http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2010cv04645/233008/83/0.pdf?ts=1325318087

1 
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 12/30/11*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
INTERWOVEN, INC.,
 Plaintiff,
 v.
VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.,
  Defendant.
____________________________________/
No. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
I. INTRODUCTION
 Plaintiff Interwoven, Inc., brings an action for declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and non-infringement of two patents belonging to Defendant Vertical Computer Systems, Inc.  The patents at issue are United States Patent Nos. 6,826,744 (the '744 Patent) and 7,716,629 (the '629 Patent); both concern an innovative method for interfacing program units through the use of "arbitrary objects."  The '629 patent was issued to Vertical from a continuation of the '744 patent application.  

 Pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996), and the Patent Local Rules, the parties have presented ten terms found in the claims of the patents for construction by the Court.  Upon consideration of the parties' briefing, oral argument, and the various materials submitted subsequent to the hearing, the disputed terms are construed as set out below. 

2 
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

II.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND
 The technology in this dispute involves a system for generating software applications in an "arbitrary object framework."  Specifically, it presents a method for separating the form, content and functionality of computer applications so that each component may be independently modified.  The invention purports to simplify the work of computer programmers by providing a more efficient way of creating and modifying software through the use of "arbitrary objects."  

 Typically, software developers rely on standard object-oriented programming to create complex computer programs such as websites.  Utilizing such traditional programming, developers construct each piece of the program separately.  These pieces are referred to as "objects."1 Once all the objects are complete, a master developer can fit them together to formulate a complete program. Over the years, many tools have been created to streamline this process so that developers can more easily work together to build software through the sharing and connecting of objects.  For example, programmers can now develop reusable formatting templates and distribute them over the internet. Other programmers may then adopt these templates for use in their own websites.   

 The patents-in-suit purport to invent a new method for connecting objects and streamlining software development.  To distinguish the objects used in these two patents from the "classic objects" in other software tools, Aubrey McAuley, the named inventor of both patents, coined the term "arbitrary object."  Vertical asserts that McAuley, acting as a lexicographer, did not ascribe any significance to the word "arbitrary"; he simply wished to differentiate the objects in his invention from the "classic objects" of traditional programming tools.
  
 For purposes of clarification, the specification describes the differences between classic and arbitrary objects: When using classic objects, a serial approach is required to integrate the form, function, and content of complex software applications.  Figure 1 demonstrates one embodiment of such an approach.  In Figure 1 a complex program is generated through the integration of either newly-made or reusable classic objects.  First, content is created or chosen.  Then form is developed for the presentation of the content.  Finally, function is generated using code.  The specification
                                               
(1)
 Technical dictionaries define "object" as a "variable comprising both routines and data that is treated as a discrete entity."  (Pl's. Ex. F).  

3 
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

notes that while different industries may perform these steps in a different order than presented in Figure 1, the concept is the same and, most importantly, when using classic objects, the different software components-the form, content, and function-are always somewhat interdependent. Consequently, if a programmer wants to change the content of a website composed of classic objects, the form is necessarily affected.  The programmer would be required to generate the entire website anew in order to retain the original form while manipulating the existing content.  

 The patents-in-suit allegedly serve to make this process more efficient by creating a new way of interfacing program units.  They allow developers, for example, to alter the content or form of a website easily without affecting the function, or any other component; developers, therefore, do not need to rewrite a program simply to implement a minor alteration.  The invention so simplifies the process by separating the form, functionality, and content of a program into discrete components and facilitating the interface between objects.  Such separation is achieved through the use of arbitrary objects. The purported invention is a method which creates these arbitrary objects,
manages the arbitrary objects in an object library, and deploys the arbitrary objects into a design framework for use in a computer program.  

 As an illustration of the patents, the specification considers the web site of a large newspaper.  Traditionally, if a marketing department wished to alter the appearance of a header on one page of the site, depending on the browser used, a programmer may need to manipulate thousands of pages of the website to make the desired change without affecting the rest of the website.  With the development of arbitrary objects, this process is much easier: the programmer can simply retrieve the arbitrary object which controls the appearance of the header and manipulate it accordingly, without affecting the remaining form, content, or function of the website.  Vertical concedes that prior art solutions have succeeded in separating content from form or content from functionality.  It asserts, however, that none have purported to separate all three, thereby, allowing programmers to make independent changes to any part of a complex program without generating unwanted upstream revisions.   

4
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

 Both the '744 patent and the '629 patent assert this new method of object interfacing.  The '629 patent is merely a continuation of the '744 patent.  Aside from a few typographical changes in the '629 patent, its specification is essentially identical to that of the '744 patent.  The parties have jointly presented ten terms found in the claims of the patents for construction by the Court.  Despite this presentation, Vertical insists that only the term "arbitrary objects" requires interpretation; the remaining terms should be read according to their plain and ordinary meaning.  In the alternative, Vertical provides simple constructions for each of these terms which closely align with the respective ordinary meanings.   

III.  LEGAL STANDARD
 Claim construction is a question of law to be determined by the Court.  Markman, 52 F.3d at 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).  "Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim."  Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir.1998)).  Accordingly, a claim should be construed in a manner that "most naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention."  Id.

 The first step in claim construction is to look to the language of the claims themselves.  "It is a ‘bedrock principle' of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.'"  Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).  A disputed claim term should be construed in a manner consistent with its "ordinary and customary meaning," which is "the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application."  Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13.  The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term may be determined solely by viewing the term within the context of the claim's overall language.  See id. at 1314 ("[T]he use of a term within the claim provides a firm basis for construing the term.").  Additionally, the use of the term in other claims may provide guidance regarding its proper construction.  Id. ("Other claims of

5 
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.").

 A claim also should be construed in a manner that is consistent with the patent's specification.  See Markman, 52 F.3d at 979 ("Claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.").  Typically the specification is the best guide for construing the claims.  See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 ("The specification is . . . the primary basis for construing the claims."); see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.  Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.").  Although in limited circumstances the specification may be used to narrow the meaning of a claim term that otherwise would appear to be susceptible to a broader reading, see SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Card. Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed.Cir. 2001); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316, precedent forbids a construction of claim terms that imposes limitations not found in the claims or supported by an unambiguous restriction in the specification or prosecution history.  Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[A] court may not import limitations from the written description into the claims."); Comark Commc'ns., Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[W]hile . . . claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification, it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims."); SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121, (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) ("It is the claims that measure the invention.") (emphasis in original).

 A final source of intrinsic evidence is the prosecution record and any statements made by the patentee to the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") regarding the scope of the invention.   See Markman, 52 F.3d at 980 ("Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent."); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.  For example, statements that distinguish a claim from the prior art may narrow the scope of a disputed term.  See, e.g., Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer . . . preclud[es] patentees from recapturing through claim

6
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution").  Because the prosecution history reflects an ongoing negotiation between the patentee and the USPTO, however, it often is difficult to determine with exact precision the scope or meaning of particular statements.  Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.  Thus, the prosecution history usually is accorded less weight than the claims and the specification.  Id.

 The court also may consider extrinsic evidence, such as dictionaries or technical treatises, especially if such sources are "helpful in determining ‘the true meaning of language used in the patent claims.'"  Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980).  Ultimately, while extrinsic evidence may aid the claim construction analysis, it cannot be used to contradict the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term as defined within the intrinsic record.  Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322-23.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. "Object Type," "Object Library," "Design Framework," & "Container Page"

 Vertical maintains that the Court should construe each of these four phrases according to their plain and ordinary meaning.  At oral argument, Interwoven agreed to apply the plain and ordinary meaning to the terms, "object library," "design framework," and "container page."  Consequently, these three terms will not be construed further.  

 The parties, however, still dispute the term "object type."  Vertical proposes that this term should also be defined according to its plain and ordinary meaning, or, in the alternative, minimally as, "[a] particular type of object."  Interwoven suggests that a more appropriate construction is: "A quality associated with an arbitrary object used to generate either the content, the form, or the functionality of said computer application or web site."  It insists that the phrase "object type," when examined in conjunction with the claims and specification, convey that the patentee intended to limit the term with the phrase "arbitrary object."   

 As stated above, courts apply a "heavy presumption" that claim language carries its plain and ordinary meaning.  See Omega Eng'g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This presumption is only rebutted "if the patentee unequivocally impart[s] a novel meaning to those

7 
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

terms or expressly relinquishe[s] claim scope during prosecution."  Id. (finding no express disclaimer or independent lexicography warranting the limiting of the claim language).  To impose a negative limitation on the plain meaning of a term, there must be an "express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by this negative limitation."  Id.  Such intent must be demonstrated in a "clear and unambiguous" manner.  See Innova, 381 F.3d at 1123 (refusing to impose a negative limitation because the claim did not present a "clear[] and unmistak[able]" disavowal).

 To demonstrate "express intent," Interwoven cites to claims 1 and 26 in the '744 patent which describe the patent as a method which creates "arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types."  Vertical responds that despite this language, there is no expression of "manifest exclusion or restriction" in the record.  (Def's. Brief Supporting its Claim Construction at 23).  In fact, Vertical insists that the intrinsic record supports that the patentee intended "object type" to be interpreted according to its plain and ordinary meaning.  In a response to the Patent Office, the patentee used the phrase "object type" in reference to prior art which did not contain arbitrary objects.  From this, Vertical concludes that the patentee intended also to use the phrase "object type" in claims 1 and 26 in a way which encompassed both arbitrary and classic objects. Vertical's argument is tenuous at best; just because the patentee discusses objects in prior art in a broad sense does not necessarily demonstrate that the patentee also intended to use the phrase "object type" within the patent in such a broad manner.  Despite Vertical's unconvincing argument, however, its assertion that "object type" should be given its plain meaning is compelling; Interwoven is unable to point to a "clear and unambiguous" expression to limit the definition of "object type."  

 Furthermore, Vertical explains that the parties have stipulated to forego the construction of the term "object."  This term, standing alone, must therefore be given its ordinary definition: "a programming unit."  Vertical argues that, consequently, the phrase "object type" should also be construed according to its plain meaning.  There is no reason for "object type" to be limited to a quality associated only with arbitrary objects if the parties have already agreed to the definition of

8
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

"object." (Def's. Brief Supporting its Claim Construction at 23) ("[W]here the patentee, without any confusion, added well recognized words, such as ‘type' and ‘library' to the word, ‘object,' the resulting phrases are equally unambiguous.").  This term must therefore also be interpreted according to its plain and ordinary meaning.

B. "Form," "Functionality," & "Content"
 Vertical maintains that the patentee intended for the terms: form, functionality, and content, to retain their plain and ordinary meaning within the patent, with no further construction warranted. If construction is necessary, Vertical proposes definitions for all three terms which purport to approximate their respective dictionary definitions: Vertical presents "form" as "formatting including, but not limited to, graphic designs, user interfaces, graphical representations."  It construes "functionality" as "software code."  Lastly, it interprets "content" as "data, including, but not limited to, information, photographs, illustrations, articles."  Interwoven disputes all three of these definitions, asserting that intrinsic evidence requires that content, form, and functionality be construed as expressly distinct and separate from one another.  Interwoven argues that each term's definition must include a negative limitation which distinguishes it from the other two terms.  In this regard, Interwoven proposes that "form" be construed as "structured format or appearance of the computer application or website which is not content or functionality."  "Functionality" must be interpreted as "software code that implements logical functionality within the computer application or web site, which is not form or content."  Finally, "content," according to Interwoven, should be construed as "data, including information, photographs, illustrations, and articles, that appears in the computer application or on the web site, which is not form or functionality."  Interwoven insists that such qualifying language is necessary because "[t]he specification and prosecution history contain numerous instances where Vertical describes these three types as separate from each other."  (Pl's. Resp. Claim Construction Brief at 6).2
   
                                               
2
 Prior to the claim construction hearing, Interwoven filed a limited motion to strike portions of Vertical's claim construction brief.  In this motion, Interwoven asserts that Vertical improperly altered its proposed constructions for the terms "form" and "content" between the parties' filing of their Joint Claim Construction Statement and Vertical's submission of it Opening Brief.  Interwoven argues that the fact Vertical adopted these two new constructions without any prior notice or effort to engage in a meet and confer, violates the spirit and purpose of Patent Local Rule 4-2(c). 

9
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

a. The Specification
 In the specification, there is indeed language which emphasizes that the fundamental characteristic of the invention is the separation of content, form, and function.  Both the '744 and '629 patents assert that the "method of the present invention separates content, form and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately."  '744 patent at col.2 1.11-14, '629 patent col.2 1.20-24.  The patents further claim "an important technical advantage in that content, form, and function are separated."  '744 patent col.2 1.19-21, '629 patent col.2 1.27-28. Interwoven does not, however, point to any statement within the specification which "clearly and unmistakably" disavows the ordinary definition of form, content, or function.  See Innova, 381 F.3d at 1220 (refusing to limit construction when counsel had "difficulty pointing to a statement in the written description that clearly and unmistakably shows the applicant's intent to limit the scope of the claims").  Rather, the language Interwoven refers to in support of its limiting constructions simply describes what the patents can do and what new technology they create.  In other words, these references merely indicate that the inventions are capable of separating form, function, and content, not that such separation is essential.  In fact, the specification contains language suggesting the possibility of overlap between form, functionality, and content in some instances.  For example, in describing the processes necessary to create complex software, the patents explain that "[f]orm includes informative content."  Furthermore, throughout the patent, reference is made to arbitrary objects which could combine content and form, form and functionality, or content and functionality. 

The specification, therefore, signifies that the patents create a new technology which could separate
______________________________________
Furthermore, Interwoven contends that the modification of these two terms affects the construction of five other terms submitted to the Court for construction.  Interwoven, consequently, maintains that the Court should strike seven of Vertical's proposed constructions and require Vertical to file a revised brief which complies with the Patent Local Rules.  Vertical opposes the motion, claiming that it repeatedly attempted to meet and confer with Interwoven.  Furthermore, Vertical asserts that it has not violated any Patent Local Rules because it did not modify any of its proposed constructions: in both the Joint Statement and it Opening Brief, Vertical argued that neither form nor content need be construed and should be interpreted according to its plain and ordinary meanings.  The only alterations that Vertical made were to the proposed alternative constructions of these terms.  Vertical contends that the Patent Local Rules are "designed to require parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in litigation and adhere to those theories."  Nova Measuring Instruments Ltd. v. Nanometrics, Inc., 417 F. Supp 2d 1121, 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2006).  The minor changes to Vertical's alternative constructions do not contravene this purpose.    

10
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

form, function, and content into three distinct components, or could merely separate out one from the other two components.  The point of the invention, therefore, is not that all three components are always distinct, but rather that the user of the arbitrary objects can choose to separate out either form, function, or content individually.

 Interwoven's reliance on Figure 2 is no more persuasive.  This figure presents an example of the hierarchical model possible with the invention.  Within this model, "content, design, and functionality are separate entities independent of each other."  '744 patent col.3 1.34-37, '629 patent col.3 1.37-42.  Figure 2, however, is just one embodiment of the patent and should not limit the definition of claim terms.  See Innova, 381 F.3d at 1220 ("[A] construction [based on an embodiment] is not encouraged or presumed").  Even when a patentee includes only one embodiment within the written description, the claims are not to be construed as limited to this embodiment.  See Lieber-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906-09 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (refusing to limit construction according to a single embodiment absent  "words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction").  But see SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advances Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (limiting terms based on a single embodiment because the specification made "clear that the invention does not include" a particular feature).  Here, there is more than one embodiment included within the written description.  While Figure 2 does separate content, design, and functionality, other suggested embodiments only discuss the separation of content and function or form and function.  Per these embodiments, the innovation of the patents is the ability to separate form from function from content, but such separation is not required in every instance. 

b. The Prosecution History
 Interwoven next points to passages in the prosecution history where, it asserts, the patentee expressly disavowed the plain and ordinary meaning of form, functionality, and content.  Interwoven contends, by emphasizing that the fundamental feature of the invention is its ability to separate content, form, and function for purposes of independent modification, and by distinguishing prior art by reference to this fundamental feature, the patentee essentially adopted

11
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

more narrow definitions for these terms.  Interwoven, thereby, concludes that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer precludes Vertical from recapturing, through claim interpretation, the broader definition for these terms. 
 
 The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer restricts the interpretation of claims in order to exclude any interpretations that have been expressly disavowed by the patentee during prosecution. Omega Eng'g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1324 (adopting the doctrine as a "fundamental precept" in claim construction).  Importantly, the doctrine should not be applied "where the alleged avowal of claim scope is ambiguous . . . [and fails] to show reasonable clarity and deliberateness."  Id. at 1324-25 (citing N. Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 215 F.3d 1281, 1293-95 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  When a patentee disclaims prior art within a patent prosecution, such a disclaimer is, therefore, only controlling for purposes of claim construction if its scope is clear and precise.  Pall Corp. v. PTI Techs, Inc., 259 F.3d 1383, 1393-94 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (determining that the scope of disclaimer over prior art was too ambiguous to affect claim construction), vacated on other grounds, 535 U.S. 1109 (2002).   Here, the patentee indeed makes numerous references to the separation of form, functionality, and content within the patent prosecution.  In doing so, the patentee distinguishes its patent from prior art: During the prosecution for the '744 patent, Vertical asserted that its technology was different from that of the Johnson patent because "the Johnson catalog class includes both form and content."  (Pl's. Resp. Claim Construction Brief at 7).  Vertical further argued that "[o]ne such advantage [of its invention] is that when content, form, and functionality are genuinely separated in the generation of a software application, changes in one do not affect the other."  (Pl's. Resp. Claim Construction Brief at 8).

 The prosecution history of the '629 patent contains similar language.  In describing the claimed patent, Vertical explains that "the arbitrary objects are used in generating content, defining form, and executing functionality."  (Pl's. Resp. Claim Construction Brief at 8).  Vertical also instructs that the Leshem prior art is distinct from its invention because "Leshem fails to teach or suggest arbitrary objects comprising separate content, form, and function objects that can be independently modified or changed."  (Pl's. Resp. Claim Construction Brief at 9).  

12
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

 As evidenced throughout the prosecution history, Interwoven is correct in asserting that Vertical repeatedly underscores the invention's ability to separate form, content, and functionality. Nowhere in the prosecution history, however, does Vertical suggest that such separation is necessary for purposes of its patents.  There is no indication that form, content, and functionality must be distinct, rather, the components may be distinct.  What distinguishes this patent from prior art is not the absolute separation of form, content, and functionality, but the user's ability to separate out either one, two, or all three of these components; prior art only permitted a user to separate out one or two at a time.  This reading of the prosecution history is consistent with the remainder of the intrinsic record.  The patent language emphasizes that the significance of the invention is the flexibility of being able to separate out the three components, not the necessity of so doing under every circumstance.  

 Interwoven's inference derived from the specification and prosecution history, that Vertical's patent requires the complete separation of form, content, and functionality is unfounded and cannot overcome the plain meaning of these terms.  N. Telecom Ltd , 215 F.3d at 1295 ("[I]nference cannot overcome an ordinary meaning of a claim term." ); see Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 990-91 (Fed. Cir. 1999).  Accordingly, form, content, and functionality will each be defined by its ordinary meaning as understood by a person skilled in the art.   

C. "Arbitrary Object(s)"
 Vertical contends that "arbitrary objects" is the only term which requires construction, proposing the definition: "An object that can be created independently by individual preference and that can be optionally accessed solely by name, the object being an entity that can have form, content or functionality or any combination of form, content, or functionality."  Interwoven contests this construction, insisting that the proper definition of "arbitrary objects" is: "Discrete entity accessed by its corresponding arbitrary name created by the user based on individual preference, used to generate the form, the functionality, and the content of said computer application or web site, that are interchangeable and reference in a consistent manner within the arbitrary object

13 
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

framework."  Both parties insist that its proposed construction best captures the intent of the patentee and the consistent usage of the term "arbitrary objects" within the specification.  There are three fundamental disagreements embedded in the parties' conflicting constructions: (1) whether an arbitrary object must be interchangeable; (2) whether an arbitrary object must be discrete in that it wholly separates form, function, or content, or whether a combination of these components within an object is permissible; and (3) whether an arbitrary object need be accessed by its corresponding arbitrary name.

1. Interchangeability
 Interwoven argues that the intrinsic record requires arbitrary objects to be interchangeable and be referenced in a consistent matter.  In support, it asserts that the patent language provides that a fundamental characteristic of "arbitrary objects" is that they are "interchangeable," "can be swapped for another object," and "can be easily replaced with another arbitrary object."  '744 patent col.6 1.13-14, col.4 1.2-6, col 4 1.40-41. Furthermore, Interwoven contends that within the written description, Vertical expressly provided that "[t]he arbitrary object framework allows arbitrary objects to be referenced in a consistent manner regardless of type."  '744 patent col.3 1.47-48.
Interwoven finds further evidence within the prosecution history of the '629 patent in which Vertical distinguishes its invention from prior art by maintaining that arbitrary objects "of any type can be readily replaced with another arbitrary object of another type, i.e., arbitrary objects are interchangeable."  (Pl's. Ex. 3 at 14). Specifically, with regards to the Leshem prior art, the patentee stated that in Leshem "HTML codes (‘form' object) is [sic] not interchangeable with a Java program . . . without making changes in each object."  (Id. at 15).  Interwoven contends that this language necessarily requires the arbitrary objects in Vertical's patent to be interchangeable; otherwise, there is no way to distinguish Leshem's prior art from the patents-in-suit.

 Vertical opposes Interwoven's construction and insists that the patent language does not mandate that arbitrary objects be interchangeable; this feature is simply permitted.  As a basis for its interpretation, Vertical first argues that the patentee did not use expressions of manifest exclusion in stating that arbitrary objects "can be replaced."  As further support, Vertical cites to claim 22 in the

14   
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

'744 patent.  Claim 22 depends from claim 1 and provides, "[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising swapping an arbitrary object of another type."  '744 patent col.8 1.6-8.  Vertical maintains that, due to the doctrine of claim differentiation, the reference to "swapping" in dependent claim 22 necessarily means that the patentee did not intend to include a swapping feature in the independent claim 1.  In other words, if the arbitrary objects discussed in claim 1 were always interchangeable, claim 22 would have no meaning.3 "Thus, Interwoven's proposed definition would obviate claim 22 and render the inventor's inclusion of it in the patent entirely meaningless."  (Def's. Brief Supporting its Claim Construction at 11).  

 The doctrine of claim differentiation presumes that every claim within a patent has a different scope.  See Sunrace Roots Enter. Co., 336 F.3d at 1302-03 (quoting Comark Comm'ns., Inc, 156 F.3d at 1187); see also Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Our court has made clear that when a patent claim ‘does not contain a certain limitation and another claim does, that limitation cannot be read into the former claim in determining either validity or infringement.' . . . There is a rebuttable presumption that different claims are of different scope."). "That presumption is especially strong when the limitation in dispute is the only meaningful difference between an independent and dependent claim, and one party is urging that the limitation in the dependent claim should be read into the independent claim."  Sunrace Roots Enter. Co., 336 F.3d at 1302-03 (citing Ecolab Inc. v. Paraclipse, Inc., 285 F.3d 1362, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Vertical asserts that here, the presumption is "especially strong" because Interwoven is attempting to insert a limitation of swapping into claim 1, and into all references to "arbitrary objects," despite the fact that this feature is the only difference between dependent claim 22 and independent claim 1.     

 Interwoven responds that the doctrine of claim differentiation is inapplicable because "Vertical mistakenly argues that ‘object swapping capability' appears in claim 22, ignoring the actual wording of the claim."  (Def's. Brief Supporting its Claim Construction at 20).  Interwoven emphasizes that there is a crucial difference between the characteristic of "swapping capability" and
                                               
3
 The "swapping" language also appears in claims 44 and 26 of the '744 patent.

15
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

the action of "swapping."  Consequently, including the characteristic of "interchangeability" in the definition of "arbitrary object" does not cause claim 1 to intrude on the verb "swapping" in claim 22.

 The '629 patent claim language supports Interwoven's position: Independent claim 21 describes arbitrary objects as "further being interchangeable with other arbitrary objects."  Yet, claim 29, which depends off claim 21, asserts "executable instructions for swapping an arbitrary object of one type with an arbitrary object of another type."  If, as Vertical contends, the action of "swapping" is synonymous with the characteristic of being "interchangeable," claim 29 would be superfluous.  

 Furthermore, Vertical's assertion that the permissive expressions such as "can be swapped," and "can be easily replaced" means that the patentee did not mandate that arbitrary objects be interchangeable, is inaccurate.  Just because terms such as "can" and "may" appear, does not automatically negate an imposed limitation.  Rather the patentee's assertion that arbitrary objects "can be easily replaced," means that they must have this attribute; the patentee excluded all objects that cannot be replaced from the definition.  Arbitrary objects, therefore, must be interchangeable as per Interwoven's proposed construction.

2. Discrete Entities

 The parties next debate whether the patent defines arbitrary objects as discrete entities. Interwoven contends that according to the claim language, such discreteness is a fundamental attribute of arbitrary objects.  As an example, Interwoven refers to claim 1 of the '744 patent which describes an arbitrary object framework as something that "separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application, and a functionality of said computer application." Interwoven, thereby, reasons that because content, form, and functionality are distinct, arbitrary objects of each type-content, form, and functionality types-must also be distinct in that they are accessed or modified separately.  Furthermore, Interwoven states that Vertical has expressly disavowed any claim scope which would permit an object which combined form, content, and functionality.

16
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

 Vertical does not respond directly to Interwoven's assertion that arbitrary objects must be discrete, instead objecting specifically to Interwoven's listing of form, functionality, and content in the conjunctive: "[d]iscrete entity . . . used to generate the form, the functionality, and the content." Vertical insists that these components must be listed in the disjunctive as per its proposed construction: "An entity that can have form content or functionality or any combination of form, content and functionality."  In essence, Vertical is arguing that it is a fundamental aspect of arbitrary objects that they be able to include only form or content or functionality or, in the alternative, a combination of two or three of these components.  Vertical further contends that because the fundamental feature of its invention is the ability to separate these components into disjunctive pieces; this characteristic should therefore be included in the definition of arbitrary objects.
    
 With regards to the listing of form, function, and content in the disjunctive or conjunctive, both parties agree that the fundamental characteristic of the invention is its ability to separate these components into different arbitrary objects.  Consequently, Vertical's adoption of the disjunctive is the more appropriate construction.  Additionally, Vertical's inclusion of the phrase "or any combination of form, content, and functionality" is also proper; as discussed above, although form, content, and functionality may be separated into three distinct entities, they may also be combined within a specific arbitrary object.  Finally, with respect to whether the word "discrete" must be included in the definition, neither party's arguments carry much weight.  Vertical barely addresses the term and Interwoven relies on the rejected contention, that form, content, and functionality must always be wholly separate.  Because Interwoven is the party proposing the use of "discrete," and has not met its burden of explaining to the court why the adjective's inclusion is necessary, the Court will not include it.  

3. Accessibility of Arbitrary Objects Via Their Corresponding Arbitrary Names
 The parties lastly dispute whether arbitrary objects must be accessed by their corresponding names.  Vertical maintains that an arbitrary object is simply a program unit that may be retrieved by its arbitrary name; it can also be retrieved using another method such as passing parameters.  For its construction, therefore, Vertical proposes language indicating that arbitrary objects "can be

17
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

optionally accessed solely by name."  Interwoven rejects this description, asserting that both the claim language and prosecution history expressly limit arbitrary objects to program pieces that must be accessed by their corresponding arbitrary names.  In support, Interwoven quotes portions of the specification which teach that "[a] critical distinction between the present invention and previous object oriented development systems is the need to know how a function can be called and what to expect it to return, rather than just knowing the function's name."  '744 patent col.5 1.62-67. Interwoven also argues that in order to distinguish its invention from prior art, Vertical maintained that "an object oriented system [in Leshem] would require that a system administrator know how a function can be called and what to expect it to return.  In clear contrast, it is sufficient with Applicant's arbitrary objects to just know a function's name."  (Pl's. Ex. 4 at 8).  
     
 Vertical agrees that an important characteristic of its arbitrary objects is that they may be retrieved by name, but protests the proposition that they can only be so accessed.  Rather, Vertical insists that what distinguishes its invention from prior art is that there is an additional way to retrieve an arbitrary object.  While in prior object-oriented systems, a programmer was required to pass parameters to invoke a certain object, with the new invention, a programmer can choose either to retrieve the object by name or pass parameters as per the traditional model.

 The intrinsic record supports Vertical's interpretation.  Building on prior inventions, these patents purport to create a new method for programmers to retrieve arbitrary objects.  With this innovation, programmers may access an arbitrary object even if they do not know the exact parameters of the object; it is in this instance that an arbitrary name would be used.  If they do know the proper parameters, however, programmers can decide to use either the arbitrary name or pass parameters as they did in the traditional model.  Nothing in the patent language mandates the restriction of arbitrary objects to program pieces only invoked by their corresponding names.    

 For the reasons explained above, the construction of "arbitrary object" will require a combination of both parties' proposals: an arbitrary object is "an object that can be created independently by individual preference, are interchangeable, and that may be, but need not be,

18
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

accessed solely by name, the object being an entity that can have form, content, or functionality or any combination of form, content and functionality."

D. "Arbitrary Object Framework"
 Vertical argues that "arbitrary object framework" does not require construction: because the phrase does not appear in the body of the patent claims, it does not limit the claims.  If the phrase must be construed, Vertical, in the alternative, suggests: "A hierarchical system that can separate content, form, and functionality to generate a product, and facilitates creation of arbitrary objects, and deployment of arbitrary objects."  Interwoven opposes Vertical's assertions, contending that the patents-in-suit fail to provide sufficient information to construe the term at all.  It therefore submits that the term is indefinite and, consequently, all claims which include "arbitrary object framework" are invalid as a matter of law.  Interwoven further maintains, that to the extent the phrase can be defined, it should be construed as "[a] hierarchical structure of arbitrary objects, within which the arbitrary objects by various object types are created by the user based on individual preference managed in an object library, and deployed into a design framework to generate a computer application or deployed into a container page to create a web site."    

 As a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether the phrase "arbitrary object framework" requires construction despite the fact that it only appears in the claim preamble. Generally language in a preamble is limiting and thus subject to construction only if "it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give ‘life, meaning, and vitality' to the claim."  Intirtool, Ltd. v. Texas Corp., 369 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  Preamble language which simply describes the purpose or intended use of the invention cannot serve to limit the scope of a claim.  See Bicon, Inc. v. The Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952-53 (Fed. Cir. 2006).  Additionally, if the body of a claim "describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention," it is likely unnecessary to construe the preamble terms.  Intirtool, Ltd., 369 F.3d at 1295.  Here, Vertical asserts that the term "arbitrary object framework" is not an essential component of the claim.  It maintains that nothing in the patent language indicates reliance on the preamble to define the claimed invention.  As

19
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Interwoven demonstrates, however, there is substantial evidence throughout the intrinsic record to support the construction of "arbitrary object framework" as an essential term.  This type of framework is presented as the central component for creating, managing, and deploying arbitrary objects.  Furthermore, the patent titles include the phrase: "System and Method for Generating Websites in an Arbitrary Object Framework."  The term "arbitrary object framework" is an essential element that may narrow the scope of the claims.

 Since "arbitrary object framework" serves a limiting purpose, it must be construed. Interwoven, however, insists that the phrase is indefinite and cannot be interpreted.  In support, it argues that: (1) the definition of "arbitrary object framework" is functional and highly dependent on context; and (2) the phrase cannot be given a reasonable meaning by a person of ordinary skill in the art.  Interwoven concludes that the claims which include this phrase are therefore invalid as a matter of law.  

 "An issued patent is entitled to a statutory presumption of validity."  See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 282 (2000)).  In order to rebut this presumption, the party seeking invalidity must demonstrate "by clear and convincing evidence that one of ordinary skill in the relevant art could not discern the boundaries of the claim."  Wellman, Inc.v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship., 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011) (emphasizing that a patent must be presumed valid and that there is a heavy burden in rebutting such a presumption); Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (imposing an "exacting standard" on the party asserting an invalidity argument).   In evaluating the invalidity evidence presented, courts must strive to "protect the inventive contribution of patentees, even when the drafting of their patents has been less than ideal."  Wellman, Inc., 642 F.3d at 1366 (quoting Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).  It follows, claims are not indefinite simply because they present a "formidable" task of claim construction.  Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 514 F.3d at 1249.

20
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

 Interwoven first asserts that "arbitrary object framework" is indefinite because it is functionally defined.  Recognizing that functional definitions are not per se improper, Interwoven argues that functional language must be strictly scrutinized for the purposes of invalidity analysis. In this case, Interwoven maintains that while "the patents contain multiple instances of the term ‘arbitrary object framework' . . . [they] never explain what it is or how it serves the purposes or functions described."  (Pl's. Resp. Claim Construction Brief at 13).  As an example, Interwoven refers to the patent language stating that an arbitrary object framework "allows arbitrary objects to be referenced" and "allows local arbitrary objects to . . . override global parent arbitrary objects." '744 patent col.3 1.47-52, col.4 1.26-31, col.6 1.16-10.  According to Interwoven, at no point does the patentee explain how the framework accomplishes such referencing or overriding.  Consequently, the claims are too vague adequately to delineate the scope of the invention and must be deemed invalid.

 As an alternative basis for invalidity, Interwoven suggests a second problem of definiteness. It maintains that the patentee failed as a lexicographer because, looking at all of the evidence, a person of ordinary skill in the art could not develop a reasonable meaning for "arbitrary object framework."  In fact, Interwoven contends, even Vertical struggles to define the term, relying on vague phrases about what the framework can do, without explaining how it can achieve these functions.   

 Vertical responds with three arguments.  First, it insists that because Interwoven was able to provide a definition for "arbitrary object," it is inapposite to insist that it cannot subsequently define "arbitrary object framework."  Interwoven need only consult a technical dictionary for guidance: "Framework" is defined as "a reusable basic design structure which assists in building applications." (Def's. Ex. G).  Second, Vertical maintains that, contrary to Interwoven's assertions, the patent clearly describes an "arbitrary object framework" as "a special type of framework [used] to generate or build software application . . . in a hierarchical manner."  (Def's. Brief Supporting its Claim Construction at 6).  For further support, Vertical refers to Figure 2 which provides an example of such a hierarchical model where form, content, and functionality are linked through such a

21
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

framework in order to produce a website.  Lastly, Vertical stresses that, despite the functional nature of the "arbitrary object framework" definition, the patents clearly describe how the framework accomplishes the functions of separating, generating, managing, and deploying.  With regards to separating, Vertical asserts that the specification teaches first that the framework can separate form, content, and functionality.  Then the specification explains that the framework creates and uses arbitrary objects.  Together, these statements demonstrate that the "creation and use of arbitrary objects is how the inventions of the patents-in-suit accomplish the task of separation."  (Def's. Brief Supporting its Claim Construction at 7) (emphasis in original).  Prior art frameworks could not separate form from content from functionality because they did not use arbitrary objects.  

 Vertical also addresses the framework's function of "generating" arbitrary objects.  It emphasizes that the critical question in determining indefiniteness is whether a person skilled in the art could, upon reading the disclosure, know how to construct and use the contested object.  Here, it is common knowledge within computer programming that the "generation of an object includes using particular statements in a program than an object framework reads and upon which it acts." (Def's. Brief Supporting its Claim Construction at 8). Combining the language of the patent and the common technical knowledge described above, Vertical insists that a person skilled in the art would know how the framework functions to generate arbitrary objects.

 With respect to "managing" and "deploying," Vertical refers to the '744 patent which provides that arbitrary objects are "managed in a consistent manner using revision, tracking, roll back, and sign off . . . [then] objects can be deployed."  '744 patent col.3 1.53-58.  Vertical insists that this description teaches a person of ordinary skill how to manage and deploy arbitrary objects: after setting up an arbitrary object framework with a set of rules and procedures, the developer would ensure that the framework could both manage arbitrary objects through the use of techniques such as revision or roll back and deploy these objects into another computer application.

 As Vertical demonstrates, the term "arbitrary object framework" is not indefinite despite its functional definition.  Using the directions within the specification which explain how an arbitrary object framework functions to separate, generate, manage, and deploy arbitrary objects, a person

22
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

skilled in the art would be able to comprehend the scope of the patent.  See, e.g., Exxon Research & Eng'g Co., 265 F.3d at 1375 (stating that a claim is definite as long as a person skilled in the art can "understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification").  Interwoven has therefore not met its burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory presumption of validity must be ignored.  See Wellman, Inc.v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d at 1366.   

 Notably, however, for purposes of construction, Interwoven presents a more detailed and exact alternative definition for "arbitrary object framework."  Its proposal is taken directly from the specification language.  The Court will apply the presumption of validity and interpret the term "arbitrary object framework" according to Interwoven's construction.   

E. "That Separates a Content of Said Computer Application, a Form of Said Computer Application, and a Functionality of Said Computer Application"

 Vertical offers two reasons for why this phrase need not be construed: (1) it appears in the preamble and, therefore, does not act as a separate limitation on the claims; and (2) it is neither ambiguous nor vague.  If the Court accepts neither of these rationales, Vertical proposes that the phrase be defined as "[t]he ability to independently modify Content, Form, and Function Objects." Interwoven insists that construction is necessary, asserting that, despite the fact that the term appears only in the preamble, it recites the essence of the invention and is repeatedly used throughout the prosecution history for both patents.  

 As stated above, language in the preamble must be construed for limiting purposes only if  "it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give ‘life, meaning, and vitality' to the claim."  Intirtool, Ltd., 369 F.3d at 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  Terms within the preamble are more likely to be considered essential if the patentee relies on them in order to distinguish prior art during prosecution.  See, e.g., Halliburton Energy Svcs., 514 F.3d at 1246 (construing "fragile gel" even though it appeared only in the preamble because plaintiff used the term to distinguish its invention during prosecution).  Here, Vertical refers to the separation of content, form, and functionality

23
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

throughout its written description and continuously emphasizes the invention's ability to separate these components during prosecution.  The language must be construed for limiting purposes.  

 As an alternative basis to avoid construction, Vertical asserts that the phrase is neither ambiguous nor vague.  In support, Vertical maintains that the phrase simply includes the terms "content," "form," and "functionality" and adds the word "separates."  It insists that the addition of the word "separates" does nothing to create ambiguity.  Vertical, however, oversimplifies the issue. The very acts of combining the terms, form, functionality and content, and adding the word "separates," produce ambiguity.  Without further clarification it is unclear what exactly this separation entails.  The entire phrase must be construed.  

 As mentioned above, Vertical suggests a simple construction.  Interwoven, on the other hand, proposes: "In which the content, form, and functionality of said computer application are kept apart and distinct from each other, so that each may be accessed or modified independently." Because the Court has determined that within the invention content, form, and functionality, may, not must, be completely separated, Interwoven's proposal is inappropriate.  Vertical's construction, however, is not wholly accurate either.  While it captures the fact that separation entails the "ability independently to modify" various objects, it omits any reference to the ability to access these objects.  As per the specification language, this is an important component of separation: "The method of the present invention separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified independently."  '744 patent col.2 1.9-14, col.2 1.17-22. Accordingly the Court will modify Vertical's definition and formulate the construction: "The ability independently to modify and access Content, Form, and Function Objects."

V. CONCLUSION
 The disputed terms of the patents-in-suit are hereby construed as set forth above.  Where the order has identified terms that may require further construction, such matters shall be presented, if it becomes necessary, in the context of any dispositive motions or at the time of formulating jury instructions.

24
NO. C 10-4645 RS
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION ORDER 
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/30/11 
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:09 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Useful information:

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=314569

By: moonpunk 12 Dec 2011, 03:44 PM CST Rating:

Msg. 314569 of 314577 (Reply to 314567 by ccm2406) Jump to msg. #

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 4:09 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  happy

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=314495

By: baveman 11 Dec 2011, 04:22 PM CST Rating: Rate this post:

Msg. 314495 of 314501 Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=314498

By: baveman 11 Dec 2011, 04:33 PM CST Rating: Rate this post:

Msg. 314498 of 314501 (Reply to 314497 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 4:52 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Patent application #09/888,329

re: http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=314458

re: http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=314491

Current state:

"In response (to the last rejection), Applicant has amended independent Claims 1 and 28 such that they now more clearly distinguish, and are patentable over the cited references.

"Specifically, and in addition to the Remarks and Arguments set forth in previous responses, independent Claims 1 and 28 have been amended to more particularly point out and distinctly claim one of the distinguishing characteristics of the present invention, namely, the step of AUTOMATICALLY MANIPULATING THE CONTENT OF MARKUP LANGUAGE DOCUMENTS (emphasis in document is underlined presented here as upper case). There amendments are supported, by way of example but not limitation by paragraphs [0140]-[0155], and therefore, add no new matter to the application as originally filed." 

"In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that none of the cited references, either singularly or in any combination, teach, suggest, or render obvious the unique combination now recited in independent Claims 1 and 28. It is therefore respectfully submitted that Claim 1 clearly and precisely distinguishes over the cited combinations of references in a patentable sense, and is therefore allowable over those references and the remaining references of record. Accordingly it is respectfully requested that the rejection of Claims 1 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Motoyama in view of Bata and Maslov be withdrawn.

"Claims 2-27, 29-31, 33, 35-37, and 39 depend from and further limit independent Claims 1 and 28, in a patentable sense, and, for this reason and the reasons set forth above, are also deemed to be in condition for allowance. It is, therefore, respectfully requested that the rejection of dependent Claims 2-27, 29-31, 33, 35-37, and 39 be withdrawn, as well.

"New Claims 41-50 have been added to further recite automatically modifying, translating, and censuring the content of at least one web page, and automatically aggregating and summarizing the content of one or more web pages from one or more web sites. New Claims 41-50 are supported, by way of example but not limitation, by paragraphs [0140] - [0155], and therefore, add no new matter to the application as originally filed. Claims 41-50, furthermore, depend from and further limit independent Claims 1 and 28, in a patentable sense, and, for this reason and the reasons set forth above, are also deemed to be in condition for allowance." 

-----------------------
So claims 1 and 28 are changed to more accurately reflect the automated nature of Emily's methods.

32. 34. 38. 40. are cancelled

and

41. thru 45. presenting claim 1 in greater precision,

and

45. thru 50. presenting claim 28 in greater precision

So summarized:

1. (currently amended) A method for processing a markup language file having one or more portions, the method comprising steps performed by a processor of:
automatically downloading by said processor a first markup language file using the hyper text transfer protocol and referencing by said processor the first markup language file by its uniform resource location (URL) or by a name of a local file on a system on which a user is operating, said first markup language file including arbitrarily named tags;
automatically determining by said processor when the step of downloading is complete and, upon a determination that the steop of downloading is complete, automatically parsing by said processor the first markup language file for one or more portions of the first markup language file;
automatically determining by said processor when the step of parsing is complete and, upon a determination the the step of parsing is complete, automatically storing by said processor each portion of the first markup language file into a directory structure containing folders, subfolders, and files, complying with the structure of the first markup language file, wherein each of the folders and subfolders depend from the tag names in the markup language file; AND AUTOMATICALLY MANIPULATING THE CONTENT OF MARKUP LANGUAGE DOCUMENTS.

2. 3. (previously presented)

4. thru 26. (original)

27. (previously presented)

28. (currently amended) A system for processing a markup language file having one or more portions, the system having a computer having at least a processor, a memory operably coupled to said memory, said memory being configured for storing a computer program executable by said processor, said computer program comprising:
computer program code for automatically downloading by said processor a first markup language file using the hyper text transfer protocol and automatically referencing by said processor the first markup language file by its uniform resource location (URL) or by a name of a local file on a system on which a user is operating, said first markup language file including arbitrarily named tags;
computer program code for automatically determining by said processor when the steps of downloading and referencing are complete and, upon a determination that the steps of downloading and referencing are complete, computer program code for automatically parsing by said processor the first markup language file for one or more portions of the first markup language file;
computer program code for automatically determining by said processor when the step of parsing is complete and, upon a determination that the step of parsing is complete, computer program code for automatically storing by said processor each portion of the first markup language file into a directory structure containing folders, subfolders, and files, complying with the structure of the first markup language file, wherein each of the folders and subfolders depend from the tag names in the markup language file; AND
COMPUTER PROGRAM CODE FOR AUTOMATICALLY MANIPULATING THE CONTENT OF MARKUP LANGUAGE DOCUMENTS.

29. thru 31. (previously presented)

32. (cancelled)

33. (previously presented)

34. (cancelled)

35. thru 37. (previously presented)

38. (cancelled)

39. (previously presented)

40. (cancelled)

41. (new) The method of claim 1, further comprising steps performed by said processor of automatically modifying the content of at least one web page.

42. (new) The method of claim 1, further comprising steps performed by said processor of automatically translating the content of at least one web page.

43. (new) The method of claim 1, further comprising steps performed by said processor of automatically censuring the content of at least one web page.

44. (new) The method of claim 1, further comprising steps performed by said processor of automatically aggregating the content of one or more web pages from one or more web sites.

45. (new) The method of claim 1, further comprising steps performed by said processor or automatically summarizing the content of one or more web pages from one or more web sites.

46. (new) The system of claim 28 wherein said computer program further comprises computer program code for automatically modifying the content of at least one web page.

47. new) The system of claim 28 wherein said computer program further comprises computer program code for automatically translating the content of at least one web page.

48. (new) The system of claim 28 wherein said computer program further comprises computer program code for automatically censuring the content of at least one web page.

49. (new) The system of claim 28 wherein said computer program further comprises computer program code for automatically aggregating the content of one or more web pages from one or more web sites.

50. (new) The system of claim 28 wherein said computer program further comprises computer program code for automatically summarizing the content of one or more web pages from one or more web sites.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:40 PM EST

Updated: Sunday, 11 December 2011 3:45 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313413

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 09:19 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313413 of 314210 (Reply to 313412 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313414

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 09:27 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313414 of 314210 Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313419

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 10:04 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313419 of 314210 (Reply to 313416 by smoothsailing20) Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313422

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 10:07 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313422 of 314210 (Reply to 313406 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313433

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 10:32 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313433 of 314210 (Reply to 313431 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313438

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 10:59 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313438 of 314210 (Reply to 313436 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313441

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 11:18 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313441 of 314210 Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313442

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 11:20 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313442 of 314210 (Reply to 313441 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313443

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 11:20 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313443 of 314210 (Reply to 313442 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313444

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 11:21 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313444 of 314210 (Reply to 313443 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313445

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 11:22 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313445 of 314210 (Reply to 313444 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313446

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 11:22 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313446 of 314210 (Reply to 313445 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313447

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 11:23 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313447 of 314210 (Reply to 313446 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

Wow. That's a lot to read but it defines in very sharp contrast the position between Vertical and Interwoven and it shows the power VCSY IP has and also shows why Interwoven dearly wants to be seen as not infringing because the claims are invalid. Crippling Interwoven's ability handle information in an arbitrary way cripples Autonomy's analytical reach and in turn cripples HP's attempt to compute with "everything everywhere" .

To be continued

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:59 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Raging Bull has made all posts of VCSY posters unavailable from November 24, 2011 back.

For that reason to archive information presented on RB I'm going to post various posts here:

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313261

By: moonpunk 29 Nov 2011, 07:02 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313261 of 314204 Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313264

By: moonpunk 29 Nov 2011, 09:29 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313264 of 314205 Jump to msg. #

Posts are also being deleted on Yahoo. There's a tremendous amount of information that was posted and is now intentionally made  unavailable by those who have been working tirelessly to damage and detour any conversation about VCSY. But those people can't account for the actions available to VCSY longs and that is what will come back to bite those people in the butt.

Until then:

(By Portuno) Interwoven/Vertical claim construction:
 
From Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document76 Filed11/14/11

Interwoven Claim Construction

page 9

Content
Interwoven: Data, including information, photographs, illustrations, and articles, that appears in the computer application or on the web site, which is not form or functionality.
Vertical: Data, including information, photographs, illustrations, articles.

Form
Interwoven: Structured format or appearance of the computer application or web site, which is not content or functionality.
Vertical: Formatting including graphic designs, user interfaces, graphical representations.

Functionality
Interwoven: Software code that implements logical functionality within the computer application or web site, which is not form or content.
Vertical: Software code.


Again we see Interwoven attempting to use the concept "must" (absolute requirement) when any common sense reader will come to the conclusion Vertical says "may" (available option).

"Vertical’s proposed construction contradicts the record, which prohibits any combination of content, form, and functionality"

Interwoven wants the reader to believe since Vertical is so fired up on keeping content, form and functionality separate the patent intended to preclude any operation that might combine content and form, content and functionality, form and functionality. It's quite easy to thumb through the patent language and see references to the combination of these data object types into compound objects of content/form, form/functionality, content/functionalty which are additionally kept separate as their own composite object qualities i.e. formatted content, content functionality as is practiced by traditional object use. Again relying on previous methods used in a novel patentable way does not preclude use of the previous methods as an available option in use of the method. This is the accepted current ruling per "negative limitations".

Interwoven is desperate to have the court see the case as "must" because Interwoven has been practicing the art of compositing object structure for automating content management (combining objects of content, form and functionality) just as Autonomy has been practicing the art of compositing applications (combining objects of content, form and functionality). We don't know in what manner they've been doing this sort of compositing but it's obvious they haven't presented anything showing they do not use the methods claimed by Vertical's patents.

Therefore, if the judge fails to see things Interwoven's way, there is a cascade effect in all of Interwoven/Autonomy's work that puts everything they've done for the past decade in jeopardy.

That is the impetus for the trick Interwoven is attempting to use to confuse the judge. It's really that simple. But apparently Niro went and stuck a broomstick in Interwoven's spokes so Interwoven is riding into the December 14 Markman hearing with an already damaged steering position.

Now we know Interwoven is going to have to argue the Markman with Vertical's "may" position in place. If the judge does not take up the motion earlier than the January 12 data proposed by Interwoven, Vertical's language will be the dominant position when the Markman hearing is held December 12. But, even if the judge takes the matter before that, the common sense approach and therefore not negatively limited is Vertical's treatment.

 
The separation of content, form and functionality has been a key controversy throughout software industry history. On one hand, information theory teaches maintaining a separation of each of these quality/type data entities is a more elegant, efficient and productive way of working. On the other hand, human developers continually point to work experience showing the separation of these data entities is not possible.

The 744/629 patent teaches not only is the theory correct but the achievement of the theory is possible by making use of architecture and language designed primarily for the purpose of maintaining an arbitrary use throughout the workflow. As is typical in human work development, an advance seen and declared as impossible as a human employment becomes possible once a machine is designed to accomplish the purpose.

Interwoven is here basing their case on two ideas:

1) Vertical describes their patent as maintaining the separation of content, form and functionality, therefore, there can be no discussion of combined content, form and/or functionality anywhere in Vertical's consideration.

2) Vertical's patent enables separation of content, form and functionality, therefore, a user of Vertical's patent can not combine content, form or functionality.


Yes it's a flimsy position but it's really all Interwoven has. The prior art concepts were hashed out quite thoroughly as 744 was first granted in 2004 and the 629 continuance was granted in 2010 after a de-facto full review of 744.

------------------

So now we get into the concepts embodied in the terms Content, Form and Functionality.

page 12-13
2. Content

Interwoven provides a self contradicting claim:
"The patent specification consistently describes "content" as data appearing in a web site or computer application."

"In contrast, Vertical’s proposed construction is improper, as it merely substitutes "data" for "content".

?????

But Interwoven just said in their opening statement to "2. Content":
"The patent specification consistently describes "content" as data..."

Duhhhh. If Interwoven describes "content" as "data" then who are we (or they) to argue?

Next issue:

"The term "data", used in its ordinary sense without limitation, could have nonsensical meanings in the context of the ’744 and ’629 patents. It might even include the
machine-level 1’s and 0’s that define all information stored in a computer."

Content may be any data as that data (including the 1's and 0's representing the binary code in a computer) may need to be seen and considered by human and/or machine for information purposes. Are we to prevent a human from seeing binary code simply because it appears nonsensical to Interwoven to look at something like that?

This: 0101 * 0100 = 10100 is very informative to a student of computer information. 0001 + 0001 = 0010 informs someone skilled in even the most basic computing art. These are data represented to the human (you) as "content". These are therefore "content" in this container which happens to be called a document (swhich started life in a notepad container and ends up in a web post container).

Are we to then strike the consideration of thousands of lines of information already in textbooks presenting such "nonsensical meanings" as content? Interwoven would have it that way.

Interwoven continues: "This sense of the generic word "data" defies the teachings of the patent specification, because the purported point of the claimed invention is to "separate" content so that writers, photographers, and editors can access it independently without having to deal with computer-level data. ’744 patent col.1 l.21-22, col.2 l.22-23."

But I just showed what "computer-level data" can just as easily be considered by "writers, photographers, and editors".

Interwoven continues:
"Plainly, "data" alone may also refer to "a new look" or "functionality" based on the specification, both of which are independent from content."

The art of demonstrating correctness lies in being able to use your opponents paradigm to explain your own argument. Thus:

"data" in a computer comes in binary form. We humans "abstract" data into data types just as we abstract data into data entities also called data objects. The purpose of human use of machines as a quality multiplier dictates that the human understanding supercedes the more base and non-abstracted machine terminology.

At first glance, as all information can be considered "data" by the machine, Interwoven's adoption of the human programmer paradigm would appear to be correct by saying "everything is data so there is no separation possible".

But the machine is not in control of the language. The human is. And the human chooses to qualify and therefore categorize the raw treatment of data into three particular useful sets to reach a realistic (not dumbed down) language construct:

1) data as data: information as contained and available for consumption from its most raw state to its most transformed processed result.

2) data as data about data: information qualifying the contained information from its most basic containment as raw content to it's most refined presentation as formatted content.

3) data that transforms data and/or data about data and/or data that transforms etcetera (see the code can achieve?): information instructing the machine (and the human capable of reading the machine instructions) to perform tasks intended to transform the data and/or data about data AND/OR data that transforms data, data about data and data that transforms.

Words work because they express being, perception and action and any abstraction must first result from those three qualities.



We can abstract the above 1,2,3 discussion to the following terms to stand in for the above:
from: http://www.etymonline.com/

1) data (from Latin L. datum meaning "(thing) given") = It is what it is.

2) metadata (from Greek meta (preposition) "in the midst of, in common with, by means of, in pursuit or quest of,") = It can be what we want it do be.

3) code (Latin codex, earlier caudex "book, book of laws," lit. "tree trunk,") = It will be what we make it do be.



These three abstractions are closer to machine descriptions than human. So we continue to abstract the terms upward to human understanding as follows:

1) content (Latin contentus "contained, satisfied,") It is.

2) form (Latin forma "form, contour, figure, shape; appearance, looks' model, pattern, design; sort, kind condition,") It appears.

3) functionality (Latin functionem (nom. functio) "performance, execution," noun of action from functus, pp. of fungi "perform, execute, discharge,") It does.

PS You might want to print all this out to stick on your refrigerator so you can be reminded lawyers only play with words. Real people make them live.

Sincerely,

Little Ol' Insufferable Me

url:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=58205&mid=58205&tof=1&frt=2

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313265

By: moonpunk 29 Nov 2011, 09:59 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313265 of 314207 (Reply to 313262 by smoothsailing20) Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313266

By: moonpunk 29 Nov 2011, 10:00 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313266 of 314207 Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313274

By: moonpunk 29 Nov 2011, 11:27 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313274 of 314207 (Reply to 313269 by tbacha3030) Jump to msg. #

Since the battle is against professionals working in Raging Bull and Yahoo against VCSY shareholders I include posts to the prime activist who's been posting against VCSY for over ten years:

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313282

By: moonpunk 29 Nov 2011, 12:40 PM CST Rating:

Msg. 313282 of 314207 (Reply to 313279 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313314

By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 12:00 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313314 of 314207 Jump to msg. #

 http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313343

By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 02:04 PM CST Rating:

Msg. 313343 of 314207 (Reply to 313321 by beenwaitin0) Jump to msg. #

By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 03:39 PM CST Rating:

Msg. 313345 of 314207 (Reply to 313344 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 03:49 PM CST Rating:

Msg. 313347 of 314207 Jump to msg. #

By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 04:24 PM CST Rating:

Msg. 313354 of 314207 Jump to msg. #

By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 05:01 PM CST Rating:

Msg. 313358 of 314207 (Reply to 313357 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 07:44 PM CST Rating:

Msg. 313372 of 314207 (Reply to 313371 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 08:00 PM CST Rating:

Msg. 313377 of 314207 (Reply to 313375 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 08:17 PM CST Rating:

Msg. 313381 of 314207 (Reply to 313379 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 08:42 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313409 of 314207 (Reply to 313407 by 13truck) Jump to msg. #

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 08:52 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313410 of 314207 (Reply to 313408 by mypointz) Jump to msg. #

By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 09:03 AM CST Rating:

Msg. 313412 of 314207 (Reply to 313411 by choochoo2000) Jump to msg. #

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:07 PM EST

Updated: Thursday, 8 December 2011 12:53 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

In order to prepare for VCSY's filing November 27, 2011 of their response to Interwoven's claim construction brief I'm going back to some basics in order to refresh the view:

Was .NET all a mistake?
Written by Ian Elliot  
Wednesday, 03 August 2011 09:04

http://www.i-programmer.info/professional-programmer/i-programmer/2830-was-net-all-a-mistake.html
...the recent unsettling behavior at Microsoft has caused me to re-evaluate my .NET experiences and think hard about where it all came from and where it is all going.

The Windows API technology moved on from C functions to an object oriented technology - COM - and this worked well with Visual Basic as long as it was one of the more sophisticated forms of COM, either ActiveX or COM Automation. Working with COM was, and still is, not an easy thing to do from C++ but most programmers learned how to live with it.

(more at URL)
---------------------------------------

COM was/is the Component Object Model - here's a wiki and a July 2000 tutorial on COM

It's important to understand at least an overview of Microsoft COM so you can understand the reason for the arbitrary object (component) structures that can be built with VCSY IP and the reason for the war.

We start here: "Component Object Model (COM) is a binary-interface standard for software componentry introduced by Microsoft in 1993. It is used to enable interprocess communication and dynamic object creation in a large range of programming languages."

Stop. First thing to remember.  VCSY's IP is a component object model for markup languages which are not binary but textual.

[2] "The term COM is often used in the Microsoft software development industry as an umbrella term that encompasses the OLE, OLE Automation, ActiveX, COM+ and DCOM technologies."

Meaning a variety of software objects treated as components which could be used by developers to build larger applications (a component is a tiny application - its purpose to facilitate control of the various capabilities of the operating system using an abstract set of graphics and text to aid the human developer) make up the Microsoft way of creating software and of integrating between a Microsoft and a non-Microsoft software.

VCSY IP is a way to build objects[521] that are used as components of larger applications[744],[629]:
[3] "Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) is a technology developed by Microsoft that allows embedding and linking to documents and other objects."

So in Microsoft technology there was a way to build software objects that were to act as processing components that can be plugged (essence of the "plug and play" concept) into connection with each other. The interaction of the specialized capabilities of each component combined to create complex software. Microsoft built its software empire of the 90's and today on COM.

But more specifically DCOM Distributed Component Object Model.
[4] "Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) is a proprietary Microsoft technology for communication among software components distributed across networked computers. DCOM, which originally was called "Network OLE", extends Microsoft's COM, and provides the communication substrate under Microsoft's COM+ application server infrastructure. It has been deprecated in favor of the Microsoft .NET Framework."

[629] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,716,629.PN.&OS=PN/7,716,629&RS=PN/7,716,629 on the internet.

[1] wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_Object_Model
[2] tutorial: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/COM/comintro.aspx
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Linking_and_Embedding
[4]wiki DCOM: http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Distributed_Component_Object_Model

-----------------------------

VCSY patents:

7076521
6826744
7716629

------------------------------

We've seen the focus in the claims construction document of 10-11-11 on arbitrary objects and arbitrary object libraries.

Here's a little background as to how Microsoft and Interwoven walked into the corner.

First we can learn a bit of useful information here in May 2005:
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3504726/Interwoven+in+Microsofts+Gold+Circle.htm


I'm ready to write about the definitions as demonstrated against the history Microsoft and Interwoven had all the way back here:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2000/jun00/InterwovenPR.mspx
(June 28, 2000)

by fleshing out what Microsoft and Interwoven and others were trying to do based on Microsoft's own words here:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-241804.html
(June 13, 2000)

http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-reveals-plans-for-Web-based-software-services/2100-1001_3-242273.html
(June 22, 2000)

here:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-242277.html
(June 22, 2000)

here:
http://news.cnet.com/Commentary-Microsofts-Jupiter-expedition/2009-1069_3-1009533.html
(May 23, 2003)

and here:
http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-dooms-Jupiter,-readies-BizTalk/2100-1012_3-5160976.html
(February 18, 2004)

and all to end up here:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/more-on-microsoft-jupiter-and-what-it-means-for-windows-8/8373
(January 6, 2011)

...for starters. A whole lot of smoke and hand waving but Microsoft sloughed off the work to partners in 2004 instead of taking the shot themselves. And we'll see how the "Jupiter" concept has been carried from back then to now.

-----------------------------------

Housekeeping. Cleaning up files and putting them here for reference and access. Ragingbull has been down now for four days for "maintenance". The last time this kind of thing happened they came back up with all files prior to January 21, 2003 gone.

-----------------------------------

Since I'm going assail sensibilities in the area of markup languages I feel we should also establish a view of markup languages:

=====================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markup_language

=====================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_Application_Markup_Language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_programming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_programming


Will Microsoft get to a point where a true base for a semantic language is developed?

===========================
PDF is from 2003
http://www.superfrink.net/athenaeum/e2.pdf

(The argument argues against using XML as a programming langauge while he proceeeds to demonstrate he has a shallow view of what a programming language can do.)

XML places a processing burden on sending and receiving systems.

serialisation refers to the process of placing the parts onto a sequential stream, that may, or may not, reflect their functional, spatial, or other relationships.

Data streams have been delimited and encoded in various ways since the inception of computers. Annotation has been less common, and is the aspect that now leads any people to suggest that XML data streams are self-describing.

It is partly the potential richness of the annotation of the data stream, together with the adherence to some predefined set of rules(schema), that has led to a misconception, by many in the IT industry, that data streams expressed in XML are, somehow, self describing in a way that their meaning can always be discerned by the receiving system. Nothing could be further from the truth!

It has to "parse" it and it has to "process it". It does the former using generic software that merely understands the structure and syntax. It does the latter by applying what is often described as "business logic" or "business rules" to the data items, so that the data can be validated, placed in appropriate locations in the receiver’s persistent store ( for later processing ), or shipped out to a user interface or ..., etc.

ERROR: The meaning of a <pzagg> cannot be supplied along with the message. BACKTRACKING [or if it were, the messages would be unworkably huge, and would still need to be expressed in terms of an agreed set of lower-level components from which the business logic is built].

Both the patterns and the rules have to be known a priori! That is the essence of business logic. That is the essence of almost any software that needs to process messages. If the receiving system receives an XML tag that is not in its vocabulary, it can do very little with it. It cannot magically impute meaning to it, just as we humans cannot impute meaning to a <pzagg> or a <mzdcyy>.

No amount of XML formatting is going to make these systems interoperable. The business logic at each end needs to change. They both need to conform to a common conceptual model.

CORRECT: XML is not intended for consumption by humans, but by machines! And machines are not humans! AND WOEFULLY MISUNDERSTOOD.

DUHHHH: XML was developed to allow flexibility in the way documents could be marked up. The tags to be used for annotating parts of the document, could be specified in a DTD (Document Type Descriptor ) which could be used by receiving systems to "understand" the document structure, and to process it according to the receiving system's requirements. WOOPS HE JUST DESCRIBED HOW XML CAN TRANSFER UNDERSTANDING FROM HUMAN TO MACHINE AND THROUGH THE MACHINES USING THE xml. ???so WHAT'S THE BEEF OF THE ENTIRE FIRST SECTION OF HIS PAPER?

GOOBER: The advent of business to business e-commerce required a mechanism for data and process interoperability, based on exchange of information using web (HTTP) protocols. XML seemed like a good option. It had already been used for limited exchange of web-based resources, using RDF (Resource Descriptor Framework) and RSS (RDF Site Summary). However, the number of concepts that needed to be represented was very small. As XML started to be used to cover a broader range of more complex information structures, the schema syntax became more complex. XML-Schema is a particularly complex specification, and although endorsed and promoted by W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), is only one of a number of schema representations in use. Yet its very existence, and the fact that it substantially overcomes many of the shortcomings of DTDs, has led to a belief by many that it "solves" the semantic interoperability problem, by adequately describing almost any document structure, even if it only does this in the semantic frame of reference of the source system. It is this last rider, that is overlooked by many proponents of XML.

OUR GUY JUST SHOT HIMSELF IN THE FOOT: XML is very useful for describing the structure of data streams; it can tag individual items of data; it can qualify such items; it can associate individual items with others in the stream; it can group items together; and, augmented with XML-Schema or its alternatives, it can allow for constraining, validation, data-typing and other structural niceties, that hitherto for have been difficult to achieve across a range of operating systems and APIs (Application Programming Interfaces). (DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE ACROSS A RANGE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS AND APIs (Application Programming Interfaces). An API is a machine to machine interface just as a graphics page is a human to machine interface.

And the critical question: "But what is XML a de facto standard for? What should we adopt it for?" This is where he demonstrates his short sight.



So how would you have a system understand the language it's about to process? Provide a service to feed the knowledge about the system into the process about to process the language. If the processor doesn't have the ability or authority to digest the process instructions, the processor doesn't get to participate. That's how security should be provided - not by trying to spot a bad deed in a sea of general purpose capabilities as is the current paradigm with a hodge podge of languages and operating elements.

So XML is an attractive programming language because it offers one common agreed upon way of parsing and digesting instructions.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973912.aspx
What's Wrong with the Windows API?

Why not just continue using the Windows API in the .NET environment? You certainly can, using the .NET Platform Invocation Services (referred to as "P/Invoke"). From the Visual Basic developer's point of view, calling the Windows API is no more difficult than using the familiar Declare statement. Using the Windows API has some serious drawbacks in the .NET world, however, and you might consider doing anything you can to avoid it. For example:

    The .NET common language runtime is meant to be platform non-specific. Whenever you use a Windows API call, you're tying your code to the specific platform (that is, a specific version of Windows, and Windows itself, as opposed to some other operating system) on which you wrote it. Converting your code to another platform, should that ever become necessary, will require modifications to each line of code that uses the API call.
    Calling the Windows API (or any unmanaged code in Dlls) from .NET isn't as simple as it was in Visual Basic 6.0. Limitations on the way structures work makes it tricky to pass structures to API calls, for example. In addition, API declarations from Visual Basic 6.0 will need to be altered, because of changes to data types and stricter type conversions.
    Techniques for using the Windows API (and external code, in general) differ from language to language. If your intent is to work in multiple .NET languages, you'll need to master different techniques for each language.
    Code that calls the Windows API requires users calling that code to have permissions to do so. This can compromise the security scheme for your application, and you'll need to plan ahead for this requirement.

The point here is simple: although you can continue to use the Windows API from Visual Basic .NET applications, you generally should look for alternatives provided by the .NET Framework if you can. Although the intent of the .NET Framework was not to shield you from ever having to use Windows functionality directly, the Framework does supply a large number of classes that can help replace your reliance on Windows API calls.
=============================

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:12 PM EST

Updated: Wednesday, 23 November 2011 12:31 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink