evidence of modifying a data component in an XML document
`in response to detecting modification of the data in the dynamic document
`via a user interface.” PO Resp. 23 (emphasis in Patent Owner Response). In
`addition to identifying portions of VanderDrift ’945 and Chau, the Petition
`also relies on the testimony of Dr. Clark. Pet. 16–18, 24–26 (citing Ex.
`1001 ¶¶ 154–164; Ex. 1005, 2:28–32, 8:32–35, 12:64–65, 18:23–31, 19:3–5,
`Claim 1, Claim 27; Ex. 1006, 1:55–57, 6:44–48, 6:52–55, 7:9–22, 8:52–64,
`49:51–56). For instance, Dr. Clark testifies “[a] person of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the alleged invention would have recognized that the
`‘Web Information Retrieval Applications’ would accomplish the[ ] updates
`through their “interactive web sites,” which are the interface through which
`the user interacts with, e.g., updates, the content of an XML element, or the
`value of an XML attribute.” Ex. 1001 ¶ 161 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:44–48,
`8:52–64). Patent Owner does not respond persuasively to Dr. Clark’s
`testimony. Patent Owner presents testimony of Dr. Papakonstantinou (PO
`Resp. 23–27 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 61–71)), who testifies regarding portions of
`Chau considered separately, without the context of other portions of Chau
`and does not provide persuasive testimony regarding “interactive web sites”
`that rebuts Dr. Clark’s testimony. Furthermore, we find that Patent Owner
`has not identified other evidence to rebut Dr. Clark’s opinion. We,
`therefore, credit the testimony of Dr. Clark that one of ordinary skill, in
`considering Chau in its entirety, would have concluded that “interactive web
`sites” are interfaces through which a user interacts with XML elements and
`attributes (Ex. 1001 ¶ 161).
`Patent Owner also contends that “[n]owhere does the Petition
`establish that data ‘in an XML document’ is modified.” PO Resp. 27 (citing
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 72, emphasis in Patent Owner Response). Patent Owner
`contends that “the Petition completely fails to address” whether VanderDrift
`’945 teaches this limitation. PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 80).
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, Petitioner specifically
`identifies portions of both VanderDrift ’945 and Chau in support of its
`contention that the combination of VanderDrift ’945 and Chau teach
`“detecting modification of the data in the dynamic document via the user
`interface, and in response thereto modifying a data component in at least one
`of the XML documents,” recited in claim 1. Pet. 16–18, 24–26 (citing Ex.
`1001 ¶¶ 154–164; Ex. 1005, 2:28–32, 8:32–35, 12:64–65, 18:23–31, 19:3–5,
`Claim 1, Claim 27; Ex. 1006, 1:55–57, 6:44–48, 6:52–55, 7:9–22, 8:52–64,
`49:51–56). For instance, as Petitioner notes (id.), VanderDrift ’945 teaches
`“displaying data from the database using the dynamic document instance;”
`“accepting user revisions to the data displayed; determining whether the
`revision is a data revision; updating the management record pointer
`instances if the revision is a data revision;” “determining whether a record
`has been changed;” and “updating the management record pointer instances
`for a changed primary record instance if a record has been changed.” Ex.
`1005, 27:44–45, 30:1–6, 31:2–8.
`Patent Owner acknowledges that the Petition “establishes that Chau
`updates stored content that has been extracted from an XML document.” PO
`Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 72, emphasis in Patent Owner Response). Patent
`Owner also acknowledges that the Petition cites to a portion of Chau that
`explains that the XML system “[u]pdate[s] the content of an XML element,
`or the value of an XML attribute.” PO Resp. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:52–
`64). Patent Owner, however, relying on the testimony of Dr.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01385
`Patent 7,984,081 B1
`
`Papakonstantinou, contends that Chau’s teaching is not sufficient to show
`that Chau teaches “modifying a data component in at least one of the XML
`documents.” PO Resp. 30 (citing 2007 ¶ 79).10
`In addition to the portion of Chau noted above, Petitioner presents the
`testimony of Dr. Clark in support of its contentions. Pet. 16–18 (citing Ex.
`1001 ¶¶ 115–125, 159–164). Dr. Clark testifies “[t]he XML elements and
`attributes are data components of an XML document; updating the elements
`and attributes of an XML document modifies data components in at least
`one of the XML documents.” Ex. 1001 ¶ 161. Dr. Papakonstantinou asserts
`that “the Petition’s analysis is flawed,” repeats the claim limitation, and
`offers his conclusory opinion that Petitioner failed to show the above-
`referenced limitation (Ex. 2007 ¶ 78). Dr. Papakonstantinou does not
`disclose the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based. See 37
`C.F.R. § 42.65(a).11 We find that Patent Owner has not identified evidence
`to rebut Dr. Clark’s opinion and credit the testimony of Dr. Clark as being
`consistent with the teachings of Chau.
`
`
`10 Patent Owner also does not propose any construction for “modifying a
`data component in at least one of the XML documents” or provide
`persuasive reasoning for its position that certain modifications or changes
`are excluded, particularly in light of the ’081 Patent describing such
`modifications as exemplary (Ex. 1004, 3:45–65).
`11 We further note that a portion of the ’081 Patent Specification identified
`by Patent Owner for support (Tr. 62:7–63:15 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:45–48,
`2:21–22, 3:52–55)) describes that “the present invention overcomes
`problems associated . . . [with] modify[ing] the display format, functions,
`and filters operating upon inf