UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CYPRESS LAKE SOFTWARE, INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: To Be Assigned
`Patent No. 9,423,954
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 1 of 103
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
`Summary of Opinions ........................................................................................................ 1
`A.
`Education and Experience ...................................................................................... 5
`B.
`Compensation ........................................................................................................ 7
`C.
`Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon ....................................................... 7
`Statement of Legal Principles ............................................................................................ 7
`A.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................ 7
`B. Written Description ................................................................................................ 8
`C.
`Benefit of Claimed Priority / Effective Filing Date ............................................... 9
`D.
`Anticipation............................................................................................................ 9
`E.
`Obviousness ......................................................................................................... 10
`Overview of the ’954 Patent ............................................................................................ 10
`A.
`Summary of the ‘954 Patent ................................................................................ 10
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................................. 21
`C.
`Related District Court Litigation ......................................................................... 22
`State of the Art Prior to the ’954 Patent ........................................................................... 22
`A.
`Correlated User Interface Elements ..................................................................... 22
`B. Window Layout via “Snapping” .......................................................................... 28
`C.
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art................................................................. 31
`Identification of the Prior Art and Summary of Opinions ............................................... 33
`VI.
`VII. Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims of the ‘954 Patent ......................................... 34
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1-20 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) For Lack Of
`Written Description .............................................................................................. 34
`1.
`Independent Claims 1, 14, and 19 ............................................................ 34
`a.
`No Written Description Support for Presenting a Second
`Window Adjacent to a First Window In Response To User
`Input ............................................................................................. 36
`Dependent claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20 .................................................... 45
`2.
`Ground 2: Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-15, and 16-20 Are Invalid Under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as Anticipated By The Public Use and Sale of
`Microsoft’s Windows 10 Operating System ........................................................ 46
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................................ 47
`
`B.
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 2 of 103
`
`

`

`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 .............................................. 52
`Dependent Claims 12 and 13 ................................................................... 57
`Independent Claim 14 .............................................................................. 62
`Dependent Claims 16, 17, and 18 ............................................................ 65
`Claims 19 and 20 ..................................................................................... 68
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 3 of 103
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`1. My name is Loren G. Terveen. I am currently a full Professor of
`
`Computer Science & Engineering at The University of Minnesota, and hold the
`
`title of Distinguished McKnight University Professor.
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) in
`
`connection with the Petition for Post-Grant Review (“PGR Petition”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,423,954 (the “’954 patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the ’954 patent has been assigned to Cypress Lake
`
`Software, Inc. (“Cypress Lake”).
`
`4.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me.
`
`To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that
`
`have not yet been taken.
`
`II.
`
`5.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`It is my opinion that independent claims 1, 14, and 19 of the ’954
`
`patent are invalid for lack of written description support under AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, as explained to me by Petitioners’ counsel.
`
`6.
`
`The ’954 patent describes methods and systems for identifying
`
`programmable “binding information” that defines mappings between arbitrary user
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 1 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 4 of 103
`
`

`

`
`interface components across different applications. Ex. 1001 at 12:56-62 & Fig. 2.
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`Those methods and systems then enforce the mappings identified in the binding
`
`information by detecting changes in user interface components and making
`
`corresponding changes in other components according to those pre-identified
`
`mappings. Id. at 16:6-16, 17:28-43 & Fig. 2. The result is a flexible system that
`
`allows a programmer to arbitrarily define, e.g., using XML or custom source code,
`
`how certain user interface elements should respond to changes in other user
`
`interface elements. Id. at 13:21-15:7 & Fig 7. Once the binding information has
`
`been specified by the programmer and identified by the system, the system
`
`automatically enforces those bindings by monitoring all changes to the user
`
`interface elements and orchestrating corresponding changes in other user interface
`
`elements as required by the pre-identified mappings. Id. at 16:6-16, 17:28-43 &
`
`Figs. 2 & 3. Every disclosed embodiment requires this encoded binding or
`
`mapping information — it is the central premise of the entire patent.
`
`7.
`
`The claims of the ’954 patent are entirely divorced from the concept
`
`of “binding information,” despite this being the central premise of the invention
`
`described in the specification. The claims do not mention “binding information” or
`
`pre-identified “mappings” between user interface elements. There are no claim
`
`requirements that binding information be identified, and no description of using
`
`identified binding information to implement mappings between user interface
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 2 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 5 of 103
`
`

`

`
`components. Each of the claims are directed to sequences of user inputs that result
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`in some change in the user interface, with no reference or relationship to the
`
`methods and systems actually described in the specification.
`
`8.
`
`Specifically, each of the independent claims of the ’954 patent
`
`requires “detection of a [second/third] user input” and “in response to [that] user
`
`input” presenting a “second window” adjacent to an already presented “first
`
`window.” Id., claims 1, 14, 19. The specification never describes presenting a
`
`second window adjacent to a first window based on a detected “user input.” The
`
`specification only identifies detecting user inputs in two contexts: (1) identifying
`
`binding information, id. at 15:53-65, and (2) detecting changes to a user interface
`
`element that is part of a mapping in pre-identified binding information, id. at 17:7-
`
`8. Neither of those disclosures in the specification correspond to what is claimed.
`
`9.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) reading the
`
`specification would not have understood the inventors to have been in possession
`
`of an invention consisting of “detecting a [second/third] user input” and presenting
`
`a “second window” adjacent to an already presented “first window” in response to
`
`that user input without the use of pre-identified binding information. Therefore, it
`
`is my opinion that claims 1, 14, and 19 are invalid for lack of written description
`
`support.
`
`10.
`
`It is my opinion that the dependent claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20 are also
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 3 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 6 of 103
`
`

`

`
`invalid for lack of written description support under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112. Each of
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`those claims depends on either claim 1, 14, or 19. None of those dependent claims
`
`require “binding information” or otherwise rectify the lack of written description
`
`support in the independent claims.
`
`11. Finally, it is my opinion that if the claims of the ’954 patent are not
`
`entitled to an effective filing date earlier than the actual filing date of October 27,
`
`2015, claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-15, and 16-20 are rendered obvious by the prior use
`
`and sale of Windows 10 under Cypress Lake’s own interpretation of the claims. I
`
`understand that Cypress Lake has filed an action in district court and alleged that
`
`devices running Windows 10 infringe these claims of the ’954 patent. I have
`
`reviewed the claim charts that Cypress Lake has provided in that litigation, which
`
`allege that devices running Windows 10 satisfy each and every of one of the
`
`limitations in claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-15, and 16-20. I further understand that the
`
`Windows 10 functionality that Cypress Lake alleges to infringe was in public use
`
`and/or publically known at the time of the invention. Because the use that Cypress
`
`Lake alleges to infringe actually pre-dates the effective filing date of the ’954
`
`patent, the asserted claims of the ’954 patent would be rendered obvious under
`
`Cypress Lake’s interpretation of the claims.
`
`12. The subsequent sections of this declaration will first provide my
`
`qualifications and experience and then describe the details of my analysis and
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 4 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 7 of 103
`
`

`

`
`observations regarding the ’954 patent.
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`A. Education and Experience
`
`13.
`
`I received a B.A. in Computer Science, Mathematics, and History
`
`from the University of South Dakota in 1984, a M.S. in Computer Science from the
`
`University of Texas in 1988, and a Ph.D. from the University of Texas in
`
`Computer Science in 1991.
`
`14.
`
`I am a member of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM),
`
`the oldest, largest, and most prestigious computing society in the world. I am the
`
`President of ACM’s Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction, one
`
`of its largest and most active special interest groups. I also am a member of the
`
`ACM Council, the highest governing body of the ACM. I received the ACM for
`
`Distinguished Scientist Award in 2009.
`
`15. My research and teaching focus on human-computer interaction, user
`
`interface design, and social computing. I have several decades of experience in
`
`these specialties of computer science in both industry and academia. I worked for
`
`AT&T Laboratories from 1991 through 2002, during which time I conducted
`
`research and developed systems that solved problems in software engineering, web
`
`information seeking and organization, and recommender systems. In all my
`
`research, I designed, implemented, and tested graphical user interfaces. I have been
`
`employed full-time as a professor at the University of Minnesota since 2002,
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 5 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 8 of 103
`
`

`

`
`during which time I have taught classes in computer science, human-computer
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`interaction and social computing, and have conducted, supervised, and published
`
`research in the field. My research has been published in numerous journal and
`
`conference papers, as well as in a book I co-authored entitled “Foundational Issues
`
`in Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science: Impasse and Solution.” I have
`
`served on the editorial board of ACM’s Transactions on Human-Computer
`
`Interaction and the Communications of the ACM, and have served as a reviewer
`
`for numerous journals, including ACM Computing Surveys, IEEE Transactions on
`
`Data and Knowledge Engineering, the International Journal of Human-Computer
`
`Studies, and the Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work.
`
`16.
`
`I am a listed inventor on nine patents, including those related to the
`
`computer graphical environment (U.S. Patent No. 5,680,530).
`
`17.
`
`I have consulted on over 10 intellectual property cases that have dealt
`
`with topics in user interface design, recommender systems, web information
`
`systems, and set top boxes. During these cases, I have testified before judges, been
`
`deposed, and written multiple expert reports.
`
`18. A more complete recitation of my qualifications, background and
`
`experience, including a list of my publications and matters on which I have worked
`
`as an expert, are set forth in my curriculum vitae, attached to my declaration as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 6 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 9 of 103
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Compensation
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`19.
`
`I am being compensated by Microsoft for my work in connection with
`
`this declaration. The compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the
`
`outcome of this post-grant review or any other proceeding, or any issues involved
`
`in or related to the post-grant review.
`
`C. Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon
`
`20. My opinions expressed in this declaration are based on documents and
`
`materials identified in this declaration, including the ’954 patent and its
`
`prosecution history, the background materials discussed in this declaration, and
`
`any other references specifically identified in this declaration. I have considered
`
`these materials in their entirety, even if only portions are discussed here.
`
`21.
`
`I have also relied on my own experience and expertise in human-
`
`computer interaction and user interface research and design.
`
`22. All exhibit numbers used in this declaration refer to the Exhibits to
`
`Petitioners’ PGR Petition for the ’954 patent.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A. Claim Construction
`23. Petitioner’s counsel has advised that, when construing claim terms in
`
`an unexpired patent, a claim subject to post-grant review receives the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 7 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 10 of 103
`
`

`

`
`appears.” Petitioners’ counsel has further informed me that the broadest
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`reasonable construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
`
`language, and that any term that lacks a definition in the specification is also given
`
`a broad interpretation.
`
`B. Written Description
`24. Petitioner’s counsel has advised that, under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), a
`
`patent’s written description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. To satisfy § 112(a), the
`
`disclosures in the patent application, as filed, must describe the full scope of the
`
`claimed invention and do so in sufficient detail that a POSITA would clearly
`
`conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the
`
`filing date.
`
`25. Petitioner’s counsel has advised that it is not enough to show that a
`
`claimed invention would have been obvious to a POSITA in light of the
`
`specification. I have also been informed that, to satisfy § 112(a), it is not enough
`
`to point to language in the written description covering separate, individual
`
`limitations. For a claim to satisfy § 112(a), the patent’s specification must
`
`demonstrate to those a POSITA that the inventor had actual possession of the
`
`complete and final invention with all its claimed limitations.
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 8 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 11 of 103
`
`

`

`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`C. Benefit of Claimed Priority / Effective Filing Date
`26. Petitioner’s counsel has advised that the effective filing date for a
`
`patent claim is the actual filing date of the patent, unless the patent claims priority
`
`to an earlier application and the claim in question is fully supported under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 by the disclosures in the earlier filed application. If the earlier
`
`application does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a
`
`POSITA would conclude that the inventor was in “possession” of the claimed
`
`invention as of the filing date of that earlier application, the claim does not receive
`
`the benefit of its earlier filing date.
`
`D. Anticipation
`27. Petitioner’s counsel has advised that in order for a patent claim to be
`
`valid, the claimed invention must be novel. Petitioners’ counsel has further
`
`advised that, if the ’954 patent is not entitled to claim the benefit of an earlier
`
`priority date, the novelty of its claims will determined by AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`28. Petitioner’s counsel has advised that, under AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a)(1), if a prior art system in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the
`
`public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention satisfies every
`
`element of a claim, the claim is anticipated and is not patentable. AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) provides certain exceptions to § 102(a) — for example, where the public
`
`use, sale, or public availability of the prior art system was from one of the patent’s
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 9 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 12 of 103
`
`

`

`
`named inventors or where the prior art system was developed pursuant to a joint
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`research agreement.
`
`E. Obviousness
`29. Petitioner’s counsel has also advised me that obviousness under AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 is a basis for invalidity for patents filed after March 16, 2013, that
`
`are not entitled to the benefit of an earlier effective filing date. I understand that if
`
`a piece of prior art does not disclose all of the limitations of a given patent claim,
`
`that patent claim is nonetheless invalid if the differences between the claimed
`
`subject matter and the prior art are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA. Obviousness can be based on a single
`
`piece of prior art or a combination that either expressly or inherently disclose all
`
`limitations of the claimed invention.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’954 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ‘954 Patent
`
`30. The ’954 patent was filed on October 27, 2015, and issued on August
`
`23, 2016. It is titled “Graphical User Interface Methods, Systems, and Computer
`
`Program Products.”
`
`31.
`
`In its “Background” section, the ’954 patent explains that there is
`
`often “no integration and/or cooperation between or among applications used at the
`
`same time by a user.” Id. at 1:23-25. Users have to work in different applications,
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 10 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 13 of 103
`
`

`

`
`and, as a result, “spend significant time managing the user interfaces of these
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`various applications in order to access the data desired in the application desired.”
`
`Id. at 1:35-37. For that reason, the patent states that “there exists a need for
`
`methods, systems, and computer program products for binding attributes between
`
`visual components.” Id.
`
`32. To address this need, the ’954 patent proposes binding visual interface
`
`elements within a single application or across different applications through the use
`
`of arbitrarily programmable “binding information.” Id. at 12:56-13:1. The binding
`
`information “specifies a mapping between a first visual attribute of the first visual
`
`component and a second visual attribute of a second visual component.” Id. at
`
`12:56-62. This “[b]inding information may be represented in any suitable
`
`representation including declaratory representations, source code representations,
`
`binary representations, and script representations.” Id. at 13:24-27.
`
`33. The ’954 patent describes in detail how such “binding information”
`
`can be defined and “represented in extensible markup language (XML) according
`
`to a schema specifying at least one of a format and a vocabulary for defining valid”
`
`mappings between application interface elements. Id. at 13:21-24. That XML
`
`schema provides a “<visual-binding>” element that the programmer can use to
`
`define a binding. Id. at 13:28-31.
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 11 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 14 of 103
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`34. Within that “<visual-binding>” element, the programmer can specify
`
`
`
`the applications involved in the binding using one or more “<application>” tags.
`
`Id. at 32-35. Figure 7 of the patent depicts a “<visual-binding>” element with
`
`“<application>” tags in the following excerpt:
`
`
`
`The pair of “<application . . . >” tags within a “<visual-binding>” element identify
`
`the two applications whose visual interface elements will be bound, providing their
`
`file path by setting a “path” value (id. at 32-35) and giving them each an alias by
`
`setting an “id” value (id. at 40-43). In this example, the binding involves two
`
`applications, “an HTML editor application” identified as “editor” and a “file search
`
`application” identified as “navigator.” Id. at 43-52.
`
`35. The ’954 patent describes that mappings between interface elements
`
`of different applications are defined in this XML schema for “binding information”
`
`through an “<attribute-binding>” tag. Id. at 13:63-67 (“An <attribute-binding> tag
`
`710 may be defined for specifying a mapping between a first visual attribute of a
`
`first visual component of a first application and a second visual attribute of a
`
`second visual component of a second application.”). Id. at 13.
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 12 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 15 of 103
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`36. The “<attribute-binding>” tag takes an “id” value that identifies an
`
`
`
`visual “attribute” of an interface element of one of the previously defined
`
`applications. Id. at 13:67-14:3. For example, the patent describes that an
`
`“<attribute-binding>” tag with an “id” value of “editor.main.state” would refer to
`
`the “visual state” of the “main window” of the previously identified “editor”
`
`HTML editor application. Id. at 14 :3-16. The ’954 patent also describes
`
`“<attribute-binding>” tags with “id” values of “size” (id. at 18:49-51, 19:1-3),
`
`“location” (id. at 19:19-21), and “transparency (id. at 19:59-61).” See also id., Fig.
`
`7.
`
`37. The “<attribute-binding>” tag also takes an “op-id” value that is used
`
`“to identify a change in an attribute to be detected.” Id. at 14:21-24. For example,
`
`the ’954 patent describes that an “<attribute-binding>” with an “op-id” value of
`
`“init” for the “state” attribute may “indicate a change in a visual component from
`
`uninitialized and not visible to initialized and visible.” Id. at 14:24-27. An
`
`“<attribute-binding>” with an “op-id” value of “change” for the “size” attribute of
`
`the main window “may be defined to indicate that any and/or every change in the
`
`size of the main window is to be detected.” Id. at 18:51-53. The ’954 patent also
`
`describes “op-id” values of “max” (“defined to indicate a change of the size of the
`
`main window to a maximum size,” id. at 18:25-28), “change” (“defined to indicate
`
`that any and/or every change in the size of the main window is to be detected,” id.
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 13 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 16 of 103
`
`

`

`
`at 18:51-53), “on-focus” (“defined to identify a change including an assignment of
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`input focus for an input device for the visual component,” id. at 19:39-42), and
`
`others.
`
`38. Finally, within an “<attribute-binding>” tag, the ’954 patent describes
`
`that the programmer can specify a “<bind>” tag “defined for specify[ing] a
`
`mapping between a visual component identified in an including <attribute-
`
`binding> tag 710 by an id attribute 712 and a second visual attribute of a second
`
`visual component of a second application.” Id. at 14:44-49.
`
`39.
`
`In summary, the “<attribute-binding>” tag defines what changes to
`
`look for (i.e., identifies a visual attribute of some user interface component to be
`
`monitored and a specific change in that attribute to be detected) and the “<bind>”
`
`tag defines what to do when such a change is detected (i.e., identifies a visual
`
`attribute of some different user interface component, possibly in another
`
`application, and what operation to perform on that attribute). A “<visual-
`
`binding>” tag can include numerous “<attribute-binding>” tags, as depicted in
`
`Figure 7:
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 14 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 17 of 103
`
`

`

`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`40. The ’954 describes a method and system of identifying this
`
`programmable binding information and enforcing the mappings that are defined
`
`therein. The method is described in Figure 2 and the system in Figure 3:
`
`
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 15 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 18 of 103
`
`

`

`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`
`
`41. Each component of the system in Figure 3 implements one aspect of
`
`the method in Figure 2. Specifically, the “user interface monitor component 302”
`
`first detects a “visual component including a first presentation space . . . by an
`
`operating first application.” Id. at 11:36-39. Binding director 304 then
`
`“identif[ies] binding information, for the first application, that specifies a mapping
`
`between a first visual attribute of the first visual component and a second visual
`
`attribute of a second visual component … [of] a second application.” Id. at 13:2-7.
`
`Binding monitor 206 “detect[s] a first change to the first visual attribute.” Id. at
`
`16:10-12. Finally, change director 308, “in response to detecting the first change,
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 16 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 19 of 103
`
`

`

`
`automatically send[s] change information to change the second visual attribute
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`according to the mapping.” Id. at 17:36-39.
`
`42. Figures 6a and 6b of the ’954 patent describes two simple examples of
`
`functionality that a programmer could specify with binding information and
`
`implement using the described methods and systems. Id. at 20:11-13 (“FIGS. 6a-b
`
`illustrate other exemplary mappings that may be supported by various adaptations
`
`of the arrangement of components in FIG. 3 in various aspects”).
`
`43.
`
`In Figure 6a, “a top border of first app[lication] visual component
`
`604-1a may be mapped to a bottom border of second app visual component 604-2a
`
`as specified by binding information received by a binding director component.”
`
`Id. at 20:13-17; id., Fig. 6:
`
`
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 17 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 20 of 103
`
`

`

`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`In Figure 6a, “binding information may specify that changes to a location and/or
`
`size of the top border of first app visual component 604-1a are to be mirrored or
`
`matched by changes in the bottom border of second app visual component 604-2
`
`a.” Id. at 20:46-50. When a “top border” of the first application user interface is
`
`raised, the size of the second application user interface “may change. For example,
`
`the sider borders may be made shorter.” Id. at 20:61-62.
`
`44.
`
`In Figure 6b, three separate applications have visual components
`
`whose “size and location attributes . . . may be bound.” Id. at 21:4-6. When a
`
`visual component from the first application “changes from minimized to a restored
`
`or maximized size and location, change information may be sent to respective
`
`applications by a change director component 408 to change one or both of second
`
`app visual component 604-2b and third app visual component 604-3b to a
`
`minimized state presented in specified respective locations in display presentation
`
`space 602b.” Id. at 21:3-13; id., Fig. 6b:
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 18 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 21 of 103
`
`

`

`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`
`
`45. The focus of the ’954 patent is on how to specify binding information
`
`using the disclosed XML schema and on the various components of the system it
`
`describes to identify the specified binding information and corresponding user
`
`interface components (using the “UI Monitor” and the “Binding Director”) and
`
`then enforce the mappings in the identified binding information (using the
`
`“Binding Monitor” and “Change Director”). The written description makes clear
`
`that the invention is not directed or limited to specific user interface functionality.
`
`See, e.g., 5:65-6:8 (describing a “not exhaustive” list of over twenty different
`
`“visual interface elements,” including “windows, textboxes, sliders, list boxes,
`
`drop-down lists, spinners, various types of menus, toolbars, ribbons, combo boxes,
`
`LEGAL135637539.2
`
`- 19 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 22 of 103
`
`

`

`
`tree views, grid views, navigation tabs, scrollbars, labels, tooltips, text in various
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`fonts, balloons, dialog boxes, and various types of button controls including check
`
`boxes and radio buttons”); 16:31-35 (describing thirteen “exemplary” visual
`
`attributes “that may be included in a mapping specified in binding information,
`
`includ[ing] one or more of a font, a color, a location in a presentation space, a size,
`
`a visibility attribute, a shape, a measure of time, a Z-value, a transparency attribute,
`
`a shading attribute, a visible pattern, a line thickness, and an attribute of a
`
`background.”). A person of skill in the art would understand the invention
`
`described in the ’954 patent to be a system that allows programmers to specify
`
`“binding information” that relates visual attributes of different applications to each
`
`and that identifi