Paper No. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2 Entered: September 5, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SYNCRO SOFT SRL
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALTOVA GMBH
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN and
`JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2 Entered: September 5, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SYNCRO SOFT SRL
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALTOVA GMBH
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN and
`JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Syncro Soft SRL (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (“Pet.”) to institute an
`inter partes review of claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,501,456 (“the ’456
`patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 1. Altova GmbH (“Patent Owner”) waived its
`Preliminary Response. Paper 6.
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration
`of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the
`unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly,
`we institute an inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in
`the Petition.1
`A.
`Related Proceedings
`The parties identify a patent infringement action brought by Plaintiffs
`Altova GmBH and Altova Inc. (collectively “Altova”) against Defendant
`Syncro Soft SRL on August 31, 2017 as a related matter. See Altova GmbH
`et al. v. Syncro Soft SRL, No. 1:17-cv-11642-PBS (D. Mass); Ex. 1002
`(complaint); Pet. 1.
`B.
`The ’456 Patent
`The ’456 patent, titled “Automatic Fix for Extensible Markup
`Language Errors,” is directed to a method for automatically fixing extensible
`
`1 Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings” (Apr. 26,
`2018), https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-
`appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial; see also SAS Inst., Inc. v.
`Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`markup language (XML) errors. Ex. 1001, Title. The method comprises
`detecting and displaying information such as the location, analysis,
`underlying causes, and possible remedies of XML errors. Id. at 1:31–43.
`According to the Specification, most XML editors report on two types of
`errors: well-formedness errors and validation errors. Id. at 1:9–11. A well-
`formed XML document is a document that conforms to the XML syntax
`rules, such as tagging and nesting of all XML elements. Id. at 4:21–30. A
`valid XML document is a well-formed XML document that also conforms to
`the rules of a schema that defines the legal elements and document structure
`of an XML document. Id. at 4:31–40. “Typically, a line with a well-
`formedness/validation error or warning is marked in an editor panel by
`underlining an error region with a color. However, it is up to the developer
`to decipher the errors and correct the errors, wasting precious development
`time.” Id. at 4:41–45.
`
`The ’456 patent describes an XML editor including a “smart fix
`process” that “reduces the time spent troubleshooting and testing
`considerably” by reporting comprehensive information about errors and
`presenting options for fixing them, which developers can apply
`automatically with a single click. Id. at 4:46–56, 6:47–53. Information
`about the errors may include a link to an error in the working XML file, a
`link to the corresponding definition(s) in an associated schema file, and links
`to relevant information in an applicable W3C2 specification. Id. at 6:38–42,
`6:53–57. Possible corrections for fixing each error are enumerated in a
`“smart fix pane” so that a user can select which fix is implemented, and the
`smart fix process makes the selected change automatically. Id. at 6:63–7:5.
`
`2 W3C is an abbreviation for the World Wide Web Consortium. Id. at 5:2–3.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–12 of the ’456 patent. Claim 1, the
`only independent claim, is illustrative of the challenged claims, and is
`reproduced below:
`1. A method comprising:
`in a computing system having at least a processor, a memory and a
`display unit, detecting a location causing an error in a markup language
`document;
`displaying the location and the error in the markup language
`document on the display unit;
`analyzing the error in the markup language document and underlying
`causes of the error in the markup language document;
`computing a set of possible actions to remedy the error in the markup
`language document;
`displaying information about the error in the markup language
`document and its underlying causes on the display unit;
`displaying the set of possible actions to remedy the error in the
`markup language document on the display unit;
`receiving a user input selecting one of the possible actions to remedy
`the error in the markup language document; and
`replacing the location causing the error in the markup language
`document with the selected one of the possible actions to remedy the error
`in the markup language document,
`wherein the information about the error in the markup language
`document and its underlying causes comprises:
`a link to the error in the working XML file;
`a link to the corresponding definition(s) in an associated schema file;
`
`and
`
`links to relevant information in an applicable W3C specification.
`Ex. 1001, 7:13–42.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`D.
`
`Exhibit No.
`1004
`
`Maivald
`
`2008
`
`1008
`
`The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references:
`Reference
`Description
`Date
`XMLSpy2011 Altova GmbH, Altova
`2011
`XMLSpy 2011 User Manual
`and Programmers’
`Reference
`James J. Maivald et al., A
`Designer’s Guide to Adobe
`InDesign and XML:
`Harness the Power of XML
`to Automate your Print
`and Web Workflows
`Dorothy J. Hoskins, XML
`Publishing with Adobe
`InDesign
`U.S. Patent No. 7,657,832
`to Lin
`Adobe Systems Inc., Adobe
`InDesign CS3: User Guide
`U.S. Patent Pub No.
`2005/0210383 to Cucerzan
`et al.
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–12 on the following
`grounds:
`Ground
`1(A)
`
`Hoskins
`
`Lin
`
`Adobe
`
`Cucerzan
`
`E.
`
`Oct. 1, 2010
`
`1009
`
`Feb. 2, 2010
`
`1010
`
`2007
`
`Sept. 22,
`2005
`
`1011
`
`1013
`
`References
`XMLSpy2011 and
`Maivald
`XMLSpy2011,
`Maivald, and Hoskins
`
`Basis Challenged Claims
`§ 103
`1, 2, 5, 8
`
`§ 103
`
`3, 6, 7
`
`1(B)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`References
`XMLSpy2011,
`Maivald, and Lin
`and/or Cucerzan3
`Lin, Adobe, and/or
`XMLSpy2011
`Lin, Adobe, and/or
`XMLSpy2011, and
`Cucerzan
`
`Basis Challenged Claims
`§ 103
`4, 9–12
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1–11
`
`12
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`
`Ground
`1(C)
`
`2(A)
`
`2(B)
`
`
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dorothy J. Hoskins (“Hoskins
`Declaration,” Ex. 1016) in support of its contentions.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`[the claims] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Consistent with the broadest
`reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and
`customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms in controversy need to
`be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.
`See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in
`
`
`3 The Petition discusses Cucerzan only in relation to the proposed challenge
`to claim 12, although Petitioner does not set forth a separate ground for
`claim 12 alone. We, therefore, analyze ground 1(C) as applying Cucerzan
`only to claim 12.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`Petitioner proposes that we construe the following terms and phrases:
`“the working XML file”; “replacing the location causing the error in the
`markup language documents with the selected one of the possible actions”;
`and “links to relevant information in an applicable W3C specification.” Pet.
`14–17. We determine that only the term “the working XML file” needs
`construction for purposes of this Decision.
`Petitioner argues that the term “the working XML file” as recited in
`claim 1 should be construed as “the markup language document” because
`there is “no antecedent basis for ‘the working XML file,’ nor for ‘the error’
`in such file,” but there is antecedent basis for “the error in the markup
`language document.” Pet. 14. Petitioner cites Ms. Hoskins’s testimony
`explaining that “working XML file” has no particular meaning to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art and that, because claim 1 makes numerous earlier
`references to “a markup language document,” a person of ordinary skill
`would understand from context that “the working XML file” is “the markup
`language document” referenced earlier in the claim. Ex. 1016 ¶ 30, cited in
`Pet. 14. For the purpose of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner that “the
`working XML file” should be interpreted as “the markup language
`document” because “the markup language document” is recited in all of the
`preceding steps of claim 1. Furthermore, context would suggest to a person
`of ordinary skill that “the error in the working XML file” refers back to “the
`error in the markup language file” because claim 1 does not refer to any
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`other “error.” For the purpose of this Decision, therefore, we interpret “the
`working XML file” as “the markup language document.”
`B.
`Obviousness Based on XMLSpy2011, Maivald, Hoskins, Lin, and/or
`Cucerzan
`Petitioner, with supporting testimony from Ms. Hoskins, argues that
`claims 1, 2, 5, and 8 of the ’456 patent would have been obvious over the
`combined teachings of XMLSpy2011 and Maivald (Pet. 17–35 (citing
`Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 30–34, 48, 50, 67–73, 75–82, 84–94)), and that claims 3, 6, and
`7 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of XMLSpy2011,
`Maivald, and Hoskins. Pet. 35–40 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 92–94, 100–102).
`Petitioner further argues that claims 4 and 9–12 of the ’456 patent would
`have been obvious over the combined teachings of XMLSpy2011, Maivald,
`and Lin and/or Cucerzan. Pet. 40–47 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 54–56, 105–117).
`Prior Art Status of XMLSpy2011, Maivald, and Hoskins
`1.
`As an initial matter, we address Petitioner’s contention that
`XMLSpy2011, Maivald, and Hoskins are available as prior art to the ’456
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 4–7. The application filing date of the
`’456 patent is March 15, 2013. Pet. 4; Ex. 1001, [22].
`Petitioner submits the following evidence and arguments to support
`the contention that XMLSpy2011 was “disseminated or otherwise made
`available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the
`subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence” would have been able
`to locate it in 2011: (1) a copyright date of 2011 on the face of
`XMLSpy2011; (2) metadata for the PDF file on Altova’s website shows
`XMLSpy2011 was created on July 8, 2011; and (3) Altova released a printed
`version of XMLSpy2011 available in 2011. Pet. 4–6 (citing Blue Calypso,
`LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Petitioner
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`relies on an affidavit from Christopher Butler, Office Manager at the Internet
`Archive, to show that XMLSpy2011 was available for download from
`Altova’s website on August 31, 2011 (Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1015)), and on Ms.
`Hoskins’s testimony that “it was common practice for a company releasing a
`software product in 2011 (as XML Spy 2011 was) to make a user and
`reference manual readily available to the public, for example, by offering it
`for download from the company’s website, and/or by making a print version
`publicly available.” Ex. 1016 ¶ 49. Petitioner further argues that the
`publication date of XMLSpy2011 is admissible as an admission by Patent
`Owner, Altova, the author of XMLSpy2011 and registrant and owner of the
`altova.com website from which XMLSpy2011 is available, subject to the
`hearsay exceptions in FRE 801(d)(2)(A)–(D).
`Having reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we
`determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient threshold showing that
`XMLSpy2011 is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`With regard to Maivald (Ex. 1008), Petitioner contends that it is a
`prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on the 2008
`copyright date listed on its face and Ms. Hoskins’s testimony that she readily
`located and obtained a copy of it well before the application filing date of
`the ’456 patent, and because it was a technical guide by a well-known
`publisher of “widely-distributed educational and technical literature,”
`Adobe, as part of Adobe’s ordinary course of business. Pet. 6–7 (citing
`Ex. 1008; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 50–51). Similarly with regard to Hoskins (Ex. 1009),
`Petitioner contends that it is a prior art printed publication based on the 2010
`release date listed on its face and Ms. Hoskins’s testimony that it was
`publicly available and readily accessible as of its release date, and because
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`the publisher, O’Reilly Media, is in the business of publishing educational
`and technical literature, and its publications are popular and widely
`available. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1009; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 52–53). Having reviewed
`Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner
`has made a sufficient threshold showing that Maivald and Hoskins are prior
`art printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`Overview of XMLSpy2011
`2.
`XMLSpy2011 is a user manual and programmers’ reference for
`Altova XML Spy 2011 Professional Edition. Ex. 1004, 3.4 According to
`Ms. Hoskins, XML Spy is an XML editor and development environment
`that includes an XML validation tool. Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 44, 48. Ms. Hoskins
`explains that XMLSpy2011 describes how XML Spy detects and analyzes
`well-formedness and validation errors in markup language documents and
`details how information about an error is displayed to a user, along with
`suggestions for remedying the error. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 16, 75–76, 463).
`XMLSpy2011 contains screenshots of the XML Spy graphical user interface
`(GUI) with step-by-step instructions explaining how to perform well-
`formedness and validation checks, how the GUI displays any errors that are
`located, and how to fix an error. E.g., Ex. 1004, 75–76, 463.
`Overview of Maivald
`3.
`Maivald is a designer’s guide for using Adobe InDesign and XML.
`Ex. 1008, 1.5 According to Ms. Hoskins, Adobe InDesign is a desktop
`publishing software package that provides the ability to incorporate data in
`
`4 We refer to the original page numbers that appear in the top corner of each
`page of Ex. 1004, not the page numbers added by Petitioner.
`5 We refer to the original page numbers that appear in the top corner of each
`page of Ex. 1008, not the page numbers added by Petitioner.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`XML content into page designs and other layouts. Ex. 1016 ¶ 45. Ms.
`Hoskins explains that Maivald “discloses functionality by which InDesign,
`in response to detecting an error, can determine a set of possible remedies
`for the error and present them to the user.” Id. at ¶ 50 (citing Ex. 1008, 53–
`54). Maivald contains screenshots of the InDesign GUI with step-by-step
`instructions of how to validate an XML document using document type
`definition (DTD), an XML schema. Ex. 1008, 53–54. The screenshots
`show an example of a user attempting to validate an XML document where
`an error message indicates that a required element is missing, and InDesign
`providing a list of possible fixes following the error message. Id. at 303–05.
`Overview of Hoskins
`4.
`Hoskins is a 111-page book titled “XML Publishing with Adobe
`InDesign.” Ex. 1009, 1. Hoskins discusses how to use the features of
`InDesign for importing, creating, and exporting XML files and includes a
`chapter specifically directed to validation of XML in InDesign. Id. at 9, 61–
`68. According to Ms. Hoskins, her book “details the XML validation
`functionality of InDesign, including suggesting that an error in a markup
`language document can be corrected by deleting or inserting elements or
`attributes.” Ex. 1016 ¶ 52.
`5.
`Overview of Lin
`Lin is titled “Correcting Validation Errors in Structured Documents”
`and describes methods for correcting and validating XML documents to
`conform to rules of an XML document type definition (DTD). Ex. 1010,
`2:35–65. In general, Lin’s methods for correcting and validating include
`“identifying a structural aspect of a structured electronic document that fails
`to conform to rules of a markup language format, suggesting one or more
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`changes to a user which would correct the identified structural aspect,
`receiving user input selecting a change of the suggested changes, and
`applying the selected change to the structured electronic document.” Id. at
`2:26–32.
`Overview of Cucerzan
`6.
`Cucerzan is titled “Systems and Methods for Improved Spell
`Checking” and describes a spelling correction method that can provide
`individualized suggestions for each user when entering information into a
`file. Ex. 1013 ¶ 3. Cucerzan teaches that one of “[t]he two most used
`classes of distances in spelling correction [is] edit distances, as proposed by
`Damerau . . . and Levenshtein.” Id. ¶ 40.
`7.
`Ground 1(A): Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, 5, and 8 would have been obvious
`over the combination of XMLSpy2011 and Maivald. Pet. 17. We focus our
`discussion on Petitioner’s contentions with regard to claim 1, the only
`independent claim.
`a. “in a computing system having at least a processor, a
`memory and a display unit, detecting a location causing an
`error in a markup language document”
`Petitioner contends that XMLSpy2011 teaches software operating on
`a computer system having at least a processor, a memory, and a display unit,
`as recited in claim 1. Pet. 18. Relying on Ms. Hoskins’s testimony,
`Petitioner argues that a software-based development environment having a
`GUI, as described in XMLSpy2011, “necessarily and inherently operates on
`a computer system having at least a processor, a memory, and a display
`unit.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 11–12; Ex. 1016 ¶ 67). Petitioner further
`contends that XMLSpy2011 teaches “detecting a location causing an error in
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`a markup language document” because it describes that a user can request to
`“check the validity of your XML document” and upon completing the check,
`“[a]n error message appears in the Messages window saying the file is not
`valid.” Pet. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 1004, 75; citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 68).
`b. “displaying the location and the error in the markup
`language document on the display unit”
`Petitioner contends that XMLSpy2011 teaches this limitation because
`it provides an example of how the GUI displays an error message “saying
`that the file is not valid” and “[t]he point at which the document becomes
`invalid is highlighted.” Pet. 19 (quoting Ex. 1004, 75–76).
`c. “analyzing the error in the markup language document and
`underlying causes of the error in the markup language
`document”
`Petitioner contends that XMLSpy2011 teaches this limitation because
`it describes, in two places, that the GUI highlights the location of an error
`(Ex. 1004, 75–76) or displays a message that describes an error (id. at 463).
`Pet. 20–21. Relying on Ms. Hoskins’s testimony, Petitioner argues that “a
`detected error and its underlying causes must necessarily and inherently be
`analyzed in order to display a message that describes the error and its
`location, and in order to display the reason of the error” as disclosed in
`XMLSpy2011. Id. at 21 (quoting Ex. 1016 ¶ 72).
`d. “computing a set of possible actions to remedy the error in
`the markup language document”
`Petitioner contends that the combination of XMLSpy2011 and
`Maivald teaches this limitation. Pet. 22–23. Petitioner contends that after
`XMLSpy2011 describes the step of displaying an error message, it explains
`that a proposed action to fix the error is represented by an exclamation point
`placed in front of the element that must be added in order to fix the
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`validation error; a user may then fix the error by double-clicking on the
`element. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1004, 76). Petitioner further argues that
`Maivald teaches computing “a set of possible actions” because it describes
`that an error message in InDesign provides a “list of possible fixes” when a
`structure is missing a required element. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1008, 53–54,
`303–05; Ex. 1016 ¶ 74). Noting that both XMLSpy2011 and Maivald
`describe XML editors, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have been motivated to incorporate Maivald’s teaching of
`determining a set of possible actions into the steps described in
`XMLSpy2011 because providing a list of possible fixes, as disclosed by
`Maivald, would give the user more options for correcting the error, thereby
`increasing the likelihood that at least one of the suggested corrections is
`helpful or appropriate. Id. at 23, 34 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 92–94). Petitioner
`further contends that Maivald explicitly recommends XML Spy, the XML
`editor described by XMLSpy2011, as “an XML editor that provides strong
`validation capabilities” and describes how XML Spy can be used to
`complement the capability of Maivald’s XML editor, InDesign, for editing
`and validating XML documents, which would have motivated a person of
`ordinary skill to combine Maivald’s teachings with those of XMLSpy2011.
`Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1008, 94–95, 299; Ex. 1004, 3; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 92–94).
`e. “displaying information about the error in the markup
`language document and its underlying causes on the display
`unit”
`Petitioner contends that XMLSpy2011 teaches this limitation because
`it includes a screenshot with the name of the file in which the error is
`located, the reason for the error, the location of the error within the file, and
`details about the element, type, or relevant schema or W3C location. Pet.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`23–24 (citing Ex. 1004, 16). Petitioner further notes that XMLSpy2011
`explains that links in the error message connect to the location in the XML
`file where the error was found. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1004, 463).
`f. “displaying the set of possible actions to remedy the error in
`the markup language document on the display unit”
`Petitioner contends that the combination of XMLSpy2011 and
`Maivald teaches this limitation. Pet. 25–26. Petitioner relies on the same
`teachings of XMLSpy2011 and Maivald as set forth above for the step of
`computing a set of possible actions, and the same rationale for incorporating
`Maivald’s teaching of displaying a set of possible actions into XML Spy’s
`steps. Id. at 33–35.
`g. “receiving a user input selecting one of the possible actions
`to remedy the error in the markup language document”
`Petitioner contends that the combination of XMLSpy2011 and
`Maivald teaches this limitation. Pet. 26–27. Petitioner contends that
`Maivald teaches receiving user input selecting one of the possible actions
`because the user is given a choice of possible actions to correct an error. Id.
`at 27 (citing Ex. 1008, 53–54, 303–05). Petitioner relies on the same
`rationale for incorporating Maivald’s teaching of a set of possible actions
`into XML Spy’s steps, as set forth above. Id. at 33–35.
`h. “replacing the location causing the error in the markup
`language document with the selected one of the possible
`actions to remedy the error in the markup language
`document”
`Petitioner contends that the combination of XMLSpy2011 and
`Maivald teaches this limitation. Pet. 27–28. Petitioner contends that
`XMLSpy2011 teaches that if an error is detected during validation, the error
`is highlighted, and the user can click an element to fix the error. Id. at 28
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, 75–76). Petitioner relies on the same teachings of Maivald
`as set forth above concerning how InDesign gives the user a choice of
`possible actions to correct an error (id. (citing Ex. 1008, 303–05)), and it
`relies on the same rationale for incorporating Maivald’s teaching of a set of
`possible actions into XML Spy’s steps, as set forth above. Id. at 33–35.
`i. “wherein the information about the error in the markup
`language document and its underlying causes comprises:a
`link to the error in the working XML file; a link to the
`corresponding definition(s) in an associated schema file;
`and links to relevant information in an applicable W3C
`specification”
`Petitioner contends that XMLSpy2011 teaches this limitation because
`it describes that the GUI includes links to the error location, “the relevant
`schema definition,” and “the sections in the relevant [W3C] specification on
`the Internet that describe the rule in question.” Pet. 29–30 (quoting Ex.
`1004, 16, 463).
`j. Conclusion
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s
`analysis of the teachings of XMLSpy2011 and Maivald, and the rationale to
`combine discussed in the Petition, as supported by the Hoskins Declaration,
`are sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the subject matter of
`claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of
`XMLSpy2011 and Maivald. We also considered the arguments and
`evidence with respect to dependent claims 2, 5, and 8, including Petitioner’s
`detailed explanations supported by Ms. Hoskins’s testimony and specific
`citations to XMLSpy2011 and Maivald indicating where in the references
`the limitations of claims 2, 5, and 8 are taught. Pet. 30–33 (citing Ex. 1004,
`75; Ex. 1008, 53–55; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 88–94). At this stage of the proceeding
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`and on the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to those claims as well.
`8.
`Ground 1(B): Claims 3, 6, and 7
`Claim 3 depends indirectly from claim 1 and further requires that the
`markup language document is an XML document (as recited in claim 2) and
`that “the error indicates a part of the XML document structure is not allowed
`under circumstances of a respective rule that raised the error condition but
`the condition can be resolved by deletion.” Ex. 1001. Petitioner relies on
`Hoskins for teaching this limitation of claim 3. Pet. 36. Hoskins provides a
`screenshot of InDesign’s suggested solution when it detects an element in an
`invalid position in a structure and states that InDesign “suggests that I delete
`the element.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1009, 64). Petitioner also relies on Ms.
`Hoskins’s testimony concerning Hoskins. Id. (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 97).
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill would have been
`motivated to combine XMLSpy2011 and Maivald with Hoskins to perform
`the method of claim 3 because Hoskins, like Maivald, is a guidebook for
`using InDesign, and because using Hoskins would give a user more options
`for correcting an error and therefore increase the likelihood that at least one
`of the suggested corrections would be helpful, or at least appropriate.
`Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1009, 64–66; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 100–102). Petitioner further
`argues that Hoskins provides explicit teaching for combination with XML
`Spy because it states that “even when InDesign reports ‘no known errors,’
`you can double-check the XML’s validity . . . in another XML application
`that has validation capabilities” and explicitly mentions XML Spy. Id. at 40
`(quoting Ex. 1009, 66–67; citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 102).
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s
`discussion of particular steps described in XMLSpy2011, Maivald, and
`Hoskins, and the explanations in the Petition and the Hoskins Declaration,
`are sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the subject matter of
`claim 3 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of those
`references. We have also considered the arguments and evidence with
`respect to dependent claims 6 and 7, including Petitioner’s detailed
`explanations supported by Ms. Hoskins’s testimony and specific citations to
`XMLSpy2011, Maivald, and Hoskins, and indicating where in Hoskins the
`additional limitations of claims 6 and 7 are taught. Pet. 36–38 (citing Ex.
`1009, 66; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 98–99). At this stage of the proceeding and on the
`current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail as to those claims as well.
`9.
`Ground 1(C): Claims 4 and 9–12
`Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and additionally requires that “the error
`in the markup language document indicates an element is not allowed at its
`current position by a parent element’s content model but would be allowed
`at another position within the same content model.” Ex. 1001, 8:1–5.
`Petitioner relies on Lin for teaching this limitation of claim 4 and contends
`inter alia that Lin teaches “identifying a structural aspect of a structured
`electronic document that fails to conform to rules of a markup language
`format, suggesting one or more changes to a user which would correct the
`identified structural aspect, receiving user input selecting a change of the
`suggested changes, and applying the selected change to the structured
`electronic document.” Pet. 41 (quoting Ex. 1010, 2:26–32). More
`specifically in relation to claim 4, Petitioner contends that Lin teaches “for
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00660
`Patent 9,501,456 B2
`
`each identified, non-conforming aspect of the document the validation
`program suggests one or more corrections that would correct the identified,
`non-conforming aspect” and that such suggestions can include moving data
`or “moving an element from a current location to a new location in the XML
`electronic document structure.” Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1010, 5:52–6:9, 11:20–
`52, 12:17–56, 12:65–13:34, 14:1–43, 14:55–16:3; Ex. 1016 ¶ 105).
`Noting that Lin, like XMLSpy2011 and Maivald, teaches techniques
`for validating XML document and suggesting fixes for validation errors,
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated
`to combine XMLSpy2011 and Maivald with Lin to perform the method of
`claim 4 for the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1. Id. at 45–46
`(citing Ex. 1004, 3, 16, 54, 75–76; Ex. 1008, 53–55, 303–05; Ex. 1010, 5:9–
`6:9). Petitioner argues that Lin’s teaching of techniques for improving and
`ordering a set of suggested corrections would have motivated a person of
`ordinary skill in the art to incorporate its teachings in XMLSpy2011, as
`modified by Maivald, in order to increase the likelihood that at least one of
`the suggested corrections would be helpful, or appropriate. Id. at 46.
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s
`discussion of particular methods in XMLSpy2011, Maivald, and Lin, and the
`explanations in the Petition and the Hoskins Declaration, are sufficient to
`establish a reasonable likelihood that the subject matter of claim 4 would
`have been obvious over the combined teachings of
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
