Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unified Patents Inc. v. Vilox Technologies LLC, IPR2018-00044 (PTAB Oct. 06, 2017)
Unified Patents Inc. v. Vilox Technologies LLC, IPR2018-00044 (PTAB Oct. 06, 2017)
Patent 7,302,423
vs.
IPR2017-XXXXX
U.S. Patent 7,302,423
i
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Real Party-in-Interest.................................................................................1
A. Summary....................................................................................................5
V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.............................................................................12
A. truncation .............................................................................................13
ii
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
4. Analysis ...........................................................................................17
4. Analysis ...........................................................................................48
3. Analysis ...........................................................................................81
2. Analysis ...........................................................................................84
VII. CONCLUSION................................................................................................86
iii
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
October 6, 2017
iv
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
A. Real Party-in-Interest
Petitioner) certifies that Unified is the real party-in-interest, and further certifies
that no other party exercised control or could exercise control over Unifieds
participation in this proceeding, the filing of this petition, or the conduct of any
ensuing trial.
B. Related Matters
Owner).
As of the filing date of this Petition, and to the best knowledge of Petitioner,
1
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Lead Counsel
David M. ODell Phone: 972-739-8635
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP Fax: 214-200-0853
2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700 david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
Dallas, TX 75219 USPTO Reg. No. 42,044
Back-up Counsel
Jonathan Stroud Phone: 650-999-0455
Unified Patents Inc.
1875 Connecticut Ave NW, Floor 10 jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
Washington, DC 20009 USPTO Reg. No. 72,518
2
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
review is sought is available for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped
from requesting IPR review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified
in this Petition.
explained below:
1
The 423 Patent issued from an application filed prior to the enactment of the
America Invents Act (AIA). Thus, the pre-AIA statutory framework applies.
3
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Challenge #1: Claims 14, 79, and 13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C
Challenge #2: Claims 14, 79, and 13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C
Challenge #3: Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C 103 over
Challenge #4: Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C 103 over
4
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
A. Summary
The 423 Patent is directed to systems providing a user interface for database
access. The patent acknowledges that results of a database search may contain too
many entries to fit on a computer terminal. The 423 Patent (EX1001), at 11:17
33. The 423 Patent purports to solve this issue by truncating the characters of the
provided below.
5
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Arm (...), New (...), Riv ( ... ). These results may now be
displayed on the terminal 14.
The display of Arm, New, Riv can then be used to conduct a
further search-on-the-fly.
For example, a user could then select Riv for a further search-
on-the-fly. The result list returned would then list two cities, namely
Riverhead and Riverdale.
Id. at 8:8:279:2; see also Fig. 10.
The example given above truncates the characters of the entries in order to
consolidate a number of entries into a single selectable item that can be expanded
Riv, which can be expanded by the user to display both Riverhead and
tabular displayed entries and then reduce those characters were well-known prior
A person of ordinary skill in the art at and before the priority date for the
6
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Science or an equivalent field (or equivalent industry experience) and at least one
The 423 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Appl. 09/935,565 (565
Application), which was filed August 24, 2001. There are multiple continuations
and continuations-in-part in the family of the 423 Patent, and the direct lineage of
Provisional).
The first Office Action (OA) was mailed on August 24, 2004. The Examiner
used Maloney as a primary reference against claims 1-3, 14, 2021, and 41. 423
teach a step wherein if the quantity exceed a specified amount; truncating data,
and displaying the truncated data; and if the quantity does not exceed the specified
amount, displaying contents of the database field. Id. at 148. The Examiner
of entries, and then displaying only a portion of each entry if the number of
7
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
9698.
The response to the OA did not include substantive arguments, but rather
referred to an interview with the examiner; the Examiners Interview Summary did
not include much substance, either. Id. at 104105, 8991. The cited portions of
Crandall at 6:1315 and 8:2527 refer to a web search feature providing [r]esult
set 510 [that] is typically truncated at a predetermined number to limit the number
of records that are transmitted to the user. In other words, Crandall limits a
number of records that are returned to the user and does not determine a number
and 2, and indicating allowability of dependent claim 8. Id. at 63, 74. However, the
Final Office Action combined Maloney with US 6,593,949 to Chew (Chew) and
reducing a number of characters to be displayed for each entry from the selected
data field and displaying the reduced number of characters for each entry from of
contact list arranged in rows and columns, wherein a rightmost column may
display the letter w indicating that the phone number shown is for work. When a
8
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
user taps the letter w, additional information such as further telephone numbers for
that contact are displayed, as in Chews Figure 5. In other words, Chew uses an
each entry and then displaying a portion of each entry to have a fewer number of
characters (or truncating). As demonstrated below, this prior art renders obvious
because they combine Maloney with Bertram in a way that was not considered by
2
Combinations including Maloney in view of Crandall were also cited against the
(EX1003), at 196204.
9
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
whether the Maloney grounds, as presented herein, fall under 35 U.S.C. 325(d)
and thus are subject to the Boards discretion to deny institution. In Juniper
24), the Board addressed its discretion to deny institution where the same or
substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously presented to the
Office (e.g. during prosecution of the patent). Drawing from a collection of other
discussed below. See Juniper Networks, 89. The facts as applied using the Juniper
1) The similarity of the asserted art in the prior art involved during
examination. Maloney was used as a primary reference during prosecution, but the
7,168,039). Unlike Crandall and Chew, Bertram explicitly discloses in its Figure 7
fields and then reducing the characters to conform to a set width. Figure 7 and its
iteratively reduces characters one-by-one starting from the rightmost side, and after
characters and compares them to the set width and removes the next character if
10
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
either column headings or entries in columns, as shown in its Figure 8. Id. at 8:66
9:8, see also 7:3032. Bertram directly addresses the limitations the examiner
perceived were missing, and operates differently than do either Crandall or Chew,
and thus the combination of Maloney and Bertram is different than anything that
examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection.
Maloney was considered and discussed during prosecution of the 423 Patent.
3) The cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art
erred in its consideration of the asserted prior art. The Examiner did not have
Bertram before him during examination. Furthermore, the present Petition does not
use Maloney in any way inconsistent with any issues decided during examination.
examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or the
11
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
technology than does either Crandall or Chew. Due to these differences, none of
the arguments made during examination regarding either Crandall or Chew applies
Bertram are different than those combinations using either Crandall or Chew and
neither Excel nor Bertram were cited or considered by the USPTO Examiner. In
addition, neither reference is similar to, nor cumulative of, the art cited during
examination. Petitioner discusses Bertram above and shows infra at VI.B.3 that
Excel is not cumulative of Maloney. Further, the operation of Maloney with respect
V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016). Terms not
12
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
specifically construed below have their plain and ordinary meaning under the
A. truncation
The 423 Patent does not define this term, but it does provide an example at
The 423 Patent states, [a]ll databases require a consistent structure, termed
schema is a collection of tables. Similarly, for each table, there is generally one
collection of tables of a database. The 423 Patent specification does not use the
13
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
1. Overview of Maloney
schema are selected from the relational database and the logical relationships
between the pairs of tables are defined.... the logical relationship between the pairs
Maloney (EX1006), at 2:5867. An end user can use a graphical user interface
(GUI) to logical schema [] to design custom forms and reports ... [and the user]
selects the fields or columns he wants from a dialog box (not shown) that displays
all the columns that are available in [the] logical schema. Maloney (EX1006), at
4:645:5. Example user interfaces are shown at Figs. 1820. Maloney is of record
3
Unless otherwise specified, all bold italics emphasis below has been added. Text
in italics is used to signify claim language, while reference names are also
italicized.
14
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
(EX1005).
2. Overview of Bertram
particular entry, the method of Figure 7 works from right to left, counting a
characters is larger than a set width, and repeating the process until the entry is
smaller than or equal to the set width. Id. at Figure 7, 6:2437, 7:558:65. In the
headings one at a time, counting the letters against the set width and removing
those letters, until a given column heading is smaller than or equal to the set width.
Id. at 7:558:65, Figure 7 steps 176192. Bertram does not teach away from
appear in a middle of a string, such as spaces and vowels. Id. at 7:1324, 7:5564,
Figure 7 step 196. Bertram counts among its advantages, efficient use of space,
15
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
for several reasons. First, Maloney and Bertram are analogous prior art and in the
same field of endeavor. Both Maloney and Bertram disclose displaying data in a
system of Maloney. Bertram teaches that its technique is used for displaying a
plurality of columns on a display screen and teaches that its technique can
at 2:5860, 3:46. Bertram also describes that the technique is generally applicable
to entries containing text data, such as those of Maloneys Figure 20. Bertram
form of Figure 20, which uses a tabular format to show the entries in columns. A
POSITA would have understood that data entries may exceed a column width in
technique to the displays of Maloney (e.g., headings and entries of the columns in
scrolling table 52 of Figure 20) to ensure that the columns of data can fit within a
display window and would be readable to a user, would use space efficiently,
16
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
4. Analysis
Claim 1
17
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
selected from the relational database and the logical relationships between the pairs
of tables are defined.... [o]nce a join operator is selected for each join field, the
(EX1005).
[1.3] providing a list of database fields, wherein the list includes a descriptor
indicating a data category;
Maloney teaches: (1) providing a list of database fields; and (2) the list
Figures 1820, where each of the fields 44, 46, 48, 50 is listed and has a name,
e.g., storeid with a text 49 descriptor indicating a data category, e.g., Store
number. The selected master level data fields 46 selected by the end user from
the Customer level 129 of FIG. 18, namely, lname, fname, phone, storenm, and
18
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
storeid, are pasted individually into the top portion of the form window as
individual data fields 48. Each data field is preceded by text 49 describing the field
created by the end user when designing the form. Maloney (EX1006), at 17:58
Descriptors indicating
data categories
Lists of database fields
(searching) the database based on fields in the form of Figures 19 and 20. After
19
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
the end user has created a form or report by selecting fields, records from the
database can be retrieved and viewed in the form the end user created by entering a
command for the DBMS to query the database based on the fields in the form.
The DBMS determines from the logical schema tables 42 of FIGS. 4A and 510,
the physical tables and columns on which to perform the query. Maloney
[1.4], Maloney teaches a search selection for database fields by selecting the fields
in the form of Figures 19 and 20. Also, Maloney at Figure 20 teaches that querying
the selected fields brings up retrieved records (entries in selected database fields).
20
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
FIG. 20 shows the sample form after records have been retrieved
from the database... The related master and detail level records
returned from the query are combined on the user's screen in the form
to produce a composite record called a logical schema record 54....
When the end user issues a command to retrieve information
regarding the customers other sales, new records retrieved from the
database scrolling tables 52 replace the current records in the detail.
Maloney (EX1006), at 18:2343. Examples of queried and selected fields includes:
21
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
each column heading (entry) for all the columns in a viewed table by comparing a
Determining a number of
characters in each entry
The last character for the column heading is retrieved via step 18C [sic]. It is then
determined if the width of the column heading is greater than the width set in
step 52 of the method 50, via step 182. Bertram (EX1007), at 8:2229; see also
22
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
included in each entry in the selected database field. A POSITA would have
characters included in each column heading (entry) exceeds a set width (exceeds
abbreviated entry for each column heading (displaying a portion of each entry in
displayed portion of each entry) is equal to or less than the set width (a specified
amount of characters).
23
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Displayed
portion is
less than
specified
amount
24
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
in those column entries if the entries exceed a set width renders obvious if the
the specified amount of characters. Greenspun pp.4144 (EX1005) see also supra
[1.7] if the number of characters included in each entry does not exceed the
specified amount, displaying each entry in its entirety.
Maloney in view of Bertram renders this feature obvious. As discussed
characters included in each entry. Additionally, Bertram teaches that if the number
of characters in a column heading (entry) does not exceed the set width (specified
amount), displaying the column heading in its entirety. The last character for the
column heading is retrieved via step 18C [sic]. It is then determined if the width
of the column heading is greater than the width set in step 52 of the method 50,
via step 182. If the width is not greater than the width set, the abbreviation is
terminated via step 184. Bertram (EX1007), at 8:2229; see also 8:5865.
25
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Displaying a
column
header in its
entirety if
NO at 182
or 194
then not reducing a number of characters in those column entries teaches if the
included in each entry does not exceed the specified amount, displaying each entry
in its entirety. Greenspun pp.4446 (EX1005) see also supra [1.5] and VI.A.3
(motivations to combine).
26
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Bertram.
Claim 2
[2.1] The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a key word search.
Maloney teaches this feature. For instance, Maloney accesses database
information using keywords: The present invention allows end users to access
(EX1006), at 17:58. Thus, Maloneys point and click graphical user interface
Claim 3
pp.4748 (EX1005).
boxes of Figures 1820, where each of the fields 44, 46, 48, 50 is listed and has a
27
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
name, e.g., itemnm. The selected master level data fields 46 selected by the end
user from the Customer level 129 of FIG. 18, namely, lname, fname, phone,
storenm, and storeid, are pasted individually into the top portion of the form
window as individual data fields 48. Each data field is preceded by text 49
describing the field created by the end user when designing the form. Maloney
pp.4852 (EX1005).
28
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
[3.3] receiving a first data field selection from the list of data fields;
Maloney teaches this feature by receiving data field selections and then
querying the database based on data fields in the form of Figure 19 and 20. After
the end user has created a form or report by selecting fields, records from the
database can be retrieved and viewed in the form the end user created by entering a
command for the DBMS to query the database based on the fields in the form.
Maloney teaches a data field selection by selecting the fields in the form of Figures
19 and 20. Also, Maloney at Figure 20 teaches that querying the selected fields
29
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
30
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
each column heading (entry) for all the columns in a viewed table by comparing a
Determining a number of
characters in each entry
The last character for the column heading is retrieved via step 18C [sic]. It is then
determined if the width of the column heading is greater than the width set in
step 52 of the method 50, via step 182. Bertram (EX1007), at 8:2229; see also
6:3854, 7:2532, 8:5865. Thus, Maloneys display of entries for a selected data
31
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
of characters in each entry of the selected data field. A POSITA would have
if the number of characters included in each column heading (entry) exceeds a set
for each column heading (reducing a number of characters of each entry in the
32
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Reduce
number of
characters
33
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
in those column entries if the entries exceed a set width renders obvious if the first
for each entry from the selected data field. Greenspun pp.5760 (EX1005) see also
displayed for each entry from the selected data field. Further, Bertram teaches
34
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Performing a
truncation
a given entry, if the width is greater than the set width, and if the character
matches the current character type in step 186, then the character is removed in
step 188. Bertram (EX1007), at 8:3044. First, the character types according to
step 172 are removed if appropriate; second, the character types according to step
174 are removed if appropriate; third, the character types according to step 176 are
removed if appropriate. Id. Thus, in the example of Figure 7, any spaces (e.g., a
first character type) are removed first and one at a time, then lower case vowels
35
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
would be removed if appropriate and in the same manner, then lowercase letters
would be removed if appropriate and in the same manner. Id. at 7:6067, see also
8:165.
would have started off with Bytes Received to end with BytsR. According to
the passage spanning columns 8 and 9 and Figure 7, the technique would have
36
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
174192, the technique would have removed lower case vowels by starting at the
last character and working its way sequentially through the characters. According
to actions 174192, this step would have sequentially removed the lower case
would have sequentially removed lower case letters starting at the last letter until
decision box 182 yielded a NO. Thus, the technique would have removed the d, v,
then c in that order. Such action includes truncation because it is the deletion or
displayed from the selected data filed [sic]. Bertrams actions 178196 also teach
the claimed truncation. Thus, Maloney in view of Bertram renders this feature
obvious. Greenspun pp.6064 (EX1005) see also supra [3.4] and VI.A.3
(motivations to combine).
[3.5.3] comparing the reduced number of characters to the specified limit, and
Bertram teaches comparing the reduced number of characters to the
specified limit. As noted at [3.5.2], Bertram teaches a loop at steps 172192, 174
192, and 176192 of Fig. 7 to iteratively compare the number of characters to the
37
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
set width (a specified limit) and reduce a number of characters until the width of
the column heading is less than or equal to the set width. Bertram also teaches
Comparing the
reduced number of
characters to the
specified limit
pp.6466 (EX1005) see also supra [3.4] and VI.A.3 (motivations to combine).
[3.6] if the reduced number of characters exceeds the specified limit, repeating
the truncation and comparing steps until the reduced number of characters to be
38
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
displayed from the selected data field is less than or eciual [sic] to the specified
limits; and
Bertram teaches this feature. As noted at [3.5.2], in the example of Figure 8,
and taking row 220 as an example, the technique would have started off with
columns 8 and 9 and Figure 7, the technique would have started by removing the
technique would have sequentially removed lower case letters starting at the last
letter until decision box 182 yielded a NO. Thus, the technique would have
removed the d, v, then c in that order by repeating the truncation and comparing
steps in the iterative loop discussed at [3.5.3]. Greenspun p.66 (EX1005) see also
[3.7] displaying the reduced number of characters for each entry from the
selected data field.
Maloney in view of Bertram renders this feature obvious. For instance, as
noted at [3.4], Maloney teaches displaying entries from selected data fields in the
displaying entries from the selected data fields in view of Bertrams removing a
39
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
displaying the reduced number of characters for each entry from the selected data
field. Greenspun pp.6667 (EX1005) see also supra [3.4] and VI.A.3
Bertram.
Claim 4
unchanged during the actions of Fig. 7 (is fixed). Greenspun pp.6768 (EX1005)
40
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Claim 7
the set width (specified limit) is determined by a user. The user enters the desired
width of the column heading via step 52. Bertram (EX1007), at 4:6667.
Maloney and Bertram. Greenspun pp.6869 (EX1005) see also supra [3.4] and
Claim 8
displayed. Additionally, Bertrams width in steps 182 and 194 teaches a parameter,
and it is related to the set width by the actions in steps 182, 194.
41
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Width is a
parameter
actions of Figure 7 to be equal to or less than the set width, teaches a parameter
related to the number of characters to be displayed from the selected data field.
Greenspun pp.6970 (EX1005) see also supra [3.4] and VI.A.3 (motivations to
combine).
[8.1], the width teaches a parameter. Bertram teaches decrementing the width by
42
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
one character with each pass through step 188 as the truncation is performed.
Decrementing width
the width by one at each pass through step 188 teaches the truncation comprises
Claim 9
43
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
the width (the parameter) is decremented by one with each pass through step 188.
Claim 13
constraintscustomer and sale dates. FIG. 20 shows that the customer with a last
name of Smith, having a store number of G8392 purchased items from a store
named X Co. The master level record 56 owns, or controls, the detail level records
58 displayed in each of the detail level scrolling tables 52.... Other forms with this
format can be produced by the specification of other customers and sales dates.
sales date constraints, used in Figure 20 to retrieve records from the database, teach
receiving a first constraint, wherein the first constraint is related to a data element
least two constraints (customer and sale date) that are used to search the database.
44
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Either one of the constraints, when being entered as the second one of the two,
(EX1005).
[13.3] wherein search results are generated based on a combination of the first
and the one or more subsequent constraints.
Maloney teaches this feature. As noted above at [13.1], the search results in
Figure 20 are generated based on the customer and sales date constraints.
of the first and the one or more subsequent constraints. Greenspun p.73 (EX1005).
1. Overview of Excel
users. Id. Chapter 24 of Excel provides examples for using external database files
fields and constraints, and a Data pane that displays the results of the query.
45
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Note that the Data pane displays the results in a tabular format as columns and
acknowledges that sometimes text is too wide to fit in a column: Excel displays as
much of the text as possible (the full text is contained in the cell; its just not
First, Excel and Bertram are analogous prior art and in the same field of
endeavor. Both Excel and Bertram disclose displaying data in a tabular format
system of Excel. Bertram teaches that its technique is used in the context of
Bertram (EX1007), at 2:5860, 3:46. Bertram also described that the technique is
Figure 24-12. Excel teaches displaying a multitude of entries in the form of Figure
46
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
24-12, which uses a tabular format to show the entries in columns. Thus, a
POSITA would have been motivated to apply Bertrams technique to the displays
of Excel (e.g., the columns in the Data pane) in order to ensure that the columns of
data can fit within a display window and would be readable to a user, would use
space efficiently, would preserve information, and would adapt to new columns, as
results by achieving the benefits of Bertram, such as preserving data so that the
47
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Challenge 1 and Challenge 2 both challenge the same claims of the 423
Patent, but are not substantially the same. Challenge 2 relies upon Petitioners
evidence as to prior art date of Excel to show approximately 5 months prior art
status under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), whereas Maloney is 102(b) prior art and
Bertram is 102(e) prior art by about 18 months. In other words, the Challenges
the Patent Owner than are the challenges using Excel + Bertram. Thus, institution
substantial similarity would not place a significant burden on the Patent Owner
and the Board nor cause unnecessary delays. See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v.
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 2 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012).
4. Analysis
Claim 1
the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet product, including a data pane to display data.
Excel (EX1009), Figure 24-12, see also at 15. Thus, Excels graphical user
48
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Figure 24-12, Excel illustrates a Tables pane that determines a collection of tables
for a database by populating and displaying the Tables pane. Excel (EX1009), at 34
(Tables pane: The top pane, which holds the data tables for the database. Each
data table window has a list of the fields in the table.). Excel further discloses that
the Tables pane may include multiple tables. Excel (EX1009), at 35. Therefore,
Excels interface that populates and displays the Tables pane with tables teaches
(EX1005).
49
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
CATEGORY, and the like. Furthermore, the names of each of the fields
indicates a data category. For instance, the field named CATEGORY has a text
Other fields in the list have similar descriptors. Thus, Excels list of database
50
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
fields, where each of the database fields has a text descriptor indicating a contents
of the field, teaches providing a list of database fields, wherein the list includes a
List of database
fields
51
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Excel teaches this feature. Creating a query consists of the following steps:
1. Drag fields from the Tables pane to the Data pane. You can drag as many
fields as you want. These fields are the columns that the query will return. You
can also double-click a field instead of dragging it. Excel (EX1009), at 34.
a query teaches, receiving a search selection for a database field on the provided
displaying entries for the selected database fields. Specifically, Excel shows entries
arranged in rows and columns in the Data pane of Figure 24-12. Data pane: The
bottom pane, which holds the data that passes the criteria. Excel (EX1009), at 34.
52
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Displaying entries
in each column heading (entry) for all the columns in a viewed table. It is then
determined if the width of the column heading is greater than the width set in
step 52 of the method 50, via step 182. Bertram (EX1007), at 8:2229, see also
8:4265.
53
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Determining a number of
characters in each entry
shorten text in columns of Excels Figure 24-12 while preserving readability and
(EX1005).
54
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
included in each column heading (entry) exceeds a set width (exceeds a specified
each column heading (displaying a portion of each entry in the selected database
each entry) is equal to or less than the set width set (a specified amount of
characters).
55
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Displayed
portion is
less than
specified
amount
56
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
in those column entries if the entries exceed a specified width renders obvious if
the specified amount of characters. Greenspun pp.8891 (EX1005); see also supra
[1.7] if the number of characters included in each entry does not exceed the
specified amount, displaying each entry in its entirety.
Excel in view of Bertram renders this feature obvious. As discussed supra
characters in a column heading (entry) does not exceed the width set in step 52
determined if the width of the column heading is greater than the width set in
step 52 of the method 50, via step 182. If the width is not greater than the width
set, the abbreviation is terminated via step 184. Bertram (EX1007), at 8:2229;
57
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Displaying a
column
header in its
entirety if
NO at 182
or 194
then not reducing a number of characters in those column entries teaches if the
included in each entry does not exceed the specified amount, displaying each entry
in its entirety. Greenspun pp.9193 (EX1005) see also supra [1.5] and VI.B.2
(motivations to combine).
58
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Bertram.
Claim 2
[2.1] The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a key word search.
Excel teaches this feature. Specifically, the shortcut key combination Ctrl+F
starts Find, which is a keyword search. Excel (EX1009), at 42. Thus, Excels
shortcut key combination Ctrl+F and Find, teaches providing a key word search.
Claim 3
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet product, including a data pane to format and display
data. See Excel at Figure 24-12. Excel (EX1009), Figure 24-12, see also at 15;
CATEGORY, and the like. Also, Tables pane: The top pane ... has a list of
59
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Creating a query consists of the following steps: 1. Drag fields from the Tables
pane to the Data pane. You can drag as many fields as you want. These fields are
60
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
the columns that the query will return. You can also double-click a field instead
clicking a field to select a field as part of a query teaches receiving a first data field
teaches a search selection for data fields by dragging and dropping or double-
clicking data fields. Second, Excel teaches displaying entries for the selected
database fields. Specifically, Excel shows entries arranged in rows and columns in
the Data pane of Figure 24-12 (Data pane: The bottom pane, which holds the data
61
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Displaying entries
62
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Determining a number
of characters in each
entry
The last character for the column heading is retrieved via step 18C [sic]. It is then
determined if the width of the column heading is greater than the width set in
step 52 of the method 50, via step 182. Bertram (EX1007), at 8:2229; see also
6:3854, 7:2532, 8:5865. Thus, Excels display of entries for a selected data
of characters in each entry of the selected data field. A POSITA would have
63
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
[3.4], Bertram and Excel render obvious determining a first quantity indicative of a
included in each column heading (entry) exceeds a set width (a specified limit),
reducing characters and displaying an abbreviated entry for each column heading
64
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Reduce
number of
characters
65
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
column entries if the entries exceed a set width renders obvious if the first quantity
entry from the selected data field. Greenspun pp.104106 (EX1005) see also supra
displayed for each entry from the selected data field. Further, Bertram teaches
66
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Performing a
truncation
a given entry, if the width is greater than the set width, and if the character
matches the current character type in step 186, then the character is removed in
step 188. Bertram (EX1007), at 8:3044. First, the character types according to
step 172 are removed if appropriate; second, the character types according to step
174 are removed if appropriate; third, the character types according to step 176 are
removed if appropriate. Id. Thus, in the example of Figure 7, any spaces (e.g., a
first character type) are removed first and one at a time, then lower case vowels
67
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
would be removed if appropriate and in the same manner, then lowercase letters
would be removed if appropriate and in the same manner. Id. at 7:6067, see also
8:165.
would have started off with Bytes Received to end with BytsR. According to
the passage spanning columns 8 and 9 and Figure 7, the technique would have
68
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
174192, the technique would have removed lower case vowels by starting at the
last character and working its way sequentially through the characters. According
to actions 174192, this step would have sequentially removed the lower case
would have sequentially removed lower case letters starting at the last letter until
decision box 182 yielded a NO. Thus, the technique would have removed the d, v,
then c in that order. Such action includes truncation because it is the deletion or
displayed from the selected data filed [sic]. Bertrams actions 178196 also teach
the claimed truncation. Thus, Excel in view of Bertram renders this feature
obvious. Greenspun pp.106110 (EX1005) see also supra [3.4] and VI.B.2
(motivations to combine).
[3.5.3] comparing the reduced number of characters to the specified limit, and
Bertram teaches comparing the reduced number of characters to the
69
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
characters to the set width (a specified limit) and reduce a number of characters
until the width of the column heading is less than or equal to the set width. Bertram
specified limit.
Comparing the
reduced number of
characters to the
specified limit
[3.6] if the reduced number of characters exceeds the specified limit, repeating
70
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
the truncation and comparing steps until the reduced number of characters to be
displayed from the selected data field is less than or eciual [sic] to the specified
limits; and
Bertram teaches this feature. As noted at [3.5.2], in the example of Figure 8,
and taking row 220 as an example, the technique would have started off with
columns 8 and 9 and Figure 7, the technique would have started by removing the
technique would have sequentially removed lower case letters starting at the last
letter until decision box 182 yielded a NO. Thus, the technique would have
removed the d, v, then c in that order by repeating the truncation and comparing
steps in the iterative loop discussed at [3.5.3]. Greenspun p.112 (EX1005) see also
[3.7] displaying the reduced number of characters for each entry from the
selected data field.
Excel in view of Bertram renders this feature obvious. For instance, as noted
at [3.4], Excel teaches displaying entries from selected data fields in the Data pane
[3.6]. Thus, Excels displaying entries from the selected data fields in view of
71
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
in columns teaches displaying the reduced number of characters for each entry
from the selected data field. Greenspun pp.112113 (EX1005) see also supra [3.4]
in view of Bertram.
Claim 4
72
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Claim 7
set width (specified limit) is determined by a user. The user enters the desired
width of the column heading via step 52. Bertram (EX1007), at 4:6667.
Bertrams set width, as entered by a user, teaches the specified limit is a user-
determined limit. Thus, claim 7 is unpatentable over the combination of Excel and
to combine).
Claim 8
displayed. Additionally, Bertrams width in steps 182 and 194 teaches a parameter,
and it is related to the set width by the actions in steps 182, 194.
73
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Width is parameter
actions of Figure 7 to be equal to or less than the set width, teaches a parameter
related to the number of characters to be displayed from the selected data field.
Greenspun pp.115116 (EX1005) see also supra [3.4] and VI.B.2 (motivations
to combine).
[8.1], the width teaches a parameter. Bertram teaches decrementing the width by
74
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
one character with each pass through step 188 as the truncation is performed.
Decrementing width
the width by one at each pass through step 188 teaches the truncation comprises
Claim 9
75
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
width (the parameter) is decremented by one with each pass through step 188.
Claim 13
pane. Example criteria include Jan, Feb, Mar for the MONTH field, and
well. The criteria are used to retrieve data (data elements) from the fields of the
database. Enter criteria in the Criteria pane. When you activate this pane, the
first row (labeled Criteria Field) displays a drop-down list that contains all the field
names. Select a field and enter the criteria below it. Query updates the Data pane
76
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
constraints
Thus, the criteria to retrieve records from the database, teach receiving a
first constraint, wherein the first constraint is related to a data element in a data
three constraints (Jan, Feb, March) for the month field alone that are used to
operator. Excel (EX1009), at 34. Either one of the constraints, when being entered
as the second one of the two, teaches receiving one or more subsequent
77
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
[13.3] wherein search results are generated based on a combination of the first
and the one or more subsequent constraints.
Excel teaches this feature. As noted above at [13.1], the search results are
generated based on constraints in the Criteria pane. Select a field and enter the
criteria below it. Query updates the Data pane automatically, treating each row
being generated based on the criteria teach, the search results are generated based
on a combination of the first and the one or more subsequent being gender
1. Overview of Kanevsky
Like Maloney and Bertram, Kanevsky is directed a system and method for
1:611. Kanevsky specifically acknowledges that screens and windows may vary in
size and that display of data should be adapted thereto: a viewing-access strategy
is provided for such visual devices varying, for example, from standard PC
monitors, laptop screens and palmtops to webphone and digital camera displays, to
any device, with a display, capable of web browsing, and from large windows to
78
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
the content of web pages in the most friendly manner for a user viewing this
(EX1005).
obvious for several reasons. First, all three references are analogous prior art and
in the same field of endeavor, as the references all pertain to displaying data on a
acknowledges that different screens and window sizes may be used by various
users and that the display of data should be adapted to a given screen or window
size: an adaptation strategy employs variables that provide size of screen and/or
window information associated with the visual display from which a call to a web
site was initiated. Kanevsky (EX1008), at 2:1619. Thus, a POSITA would have
used Kanevskys teaching of adaptive data display sizes for different screens and
windows and applied that to the combination of Maloney and Bertram by adjusting
79
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
may be provided by user: e.g., webphone or palmtop. Also, any size window may
that one use of its invention is that a display mode message can be represented as
a mode number that uniquely defines display parameters.... [and] that tables may
given display terminal and each table can be identified by a unique mode number.
Id. at 6:5357. A POSITA would have understood that the set width of Bertram
may be variable and set based on a size characteristic of a terminal by, e.g., using
would produce predictable, operable results because it would have been no more
The combination would have been straightforward and uses similar concepts well-
80
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
3. Analysis
Claim 5
above in limitation [3.5.1], Bertrams set width teaches the claimed specified limit.
[that] employs variables that provide size of screen and/or window information
associated with the visual display from which a call to a web site was initiated.
POSITA would have found it obvious incorporate Kanevskys screen size webpage
sizes and window sizes. In other words, a POSITA would have made Bertrams
window size given the teaching of Kanevsky to adapt to a variety of screen sizes.
Kanevsky.
Claim 6
[6.1] The method of claim 3, wherein the data are displayed on a terminal, and
Maloney teaches the data are displayed on a terminal. Forms are usually
81
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
sent to a computer screen 20 while reports are usually sent to a printer 22.
The combination of Excel, Bertram, and Kanevsky would have been obvious
for several reasons. First, all three references are analogous prior art and in the
acknowledges that different screens and window sizes may be used by various
users and that the display of data should be adapted to a given screen or window
size: an adaptation strategy [that] employs variables that provide size of screen
and/or window information associated with the visual display from which a call
82
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
would have readily understood Kanevskys teaching of adaptive display sizes for
different screens and windows and applied it to the combination of Excel and
invention: the [a]dvantageously, any type of display device and associated screen
may be provided by user: e.g., webphone or palmtop. Also, any size window may
Kanevsky teaches that one use of its invention is that a display mode message can
associated with a given display terminal and each table can be identified by a
unique mode number. Id. at 6:5357. A POSITA would have understood that the
set width of Bertram may be variable and set based on a size characteristic of a
terminal by, e.g., using tables that contain display characteristics of terminals, as
(EX1005).
Finally, combining the teachings of Kanevsky with Excel and Bertram would
produce predictable, operable results, at least because it would have been no more
83
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
The combination would have been straightforward and uses similar concepts well-
2. Analysis
Claim 5
above in limitation [3.5.1], Bertrams set width teaches the claimed specified limit.
[that] employs variables that provide size of screen and/or window information
associated with the visual display from which a call to a web site was initiated.
POSITA would have found it obvious incorporate Kanevskys screen size webpage
technique and to display Excels database data on a variety of different screen sizes
and window sizes. In other words, a POSITA would have known to make
84
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
size or window size, given the teaching of Kanevsky to adapt to a variety of screen
and Kanevsky.
Claim 6
[6.1] The method of claim 3, wherein the data are displayed on a terminal, and
Excel teaches the data are displayed onscreen (on a terminal). A
85
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, Petitioner asks that the Patent Office order an inter
partes review trial for claims 19 and 13 and then cancel these claims as
unpatentable.
Respectfully submitted,
86
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
Unified Patents Inc., declares that the argument section of this Petition (Sections
II-VII) has 13996 words, according to the word count tool in Microsoft Word.
/David M. ODell/
David M. ODell
Lead Counsel for Petitioner
Registration No. 42,044
87
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,302,423
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 42.105 and 42.6,
that service was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
Documents served Petition for Inter Partes Review, including Exhibit List;
Certificate of Word Count, Exhibits 1001 through 1012
/David M. ODell/
David M. ODell
Lead Counsel for Petitioner
Registration No. 42,044
88