throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket