Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
« April 2018 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Apple Fritters
Calamity
Chinadotcom and VCSY
DD to da RR
Endorsements
Facebook
GLOSSARY
Gurgle
HP and VCSY
Integroty
Microsoft and VCSY
Nobody Can Be That Stupid
Notable Opinions
Off the Wall Speculation
Panama
Pervasive Computing
Reference
SaaS
SOA
The DISCLAIMER
The Sneaky Runarounds
TIMELINE
VCSY
VCSY / Baseline
VCSY / Bashed
VCSY / Infotech
VCSY / MLE (Emily)
VCSY / NOW Solutions
VCSY - A Laughing Place #2
Sunday, 1 January 2012
Interwoven v VCSY Markman Decision

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


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. 


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).  


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


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


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
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 12 December 2011
Discussion on Emily Specification

Useful information:

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

By: moonpunk
12 Dec 2011, 03:44 PM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 314569 of 314577
(Reply to 314567 by ccm2406)
Jump to msg. #
I would agree. While unorthodox there are a number of perfectly legal ways in which a patent may be throttled back.

The child for 629 would be an extremely powerful concept with Emily as the 744 framework would be transportable to any existing languages.

Since this is as good a place as any to start I'm going to place the following here so thinking might be jogged as to what we're looking forward as a "next generation" computing concept.

Traditional solutions such as using XML tagging to identify portions of data for processing have had limited success over the past decade because the processing necessary to consume those tags has been limited to private internal systems with no real means of interoperability between different systems beyond standardized XML vocabularies. Those methods amount to design by committee implementations that are always late and never scale properly.

A new method of dealing with data flow between different systems is needed.

The following is from the Emily patent application 09888329 specifications. Quoted passages from the specification will be marked by brackets [xxxx] to differentiate from my comments which are separate from the bracketed passages.

[0011] It is not workable to impose standards on the B2B process (such as standard catalogs and purchase orders) that radically affect the internal workings of participating organization. B2B e-commerce systems will work only if they can be inexpensively layered upon the privat policies of a company. Any B2B system that attempts to make drastic changes in the internal workings of the organization runs a high risk of being rejected for the simple reason that participants view their carefully crafted internal systems as part of their "competitive edge." Furthermore, although buyers may want e-commerce, suppliers will resist it in the absence of any mandating authority until the cost of e-commerce is compensatory.

The discussion continues on to include agent technology already patented as 7076521 and then begins focusing on the reason for focusing on the use of XML to build a programming medium more effective than the traditional methods.


From entitled: Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments
[0040] Before discussing the details of the preferred embodiments, it is useful to provide a brief background on an emerging standard called XML (Extensible Markup Language). XML is similar to HTML (Hypertext Markup Language, which is the language that web pages are written in. However, XML is more flexible than HTML with regard to how tags are named, and how data content can be constructed. Like HTML, XML can be pulled from a web site using HTTP (Hypertext Transport Protocol). XML provides a small advantage to HTML in that it is more readable by programs (although slightly less readable by humans). XML has become a hot topic, mainly because it simplifies the construction of programs that pull data from the web. Also, XML is one of the few standards that provide assistance in the construction of B2B systems.

The discussion continues into detail as to the Server/Client architecture in passing XML between sites. Section [0047] describes a minimal implementation of Emily using an "enabler agent" (a described embodiment in patent 7076521) residing on a XML server and a data collector (a described embodiment in patent 7076521) on a client. "The enabler agent 102 works in tandem with a server database 112, to provide data from the server database in a standard, platform independent format. The data collector 104 works in tandem with a client database 122, to receive data in a standard, platform independent format and store the data in the client database 122. The data communication system works in either a one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one or many-to-many environment. Each server communicates data to one or more clients. Each client receives data from one or more servers." [0048] "The data communication is not limited to e-commerce, however. The system can be generalized to cover many other situation where information needs to be transferred between independent entities."

The discussion continues to describe such a system working in a hospital environment.

The "enabler agents" may be specialized to any manner of granular independent data exchange. The "data collectors" may likewise be specialize to any manner of granular independent data collection.

While this may at first appear to be a prior art server/client transaction model I would like to point out the traditional appearance of such a method can be found in a very rudimentary form in Ajax. Microsoft used the fundamental XMLhttpRequest method used to develop Microsoft's Silkroute patented technology to attempt to prevent the patenting of 706521 but the Silkroute method is very limited since XMLhttpRequest is a typically one-way process.

521 does the work of a processing web server where Ajax is only a tranaction process. 521 can be fed any manner of program code while Ajax remains as a fixed linking method.

The 521 enabler-agent/data-collector configuration is only a basic implementation and the combinations of agents and collectors may be very sophisticate and complex. The reason for this is that Ajax/XMLhttpRequest is a very simple request/transfer process used predominantly to speed up the refresh of granular parts of a web page as marked by XML tags. This gives the interface the look and feel of a speedier desktop interface. However 521 is a full processing kernel capable of carrying out the duties of a transactional web server whether it sits on a "server" or a "client".

The local machine hardware/OS does not matter as 521 is able to reside on any platform by using XML as a native language for adaptation of the required 521 virtual machine. This is also superior to typical run-time virtual machines since those machines are purpose built for specific installations and must be manually changed to run on other installations. 521 continues the concept of "arbitrary" found in sister patents 744 by use of a novel use of XML.

The specification spends much time demonstrating how Emily can be used in a typical B2B architectures. While this discussion originates from circa 1999/2000 the reality is that "B2B" constructs have not changed fundamentally since then while many different approaches have been tried with "limited success" (per discussion about Hadoop by HP related authors).

The entire discussion up to this point describes the use of the runtime processor in various implementations. There might be some confusion as to the Emily runtime (09888329) and the MLE runtime (521) as they appear to be the same - both being able to be an "enabler agent" and a "data collector". From my point of view 521 works as a granular processing web-server able to pre-process data transactions and exchanges while 09888329 works as a language enabler specifically intended to run the Emily language which is native XML.

The actual discussion about the use of XML as programming code begins in [0089] with the heading Emily Framework Scripting Language.

[0089] With reference to Fig. 12, a flow diagram illustrating a typical method performed by the Emily scripting language is shown. The Emily scripting language may be used for processing a markup language file having one or more tagged portions. The method comprises opening a first markup language file... and parsing the first markup language file for one or more portions...The language interpreter then stores each portion of the first markup language file into one or more objects in an electronic memory...
[0091] The Emily languge comprises a command language set allowing selection, viewing and other processing of the one or more objects...A subset of commands may comprise one or more commands for processing one or more folders, subfolders, portions, or sub-portions of the first markup language, the subset comprising one or more executable batch files containing a subset of the set of commands. One or more executable batch files may be incvluded within a second markup language file, the subset of commands in the executable batch file comprising commands for including one or more of the objects containing portions of the first markup language file in the second markup language file.

Here we see Emily using web pages as source for objects parsed by the Emily interpreter from web pages (which may be any kind of HTML/XML/code-language conglomeration. And we now know those objects to be objects of content objects of form and objects of functionality as spelled out in 744. When the reader considers using XML as a programming language reading this particular section begins to unfold the kind of power Emily presents to the developer. Instead of having to contend with multiple languages to build web applications Emily presents the ability to build web pages and to build applications out of web pages and objects by using markup language alone. With Emily that language may be a single language fitted to the particular subject matter used by a SME.

We're going to return to this capability to demonstrate the real power of using markup and web pages as a foundation and platform for building applications. But the specification continues by describing a set of basic http commands that are used by Emily as a part of the architecture for managing the various parts of the framework. This is a synergy from the REST philosophy that makes Emily an integral part of a web operation instead of being an add-on or additon to the internet architecture. This ensures close integration with existing legacy systems of any age or configuration and makes Emily much more powerful than new languages such as HTML5 which rely on enhanced browsers to work.

This kind of legacy enhancement opens the door to modernizing browsers and operating systems that run on a vast majority of existing computers and will never be changed due their hardware limitations and the cost of replacement and loss of productivity.

In this sense a Windows 98 machine running the most basic browsers may be modernized to perform machine-centric processing on par (albeit a bit slower) with modern machines. By opening up a distributed (many to many) granular service architecture on all existing machines the reality of resources for parallel processing takes on an entirely new complexion.

I will continue shortly but I stop here to allow the reader to take in just what this kind of language/runtime and attendant MLE processors running as a benign/benevolent layer on top of the existing OS/file structure/application library/browser resources can mean to real "cloud" computing. This kind of pooled internet processing power means cloud farms may be treated as expensive proprietary traps from which the common human's processing on global supercomputer scales can be done virtually free cost.

- - - - -
View Replies »

 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 4:09 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Sunday, 11 December 2011
VCSY Patents Cited
Mood:  happy

 

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

By: baveman
11 Dec 2011, 04:22 PM CST
Rating: post rating 5 Rate this post:
Msg. 314495 of 314501
Jump to msg. #
So.. check out other patents that reference VCSY patents. Do the work.
======

REF/7076521: 4 patents.
Hits 1 through 4 out of 4
PAT. NO. Title
1 8,056,092 Method and apparatus for widget-container hosting and generation
2 7,860,897 Optimized method of locating complete aggregation of patient health records in a global domain
3 7,849,399 Method and system for tracking authorship of content in data
4 7,840,934 Method and system for integrating workflow management systems with business-to-business interaction standards
===============
REF/6826744: 5 patents.
Hits 1 through 5 out of 5
PAT. NO. Title
1 7,533,069 System and method for mining data
2 7,343,550 System and method for providing on-line services for multiple entities
3 7,308,449 System and method for managing collections of data on a network
4 7,302,677 Event driven graph explorer for model-based testing of software
5 7,058,671 System combining information with view templates generated by compiler in a server for generating view structure for client compute
===============
United States Patent 6,718,103
Cruz April 6, 2004
Apparatus and method for transmitting images over a single-filament fiber optic cable

Abstract
A system for transmitting images and methods of manufacturing and using the same. The system for transmitting images includes a camera, a fiber optic cable, and a display system. The camera comprises a lens system for receiving light signals from one or more still and/or moving objects to be imaged. Upon receiving the light signals, the lens system intensifies the light signals to produce a substantially-reduced image of the objects and communicates the entire substantially-reduced image in real-time to a lens system of the display system via a single filament of the fiber optic cable. The lens system of the display system then deminiaturizes (or magnifies) the substantially-reduced image to produce an expanded image of the objects. The expanded image, which is continuously updated by the lens system of the camera to generate real-time still and/or moving images, is visibly presented by the display system.

Inventors: Cruz; Aluizio M. (Paramount, CA)
Assignee: Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (Los Angeles, CA)
Appl. No.: 09/884,522
Filed: June 18, 2001

===============
United States Patent 7,865,037
Bhaskar , et al. January 4, 2011
Memory load balancing

Abstract
An inspection system for detecting anomalies on a substrate. A first network is coupled to a sensor array and communicates data. Process nodes are coupled to the first network, and process the data to produce reports. Each process node includes memory sufficient to buffer the data until it can process the data. Each process node has an interface card that formats the data for a high speed interface bus that is coupled to the interface card. A computer receives and processes the data to produce the report. A second network receives the reports. A job manager is coupled to the second network, receives the reports, and sends information to the process nodes to coordinate processing of the data.

Inventors: Bhaskar; Krishnamurthy (San Jose, CA), Roulo; Mark J. (Mountain View, CA), Taylor; John S. (San Jose, CA), Miller; Lawrence R. (Los Altos, CA), Russell; Paul T. (Scotts Valley, CA), Lin; Jason Z. (Saratoga, CA), Rosengaus; Eliezer (Palo Alto, CA), Wallingford; Richard M. (San Jose, CA), Bubna; Kishore (Fremont, CA)
Assignee: KLA-Tencor Corporation (Milpitas, CA)
Appl. No.: 11/383,510
Filed: May 16, 2006

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)


- - - - -
View Replies »

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

By: baveman
11 Dec 2011, 04:33 PM CST
Rating: post rating 5 Rate this post:
Msg. 314498 of 314501
(Reply to 314497 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #
And this is the world footprint of the company referencing the fiber patent.

http://www.kla-tencor.com/company/international-facilities.html

 

 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 4:52 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Emily patent pending
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
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 8 December 2011
RB goes crazy part 2
Now Playing: Part 2

 

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 09:19 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313413 of 314210
(Reply to 313412 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #
How long is Meg Whitman willing to put off a decision on webOS?

The reason webOS is involved here is because the 744 patent was (erroneously) called the webOS patent back when only a small fraction of the top 10% knew a web operating system was possible.

In the Vertical brief is a clear explanation of what 744 can do and why therefore the term "webOS patent" was incorrect while "webOS builder patent" would be correct.:


"A person of ordinary skill in the computer art would, upon reading the disclosure of the '744 or '629 patent, know exactly how to construct and use such an arbitrary object framework without undue experimentation in any particular application or upon any particular computer platform. From the patents, such a person would know to set up an arbitrary object skeleton or framework that would run on any computer platform for the particular job at hand. This framework would include a set of rules, procedures and/or statements that allow the creation of a unique type of object, one with a possible type attribute of content, form or function that one could reference by name only. The framework would allow separation of objects of one type from objects of another type, and it would allow inheritance. But, the framework would also permit the overriding of inheritance whenever the generation or creation of a particular object required it. The framework would also allow the unique management of objects in an object library using, for example, revision tracking, roll back and/or sign off as well as other management techniques discussed in the patents-in-suit. The framework would permit the deployment of unique objects into computer applications and/or web pages. This framework, taught by the patents, would allow the development of products (applications) that can separate form, content and functionality. The unique objects would be arbitrary objects, and the framework that supported them would be an arbitrary object framework."


Can't see it? It's right here:
"The framework would permit the deployment of unique objects into computer applications and/or web pages. This framework, taught by the patents, would allow the development of products (applications) that can separate form, content and functionality."

The products built by the 744 framework inherit the capabilities of the framework so that the products can be used to build further applications. Therefore an operating system built using the 744 framework inherits the ability to build applications integrated with the operating system and therefore able to build applications as further derivatives.

Whitman said "We need a new operating system."

But. But. But. I thought webOS WAS "a new operating system"!!!???

No. It's the product of old technology. If it were built from a 744 framework webOS would be able to develop its own applications integrated with the webOS framework as a life-cycle ecosystem riding with each application. The application is the computer.

- - - - -
View Replies »

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 09:27 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313414 of 314210
Jump to msg. #
What is particularly dangerous for HP is the knowledge within the industry that Autonomy is not really all that and a bag of chips.

http://www.dbms2.com/2011/08/18/hp-autonomy-vertica/
August 18, 2011
Autonomy is a collection of businesses involved in the management, search, and retrieval of poly-structured data, in some cases with strong market share, but even so not necessarily with the strongest of reputations for technology or technology momentum. Autonomy started from a text search engine and a Bayesian search algorithm on top of that, which did a decent job for many customers. But if there’s been much in the way of impressive enhancement over the past 8-10 years, I’ve missed the news.
----------------

If Interwoven had settled with VCSY earlier HP could have already turned this perception around by now. But failing that HP now faces a situation where it will be forced to admit Autonomy did not have or acquire sufficient technology but had its eye on appropriating the technology from a small damaged company.

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 10:04 AM CST
Rating: post rating 3
Msg. 313419 of 314210
(Reply to 313416 by smoothsailing20)
Jump to msg. #
smooth I think negotiations between Vertical and Samsung/LG agreed to commit a settlement based on the outcome of the earlier litigation with Interwoven. That reinforces my suspicion Interwoven is somewhere at the root of what Samsung and LG learned and then did and that suspicion comes from the language of the original complaint as well as the different nature between Interwoven's use in Teamsite and Samsung/LG use in Android.

The 2013/2014 puts their schedule sufficiently out of the way of the Interwoven case providing a clear distinction and intent. In other words Niro used Interwoven's cleverly arranged "first to file" lawsuit in California and the delay forced by the retirement of the Texas judge to fashion a vice for Interwoven from which Interwoven could neither escape or complain.

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 10:07 AM CST
Rating: post rating 3
Msg. 313422 of 314210
(Reply to 313406 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #
The Vertical brief is so easy to understand I think the easiest way to demonstrate what Vertical is saying is to simply post sections of the brief.

"The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has admonished that: The person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the articular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. This court explained that point well in Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998): It is the person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention through whose eyes the claims are construed. Such person is deemed to read the words used in the patent documents with an understanding of their meaning in the field, and to have knowledge of any special meaning and usage in the field. The inventor's words that are used to describe the invention--the inventor's lexicography--must be understood and interpreted by the court as they would be
understood and interpreted by a person in that field of technology."

--------------------
That pretty much sums up the situation. That's why mirror won't say a word about any part of the briefs or the case other than something cowardly like this:

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313357
By: mrrrfk
30 Nov 2011, 04:48 PM CST
Rating: post rating 2 Rate this post: Msg. 313357 of 313406
(Reply to 313354 by moonpunk)

moonpunk, I told you already, terms like "arbitrary:, 'form", "function", "context", "data", "metadata", etc. are difficult to define presicely. They are context-related terms the software industry argues endlessly about. Depending on the situation, they will mean different things. That is what I have learned during 25 years of software development in various corporate IT depts.
I've said many times that I am not a legal or patent expert, so I don't have a strong opinion on how these issues will be used in court. Personally, I don't think our court system is up to the task, so it should be interesting. I think Interwoven has more on the ball in this type of case. We'll know soon.

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

The fact mrfkup is so concise in following the party line here is one more demonstration he is a part of an agenda employing him to press a view intended to influence readers into believing the VCSY technology is invalid.

But those terms are not difficult to define and in the software context those terms have a long history that agrees with Vertical's use in the patent claims.

Of course mirror is setting us all up for his continued posting after the Markman where he can argue the courts are screwed up and that's why Interwoven didn't succeed. It's mirror's typical mo: everything is "bogus" and hard to understand while mirror begs off ever having to show any evidence his comments make any sense at all.

- - - - -
View Replies »

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 10:32 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313433 of 314210
(Reply to 313431 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #
And as if mrfkup isn't trying to cause enough damage to VCSY he's turned his attention to HP.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/memalias.cgi?board=HPQ&member=mrrrfk

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 10:59 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313438 of 314210
(Reply to 313436 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #
mrfkup ""Lost on purpose"? Where did I ever say that? That's typical of your attempt to rescue your sad state by twisting what others say. No wonder you said you enjoy lying so much. You really do think you're good at it.

The "disadvantage" in California goes to the side that can't adequately define the terms in the patent. You've already showed you can't define "arbitrary" "content" "form" or "functionality". Interwoven has showed they can't do it either. Vertical shows in their latest filing precisely how they're defined.

All your sudden attempts to appear active are nothing more than a scalded dog chewing on its own tail.

So how about discussing Vertical's latest brief if you really are "active"?

Instead you'll continue to try to get attention with these inane and childish posts which will go ignored. Anyone who reads your posts and takes them seriously is being fooled by somebody who claims to enjoy lying. That's you all over.

- - - - -
View Replies »

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 11:18 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313441 of 314210
Jump to msg. #
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document79 Filed11/28/11

I think the quickest easiest way to deal with Vertical's filing it to just present it in chunks that can be discussed separately. It's so well written and presents the case so directly it doesn't really require any explanation. Interwoven's brief is certainly not that way and relies heavily on the reader buying in to Interwoven's assumptions and contrivances.

So here's the table of contents:

VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ‘629 AND ‘744 PATENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...1

II. THE NEGATIVE RECITATIONS THAT INTERWOVEN PROPOSES FOR CONTENT, FORM AND FUNCTIONALITY DO NOT HAVE ANY SUPPORT IN THE INTRINSIC RECORD OR IN ANY EXTERNAL EVIDENCE ... 2

III. THE TERM "ARBITRARY OBJECT FRAMEWORK" IS NOT INDEFINITE... 5
A. The Disclosures of the Patents-In-suit Support A Construction For "Arbitrary Object Framework"...6
B. Interwoven Cannot Evade A Full-Blown Invalidity Analysis... 10

IV. THE PREAMBLE PHRASE "THAT SEPARATES A CONTENT OF SAID COMPUTER APPLICATION, A FORM OF SAID COMPUTER APPLICATION AND A FUNCTIONALITY OF SAID COMPUTER APPLICATION" IS A PREAMBLE PHRASE THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS OR VAGUE...11

V. INTERWOVEN'S DEFINITION OF ARBITRARY OBJECTS IS WRONG, LEGALLY AND TECHNOLOGICALLY ...13

VI. THE TERMS "OBJECT TYPE," "OBJECT LIBRARY," "DESIGN FRAMEWORK" AND "CONTAINER PAGE" ARE NOT AMBIGUOUS AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION... 14

VII. CONCLUSION...15

FEDERAL CASES
Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)...12
Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001)...11
Fernandez Innovative Technologies, L.L.C. v. General Motors Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41537, 26-27 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2008)...11
Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008)...10
Mac Corp. of Am. v. Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Co., 767 F.2d 882, 884 (Fed. Cir. 1985)...15, 16
MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...12
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (U.S. 2011)...10
Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1322-1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...12
Phillips v. AWH, 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005)...4, 8, 15
Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999)...10
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27444, 115-116 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2008)...11
Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...10,11
FEDERAL STATUTES
35 U.S.C. §112, 2...1
35 U.S.C. § 282...10
RULES
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ...6,10

- - - - -
View Replies »

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 11:20 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313442 of 314210
(Reply to 313441 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #
I. INTRODUCTION

Interwoven has proposed constructions for the disputed terms that the intrinsic evidence (the '744 and '629 patents-in-suit and their file histories) simply does not support and the extrinsic evidence (dictionary definitions) does not confirm. For the various elements named by the disputed terms, Interwoven has also assigned attributes and functions that are technically wrong. Interwoven provides an analysis that is purely result-driven to either obtain claim constructions that would invalidate the claims of the '744 patent or allow Interwoven to avoid infringement of those claims. Thus, Interwoven's analysis is wrong.

The proof that Interwoven's analysis is improperly result-driven and out of context appears throughout its response. On page 6, footnote 7 of its response, Interwoven accuses Vertical of improperly changing its constructions for "content" and "form." It has also filed a separate motion to strike Vertical's constructions of these two terms, as well as other terms, based on this allegation. However, as shown below and in Vertical's response to the motion to strike, the parties reserved the right to "amend or revise their proposed constructions and supporting evidence" (see page 2, Exhibit C); and Vertical merely offered alternative constructions for those two terms in is opening brief.

Another example of Interwoven's result-driven approach is its unsupported indefiniteness allegation regarding the term "arbitrary object framework." On pages 13 and 14 of its response, for example, Interwoven alleges indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. §112, paragraph 2. But this argument not only fails because it does not have any legal or factual support, it fails because it does not have any place in this analysis. Interwoven cannot evade the rules associated with summary judgment with these unsupported allegations. This argument and the above-mentioned motion to strike are pure gamesmanship that detracts from the analysis on the merits.

In contrast, the intrinsic evidence fully supports Vertical's proposed construction, and those constructions match the definitions that persons of ordinary skill in the art might assign to them, as evidenced by the trade dictionary that both parties have cited as extrinsic evidence - the Microsoft Dictionary. (In fact, as pointed out in Vertical's opening brief, the Court need only construe "arbitrary objects" and have the rest of the terms assume their plain and ordinary meaning.) Thus, for the reasons outlined below and in Vertical's opening brief, Vertical respectfully requests that the Court adopt its constructions.

Interwoven has not organized its response to track the organization of Vertical's opening brief. To avoid further confusion, Vertical will answer Interwoven's arguments in the order that Interwoven made them, rather than follow the order of Vertical's opening brief.

- - - - -
View Replies »

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 11:20 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313443 of 314210
(Reply to 313442 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #
II. THE NEGATIVE RECITATIONS THAT INTERWOVEN PROPOSES FOR CONTENT, FORM AND FUNCTIONALITY DO NOT HAVE ANY SUPPORT IN THE INTRINSIC RECORD OR IN ANY EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

Interwoven vigorously urges this Court to impose the negative limitations of "not form or functionality," "not content or functionality" and "not form or content" onto the terms "content," "form" and "functionality," respectively. But, it does not, and it cannot, point to any part of the intrinsic record where the inventor endorses or even suggests such limitations. The only discussion in the record that Interwoven cites is that which relates to the separation of content, form and functionality.

However, the concept of separating items has very little to do with defining those items or explaining what they are. One can separate apples from each other or separate them from oranges, but the separation does not define them. The three elements at issue are common components of a software program. They are not ambiguous; and the inventor did not express any intention to define them as something different from their ordinary meaning to one skilled in the art.

The extrinsic evidence cited by both parties, the Microsoft dictionary, provides the following definitions for "content," "form" and "functionality":

Content = data
Form = visual filler
Functionality = action carried out by a program

(See Exhibit G). The definitions are the best alternatives, since they match the associations made by the inventor and do not improperly import specific examples from the patent specifications.

Vertical offered two alternatives in its opening brief, in addition to the construction it proposed in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Exhibit C):

Term: Content
Original: data, including information, photographs, illustrations, articles
Alternative 1: data
Alternative 2: data, including, but not limited to, information, photographs, illustrations, articles

Term: Form
Original: formatting, including graphic designs, user interfaces, graphical representations
Alternative 1: formatting
Alternative 2: formatting, including, but not limited to, graphic designs, user interfaces, graphical representations

Term: Functionality
Original: software code
Alternative 1: software code
Alternative 2: software code

Parts of Interwoven's proposed definitions are consistent with some of the above associations; and Vertical would also not object to the following modified version of Interwoven's proposal:

Content = data
Form = format or appearance
Functionality = software code that implements logical functionality

(This modified version is similar to the definitions proposed originally in Interwoven's L.P.R. 4- 2 statement, attached as Exhibit K, but does not include the improper negative limitations.)

Vertical makes this concession in reply to Interwoven's argument on page 12 of its response that "the entire patent is about software." But in doing so, Vertical notes that the acceptable part of Interwoven's definition for functionality, i.e., "implements logical functionality," repeats the term that it seeks to define - "functionality" and that the word "logical" is no more a description or any less broad than "software code."

The upshot of all this is that Vertical can accept any of the above alternatives, including its original proposal. The objectionable and patently erroneous part of Interwoven's proposal is the negative limitations. Also, the Court need not construe these terms - the plain and ordinary meaning, as memorialized in the Microsoft dictionary, will suffice. As Interwoven conceded in page 11 of its response, "the Federal Circuit - approves of interpreting limitations to the extent they match definitions that persons of ordinary skill in the art might assign to the claims." (Phillips v. AWH, 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). And, Interwoven has not identified a single instance when someone skilled in the art (including the inventor) defined "content" as "not form or functionality," or "form" as not "content or functionality," or "functionality" as "not content or form."

The overlap in the characteristics of the three elements is another reason that Interwoven's negative limitations are improper. In addition to the overlap contained in the specifications of the patents-in-suit that Vertical has identified in its opening memorandum, the overlap in the very definitions that Interwoven proposes is also problematic for Interwoven.

Interwoven defines "form" partially as appearance while defining content partially as "photographs" and "illustrations." But, photographs and illustrations also contain appearance. In addition, Interwoven concedes that all three of these elements are "software code." Thus, depending on the level at which the definition applies, the negative limitations are simply wrong.

To illustrate the problem with the negative limitations with which Interwoven has encumbered its definitions of "content," "form" and "functionality," one may consider the analogous situation one faces when defining "cabbage," "cauliflower" and "brussel sprouts."

They come in different sizes and skin textures, but they are all cruciferous vegetables with somewhat similar tastes and chemical properties. To define a cabbage as "not cauliflower or brussel sprouts" is illogical and erroneous if one is looking at the problem on the level of families of vegetables. Such sweeping generalizations as those represented by Interwoven's negative limitations do not have any place in this or any construction. One may as well define content as "not a ham sandwich."

Finally, as much as Interwoven argues that "separation" is the support for its negative limitations, it turns around and combines these elements in its construction of "arbitrary objects." There, it proposes the following phrase as part of its definition for "arbitrary objects": "used to generate the form, the functionality and the content of said computer application" (emphasis added.) In that proposal, Interwoven urges the combination of content, form and functionality by using the conjunctive "and." It does not use the disjunctive "or" for separation. It appears that separation is only important where it suits Interwoven's purpose. The contradiction in Interwoven's proposals is telling, and it shows that Interwoven's definitions for "content," "form" and "functionality," as well as its definition for "arbitrary objects," are incorrect.

- - - - -
View Replies »

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 11:21 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313444 of 314210
(Reply to 313443 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #
III. THE TERM "ARBITRARY OBJECT FRAMEWORK" IS NOT INDEFINITE

Even though Interwoven does not find any difficulty proposing a definition for "arbitrary objects" or eventually proposing a definition for "arbitrary object framework," it nevertheless feigns difficulty in finding "sufficient disclosure to support construction of the term "arbitrary object framework" (Response at p. 13). It asks this Court to find the term "arbitrary object framework" indefinite on the basis that it cannot find this disclosure and, thus, to render every claim containing this term (i.e. every one of the claims of the patents-in-suit) invalid - case over in one fell swoop.

But, the patents-in-suit do, indeed, have sufficient disclosure to support the construction of "arbitrary object framework," as shown in Vertical's opening brief and in the discussion below. In addition, Interwoven, in making this indefinite argument, surreptitiously seeks to evade a full-blown validity analysis (with all the procedural safeguards of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) by raising the specter of invalidity during the claim construction phase.

This approach is incorrect and Interwoven's arguments fail in every way.

A. The Disclosures of the Patents-In-suit Support A Construction For "Arbitrary Object Framework" Interwoven contends that patents-in-suit contain multiple instances of the term "arbitrary object framework," "yet never explain what it is or how it serves the purposes of functions described." (Response at p. 13, lines 5-6). Nothing could be further from the truth. Taking its proposed construction phrase by phrase, Vertical will show, in the following analysis, that the intrinsic evidence (each specification of the '744 and '629 patents-in-suit) clearly describe what an "arbitrary object framework" is, what it does and how it does it.

Vertical's definition begins with "a hierarchical system." The `744 patent clearly states at col. 3, lines 14-15: "The present invention provides a system and method for using a hierarchical, arbitrary object framework for generating software applications" (emphasis added). The system referred to in this sentence is clearly a computer.

Hence, a computer, along with a described method, uses a special type of framework to generate or build software applications, and it builds them in a hierarchical manner. The word "framework," as confirmed by the extrinsic evidence, means something that holds a system together and determines its shape and appearance, for example a skeleton.

The Microsoft dictionary (Exhibit J) confirms this understanding, defining a framework as a reusable basic design structure that assists in building applications.

A framework, being the skeleton of a system, enforces certain rules by allowing certain actions and forbidding others.

The `744 patent (and the corresponding parts of the '629 patent) states, at col. 3, lines 24-25, that Fig. 2 is a hierarchical workflow diagram for the present invention. Fig. 2 clearly shows that form, content and function form one level of the hierarchy and that the product forms a different level. The patents, thus, clearly describe a system that uses a framework or skeleton (which is hierarchical) to produce a product, namely, a software application or a web page.

Continuing, Vertical's construction includes the modifier: "that can separate content, form and functionality to generate a product." As previously stated, Fig. 2 shows the hierarchy that produces a product (application). The specification of the '744 patent, at col. 3, lines 32-33, describes Fig. 2 and provides that: "[t]he hierarchical framework separates content 10, form 12 and functionality 14 to generate product 16."

Interwoven contends that the asserted patents-insuit describe the tasks performed by the arbitrary object framework, "but not how it can accomplish them." (Response at p. 13, lines 11-12). Interwoven's contention is not correct. The action verb or task in this part of Vertical's construction is "can separate". At col. 3, line 41, the `744 patent states: "at step 20, arbitrary objects can be generated." The creation and use of arbitrary objects is how the inventions of the patents-in-suit accomplish the task of separation.

Hierarchical systems and methods of the prior art using ordinary objects could not separate form, content and function. The hierarchical systems and methods of the patents-in-suit, using arbitrary objects, can. The framework (which is a skeleton) allows and facilitates the creation and management of arbitrary objects; and the arbitrary objects are the actual constructs that allow the framework to perform the task of separating form, content and function. Nowhere in the patents does one find any reference to mandatory separation of form, content and function; therefore, the words "can separate" in Vertical's construction is appropriate.

The rest of Vertical's construction describes additional tasks that the framework or skeleton performs: "facilitates creation of arbitrary objects, management of arbitrary objects, and deployment of arbitrary objects." The intrinsic record well describes how the arbitrary object framework accomplishes these additional tasks. With respect to the creation of arbitrary objects, the patents-in-suit state that "arbitrary objects can be generated" (see col. 3, line 41, `744 patent). Generation absolutely implies the existence of a "generator," something that generates. In the computer art, it is well known that generation of an object includes using particular statements in a program that an object framework reads and upon which it acts.
It may also include placing a particular "call" to an object framework or application interface. This is true in this case also -- presenting a statement or call to an arbitrary object framework generates an arbitrary object. The exact form of the statements or calls depend on the type of language and framework.

For example, in the well-known computer language C++ used by many programmers for many years, one may create an object by defining a class with a "class" statement, and then by declaring an invocation of an instance of the class (an object) with a function declaration. (See: "Starting Out with C++", Tony Gaddis, ISBN 1-57676-063-4, pp. 773-774, attached as Exhibit L, which provides a class rectangle example and the following function declaration: rectangle box).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has admonished that: The person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the articular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. This court explained that point well in Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998): It is the person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention through whose eyes the claims are construed. Such person is deemed to read the words used in the patent documents with an understanding of their meaning in the field, and to have knowledge of any special meaning and usage in the field. The inventor's words that are used to describe the invention--the inventor's lexicography--must be understood and interpreted by the court as they would be understood and interpreted by a person in that field of technology.

Thus the court starts the decisionmaking process by reviewing the same resources as would that person, viz., the patent specification and the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The patents-in-suit (e.g., col. 3, lines 47-52 of the `744 patent) provide that arbitrary objects can be referenced in a consistent manner regardless of whether they are form, content or function type arbitrary objects, and that local arbitrary objects can either inherent from parent arbitrary objects or can override this inheritance. To a person of ordinary skill in the art, this means that the generation of an arbitrary object involves specifying the arbitrary object's name, type and inheritance qualities.

With respect to management and deployment of arbitrary objects, the '744 patent, at col. 3, lines 53-58, for example, provides that: At step 22, these arbitrary objects can be managed in an object library. The life cycle of these objects may be managed in a consistent manner using revision tracking, roll back, and sign off. At step 24, objects can be deployed from the object library into a design framework to create the software application. (Emphasis added.) This description clearly shows how to manage and deploy arbitrary objects.

A person of ordinary skill in the computer art would, upon reading the disclosure of the '744 or '629 patent, know exactly how to construct and use such an arbitrary object framework without undue experimentation in any particular application or upon any particular computer platform. From the patents, such a person would know to set up an arbitrary object skeleton or framework that would run on any computer platform for the particular job at hand. This framework would include a set of rules, procedures and/or statements that allow the creation of a unique type of object, one with a possible type attribute of content, form or function that one could reference by name only. The framework would allow separation of objects of one type from objects of another type, and it would allow inheritance. But, the framework would also permit the overriding of inheritance whenever the generation or creation of a particular object required it. The framework would also allow the unique management of objects in an object library using, for example, revision tracking, roll back and/or sign off as well as other management techniques discussed in the patents-in-suit. The framework would permit the deployment of unique objects into computer applications and/or web pages. This framework, taught by the patents, would allow the development of products (applications) that can separate form, content and functionality. The unique objects would be arbitrary objects, and the framework that supported them would be an arbitrary object framework.

B. Interwoven Cannot Evade A Full-Blown Invalidity Analysis

Interwoven cannot evade a full-blown validity analysis (with all the procedural safeguards of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) by raising the specter of invalidity during the claim construction phase. Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999). "Claims are not indefinite merely because they present a difficult task of claim construction."

Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008). "Only claims not amenable to construction or insoluably ambiguous are indefinite." Id. at 1250. Proof of indefiniteness requires "an exacting standard" that is met where the challenger "shows by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history, as well as her knowledge of the relevant art area." Halliburton, 514 F.3d at 1249-50.

The defendants have not even attempted to meet this burden and standard. In Microsoft v. i4i, the Supreme Court recently addressed the burden of proof for showing invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and affirmed the long standing rule that clear and convincing evidence is required. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (U.S. 2011) ("We consider whether § 282 requires an invalidity defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. We hold that it does."). Thus, in order to show that claims are indefinite, an accused infringer must come forth with clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the boundaries of a claim.

As the Federal Circuit held in Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co.: An accused infringer must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that one of ordinary skill in the relevant art could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the specification, the prosecution history, and the knowledge in the relevant art - By finding claims indefinite only if reasonable efforts at claim construction prove futile, we accord respect to the statutory presumption of patent validity and we protect the inventive contribution of patentees, even when the drafting of their patents has been less than ideal. 642 F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted).

A patent claim is sufficiently definite if "one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification." Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, - the claim [is] sufficiently clear to avoid
invalidity on indefiniteness grounds." Exxon Research & Eng'g Co., 265 F.3d at 1375. See also, Fernandez Innovative Technologies, L.L.C. v. General Motors Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41537, 26-27 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2008) (adopting plaintiff's proposed construction, concluding that the defendants failed to meet the "exacting" standard of indefiniteness and holding that the term "configuration" was sufficiently definite); and Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27444, 115-116 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2008) (holding that because the inventors provided "a general guideline and examples sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine" whether the measurement zone" limitation is satisfied by an accused device, the '745 claim terms are not indefinite).

- - - - -
View Replies »

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 11:22 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313445 of 314210
(Reply to 313444 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #
IV. THE PREAMBLE PHRASE "THAT SEPARATES A CONTENT OF SAID COMPUTER APPLICATION, A FORM OF SAID COMPUTER APPLICATION AND A FUNCTIONALITY OF SAID COMPUTER APPLICATION" IS A PREAMBLE PHRASE THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS OR VAGUE

Vertical has offered two reasons why the Court need not construe the phrase "that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application." First, it appears in the preamble of the claims and identifies the beneficial results of the claimed invention. As such, it is not a separate limitation; and the inventor did not add it to overcome the prior art, since it appears in the original application. The fact that the inventor touted these beneficial results to distinguish the results of the prior art does not make the phrase part of the claimed invention.

Second, this phrase is not ambiguous or vague and, thus, does not require construction. It includes "content," "form" and "functionality," words that the Court will construe separately, if it chooses to do so. It includes "computer application" or "web site" - two phrases for which Interwoven has not even sought separate construction. And, it includes the word "separates."

This is not a term of art and no one has suggested that it offers any ambiguity. Thus, this phrase simply does not require any construction by the Court.

On page 18 of its response, Interwoven elevates this phrase to the level of "the essence of the alleged invention." But, claim construction is not based on "the essence of the invention." Indeed, the Federal Circuit "has rejected a claim construction process based on the 'essence' of an invention." Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1322-1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see, e.g., Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("It is well settled that 'there is no legally recognizable or protected essential element, gist or heart of the invention in a combination patent.'") (citing Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 345, 81 S. Ct. 599, 5 L. Ed. 2d 592, 1961 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 635 (1961)); MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("We sympathize with the district court's choice, since we agree that [the feature] is an essential element of the invention.... However, we cannot endorse a construction analysis that does not identify 'a textual reference in the actual language of the claim with which to associate a proffered claim construction.'") (quoting Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 990 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).

Interwoven also argues that the intrinsic record "requires separation." The patents and their file histories, however, do not include any mandatory language. In fact, nowhere in the record is there a single word that is mandatory in nature. And, as shown below, Interwoven attempts to convert every "can be" phrase in the record into a "must be" phrase.

- - - - -
View Replies »

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 11:22 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313446 of 314210
(Reply to 313445 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #
V. INTERWOVEN'S DEFINITION OF ARBITRARY OBJECTS IS WRONG, LEGALLY AND TECHNOLOGICALLY

Interwoven's definition for "arbitrary objects" improperly suggests that an arbitrary object creates other objects. But, the intrinsic evidence does not support this suggestion. And, since arbitrary objects may be content objects, form objects or
functionality objects having arbitrary objects "generating" or "creating" other arbitrary objects, the necessary result of Interwoven's language, is simply wrong.

In addition, as pointed out in Vertical's opening brief and in the section above relating to content, form and functionality, Interwoven's definition improperly includes the conjunctive word "and" which combines and does not separate "content," "form" and "functionality." Throughout its response, Interwoven argues that separation is the essence of the invention. Also, Interwoven improperly injects the word "user" into the construction and makes it ambiguous because it does not explain who is the user - a developer or an end user.

Interwoven's construction for "arbitrary objects" also improperly includes the concept of interchangeability. First, Interwoven quotes a number of sections in the record relating to interchangeability. Those references include the language "can be swapped," "can be easily replaced," "can be readily replaced," etc. Turning a deaf ear to these permissive expressions, Interwoven then concludes, at the top of page 20 of its response, that "'arbitrary objects' must be interchangeable" (emphasis added). But in the next paragraph, it contradicts its own conclusion by arguing that its construction does not mandate interchangeability but just permits it.

Interwoven seeks to dismiss Vertical's application of the doctrine of claim differentiation for the interchangeability feature by arguing that Vertical's example, which involves claim 22 of the '744 patent, uses the action verb "swapping," not the noun
"interchangeability." But the patents use "swapping" and the "ability to swap" synonymously, as evidenced by claim 21 of the '629 patent that states "each arbitrary object further being interchangeable with other arbitrary objects" (col, 9, lines 10 and 11, 'the '629 patent, Exhibit B). Thus, the doctrine of claim differentiation does apply and it precludes Interwoven's construction.

Finally, Interwoven argues that the intrinsic evidence mandates that "arbitrary objects" "be accessed by their arbitrary names." It makes this pronouncement even after citing reference after reference on pages 22 and 23 of its response that proves exactly the opposite of what it argues and includes language such as: "can be accessed," "can be called" and "may be called." And from the point of view of one skilled in the art, one may use all the parameters that they want, but they do not need to use any parameters to call an arbitrary object.

- - - - -
View Replies »

 

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

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 11:23 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313447 of 314210
(Reply to 313446 by moonpunk)
Jump to msg. #
VI. THE TERMS "OBJECT TYPE," "OBJECT LIBRARY," "DESIGN FRAMEWORK" AND "CONTAINER PAGE" ARE NOT AMBIGUOUS AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION ____

Any reasonable reading of the record and basic understanding of the English language shows that the label "object type" necessarily involves different objects. Yet, Interwoven seeks to encumber this term with actions such as generating, reaching the
anomalous result of an object generating another object. It is not "object types" that generate content, form or functionality; it is the step of creating arbitrary objects that generates content, form or functionality. (See claims 1 and 26 of the'744 patent).

The object types do not do the generating. Content objects, form objects and functionality objects are object types; they do not generate other objects. In claim 1 of the '629 patent, the inventor recites various object types - "form objects used in defining said form," "function objects used in executing said functionality," etc.

Arbitrary objects are another object type as are prior art objects. Interwoven's definition simply does not make sense. Interwoven contrived it to suit its purpose.
The Federal Circuit noted long ago that inventions include old parts: "Virtually all inventions are combinations of old, known elements." Mac Corp. of Am. v. Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Co., 767 F.2d 882, 884 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The inventor of the '744 and '629 patents did not invent "object libraries," "design frameworks" or "container pages." These were well known components at the time of the invention, well known by
those skilled in the art. Had the inventor invented these components, he might have labeled them "arbitrary container page," etc. Just because a cook uses a known pot to cook a new type of pasta does not make the pot a "new pasta pot" or a "pot that cooks new pasta." Interwoven associates an action or a function with each one of these items, an action that is much more narrower than the intrinsic record requires or even suggests. Just because the patents-in-suit deal with arbitrary objects does not mean that every element of the claims needs to have arbitrary objects in its construction.

Interwoven answers Vertical's observation of Interwoven's improper importation of limitations from the specifications into the claims by arguing, on page 11 of its response, that the Federal Circuit in Phillips held that a certain threshold (in terms of specificity of an embodiment) triggers improper importation. The Phillips case does not support any such threshold theory. It does provide an analysis, 415 F.3d at 1323, that precludes exactly what Interwoven proposes where it improperly imports limitations from the specification into the claims. It has improperly done so for these four elements and all the others, especially in its construction of "arbitrary objects."

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
Post Comment | Permalink
Raging Bull goes crazy in the china shop.
Now Playing: Part 1

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: post rating 4
Msg. 313261 of 314204
Jump to msg. #
How simple can you get?

And how complicated is Interwoven trying to make things... and why? Why? Because Interwoven is stuck in the web of common computer skills. Words mean things to people who know computers. You don't have to treat them like idiots and children.

The term "skilled in the art" is what is going to stop Interwoven.

Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-1 Filed11/28/11 Exhibit 1

"Vertical believes that only one term, "arbitrary object," needs construction and proposes the following definition for "arbitrary object":"

"Arbitrary Object"

"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 and functionality."

"However, Plaintiff, Interwoven, Inc. ("Interwoven") has proposed additional terms for construction. Vertical requests that the Court give those additional terms their plain and ordinary meaning to one skilled in the art. Should the Court decide that those additional terms require construction, then Vertical proposes the following definitions for those terms:"

The '744 Patent:
Computer application
Host system
Arbitrary object framework
Separates
Content
Form
Functionality
Arbitrary objects
Arbitrary names
Corresponding arbitrary names
Object types
Object library
Design framework
Web site
Text file pointers
Binary file pointers
Compiled executables
Shell commands
Remote procedure calls
Global variables
Cached executables
Cached database queries
Local variables
Revision tracking
Rollback
Container page
Caching objects
Some elements of an arbitrary object
Dynamic elements
Static elements
Profiling
User
Accessing
Personalization
Syndicated

The '629 Patent
Computer application
Host system
Arbitrary object framework
Separates
Content
Form
Functionality
Processor
A memory operably coupled to said processor
Configured for storing a computer program executable by said processor
Executable instructions
Arbitrary objects
Arbitrary names
Corresponding arbitrary names
Content objects
Generating said content of said computer application
Form objects
Defining said form of said computer application
Function objects
Executing said functionality of said computer application
Each arbitrary object being separate from each other arbitrary object
Arbitrary object library
Design framework
Web site
Object types
Text file pointers
Binary file pointers
Compiled executables
Shell commands
Remote procedure calls
Global variables
Cached executables
Cached database queries
Local variables
Local objects
Global parent objects
Said local objects are capable of overriding said global parent objects
Overriding
Said local objects are capable of inheriting data from said global parent objects
Inheriting
Deploying arbitrary objects locally
Revision tracking
Rollback
Swapping
Swapping arbitrary object of one type with an arbitrary object of another
Arbitrary object
Caching objects
Some elements of an arbitrary object
Dynamic elements
Static elements
Programming language that is compatible and supported by said host system
Container page
Instructions to access and deploy arbitrary objects into said design framework using corresponding arbitrary names
Using corresponding arbitrary names
Callable by name only
Independently modifiable
Without corresponding modification being made to any other arbitrary object
Interchangeable

"Vertical has attached a copy of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, cited above. Vertical also cites to Webster's online dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/, for the plain and ordinary meaning of the various terms above."


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

Interwoven made a huge mistake by taking the side of plaintiff here. As plaintiff they are tasked with presenting clear concise and unambiguous accusation of wrong against the defendant. But in trying to argue the definition of all these terms Interwoven shows their true colors; pusillanimous nitpickers intent on clouding the court's perception with technical effrontery (aka baffle 'em with bull****).

The complaint Interwoven has used to make a motion to strike Vertical's response has to do with definitions. We see now what has Interwoven so upset. Vertical is taking Interwoven's deceitful intent as gleaned from the negotiations and presenting that behavior to the court by way of reductio ad absurdum; the art of taking your opponent's arguments to their inherent ridiculous logical conclusion... and ridiculing the conclusion.

So Interwoven argues with every word that might be used by a person of ordinary skill in the computer arts. Vertical on the other hand need define only one word: "arbitrary" and their case is done and won.

Goliath is arrayed in armor to exaggerate his size. David has only a stone in a sling... and a pocket full of rocks for Goliath's brothers.

Naturally there isn't an end to this argument. It's only just begun. But we can now see how worried and insecure is Interwoven by Vertical's approach. Interwoven took the opportunity yesterday (November 28 with Exhibit K and L) to supply the court with a reminder of their previous claims construction as though they fear the court will forget what they said ... playing right into Vertical's hands.
(to be continued)

That's right folks. I'll be here throughout the holidays. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

- - - - -
View Replies »

 

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

By: moonpunk
29 Nov 2011, 09:29 AM CST
Rating: post rating 3
Msg. 313264 of 314205
Jump to msg. #
Exhibit 1 covered here in post 313261 located here: http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313261

Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-2 Filed11/28/11
Exhibit 2
(... is Interwoven's claim construction from August 22, 2011)

--------------------
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-3 Filed11/28/11
Exhibit 3
(... is the list of "Agreed-To Terms" as a result of Interwoven/Vertical negotiations.)

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

(As you will see in Exhibit 4 Interwoven's great complaint resulting in a move to strike comes from a controversy about two words: "content" and "form".)

---------------------
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-4 Filed11/28/11
Exhibit 4
(... is the body of email from Interwoven to Vertical complaining that Vertical has changed (shortened) their definition of "content" and "form".)

(excerpt)
We received Vertical's opening claim construction brief on Thursday, as expected. However, we are very concerned that Vertical has improperly changed its proposed definitions for two key terms, "content" and "form" outside of the Patent Local Rule procedures and with no notice to Interwoven or attempt to meet and confer. As one who regularly practices in this district, we are very disappointed to see such major deviations from the Joint Claim Construction Statement.

Vertical's actions are problematic for three reasons.

First, Vertical has now, for the first time, adopted a new position on these key terms that is different from the positions Vertical advanced in the course of the Patent Local Rule 4-2 (proposed constructions) and 4-3 process (filed claim construction statement).

As you will no doubt recall, Vertical's P.L.R. 4-2 Proposed Preliminary Claim Constructions were as follows:

Content -- "Data, including information, photographs, illustrations, articles."

Form -- "Formatting including graphic designs, user interfaces, graphical representations."

Vertical's P.L.R. 4-3 proposed constructions for these terms were unchanged.

Vertical now argues that these terms should be defined as "data" and "formatting" respectively. Vertical's belated change in claim construction position is in contravention of the Patent Local Rule procedures, and prejudices Interwoven's ability to respond to Vertical's claim construction brief.

Second, Vertical in addition to these revised positions, Vertical now proposes to the Court a second, alternate construction for these terms. Interwoven's ability to respond to Vertical's claim construction brief is impaired by Vertical's attempt to argue two different constructions for these key terms. (These two constructions are in addition to the construction Vertical proposed in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, and that Interwoven expected to respond to in its claim construction brief.) Interwoven has long maintained that these terms are likely to be case dispositive, and Vertical's advancing two (or three) different positions is not only severely prejudicial to Interwoven, but also incredibly burdensome for the Court, which now will have to hear arguments regarding multiple constructions for these terms from each party.

Finally -- and perhaps most egregiously and damaging to Interwoven -- Vertical takes the position in its claim construction brief that it is Interwoven's claim construction position that has required Vertical to take these changed and alternative positions. This extremely disingenuous statement is easily refuted by the parties disclosures in the case thus far.

As you should recall, Interwoven's Proposed Preliminary Claim Constructions for these terms were:

Content -- "data that appears in the computer application or on the web site which is not form or functionality"

Form -- "structured format or appearance of the computer application or web site which is not content or functionality"

Interwoven's Proposed Preliminary Claim Constructions, served August 22, 2011, did not include any identification of examples such as "photographs, illustrations, [or] articles." Rather, during the meet and confer process, it was Vertical that proposed these be included in an agreed definition. Interwoven agreed to amend its proposed construction, in a good faith effort to reduce the number of terms presented to the Court for construction.

Nevertheless, despite Interwoven's concession, Vertical ultimately decided to propose its own construction.

We are very disappointed that Vertical's brief appears to blame Interwoven for a position Vertical proposed. To make such a misrepresentation to the Court in Vertical's opening claim construction brief is indefensible. This argument is improper, disingenuous, and extremely prejudicial to Interwoven, not to mention in violation of P.L.R. 4-7.

Please present us with a proposal by noon Pacific time on Monday explaining how Vertical will remedy this situation. If we do not hear from you, or Vertical's proposal does not adequately address Interwoven's concerns, Interwoven will file a motion to strike Vertical's claim construction brief for falling outside of the local rules.
-----------------
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-5 Filed11/28/11
Exhibit 5
... is the body of email from Vertical to Interwoven in response to the email in Exhibit 4.

(excerpt)
We disagree with your assessment of our brief. In preparing it, we reassessed our definitions of the two terms you identified. We stated that we made a mistake by importing examples from the specification. We did not impugn Interwoven whatsoever.

You seem to think that claim construction is a static process, where you take a position and hold it through the trial court process and into appeal. That is not what we agreed to do in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement:

The Parties reserve the right to identify further terms as case or claim dispositive as fact and expert discovery progress, and they further reserve their rights to amend or revise their proposed
constructions and supporting evidence as may be appropriate during the continuing claim construction process.

This is the first full paragraph on page 2 of the statement.

The goal is to reach a proper construction. That is what we tried to do. Our general position, however, has always been the same: that the terms, form, function and content are not ambiguous and that the court
should not construe them. They should have their plain and ordinary meaning.

Your arguments regarding notice are also less than genuine. You have had access to Vertical’s positions in the Microsoft case as well as the correspondence and discussions we have had in this case.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, Vertical does not plan to take any corrective action because there is nothing to correct. If you feel you need to explain something to the Court, you have your response brief with which to do that.

If you would like to meet and confer on this matter, please let us know.
---------------

(Looks like Interwoven has a bad case of the boohoo baby bippies. Exhibit 6 is an excellent read on how the court views such a controversy.)

---------------
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-6 Filed11/28/11
Exhibit 6

PULSE ENGINEERING, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, vs.
MASCON, INC. dba ATW SECURITY, a Massachusetts corporation,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 08cv0595 JM (AJB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7632
February 3, 2009, Decided
February 3, 2009, Filed

As with the reference and expert testimony disclosures, Pulse learned of the alternate construction more than two months before the claim construction hearing, and will have every opportunity to evaluate and address the proposed construction during briefing. Because Pulse has failed to make a showing of prejudice, and in the interest of addressing matters on the merits, [*12] Pulse's motion to exclude Mascon's alternate claim construction from the court's consideration is DENIED.

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

(The following document - Exhibit 7 - provides an insight into the issues and considerations embodied in a Markman hearing. It is a useful way to measure the arguments provided between Interwoven and Vertical and is well worth the read. I include the following 3 items as examples similar to the Interwoven/Vertical case:)

----------------
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-7 Filed11/28/11
Exhibit 7

RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. (Numerous "Manufacturers"), Defendants.
No. C-05-00334 RMW,No. C-05-02298 RMW,No. C-06-00244 RMW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
569 F. Supp. 2d 946; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107149
July 10, 2008, Decided
July 10, 2008, Filed

(excerpts)


(the following is similar to the complaint by Interwoven that Vertical changed definitions as discussed in Exhibits 4 & 5)
1. The Manufacturers' Compliance with the Patent Local Rules

As a preliminary matter, Rambus points out that the Manufacturers' proposed constructions of various clocking terms are not the constructions they proposed in their joint claim construction statement. 13 [*980] Indeed, the Manufacturers' revisions to their constructions of "external [**91] clock signal" and "sample" trickle down and affect their construction of 42 of the 72 disputed terms in this case. Rambus therefore requests this court to strike the entirety of the Manufacturers' responsive brief on claim construction. Meanwhile, the Manufacturers claim that they "revised some proposed constructions . . . in an effort to narrow the issues in dispute and also for clarity."

Rambus's proposed remedy -- striking the Manufacturers' claim construction brief -- is too harsh. Nor is the court willing to ignore the Manufacturers' arguments if they help the court to construe the claims in dispute. Yet the Manufacturers' conduct is not conducive to the orderly progress of this case, and the court disapproves of it.



(I include this section for it's similarity to Interwoven's typical use of limitations not expressed in the patent)

Claim term: Rambus's Construction:
"internal clock A periodic or gated periodic signal signal" generated in a device to provide timing information for internal operation.

Claim term: The Manufacturers' Construction:
"internal clock An internally created clock signal that is aligned with the signal" midpoint of the early clock and late clock from the external clock signal. 17

In the joint claim construction and prehearing statement, the Manufacturers proposed that an "internal clock signal" was "an internally created clock signal that is aligned with the midpoint of the external clock signal as sampled at two separate points along the bus clock line by the device." The Manufacturers' proposed [**108] construction of "internal clock signal" turns on the court's adoption of their construction of "external clock signal" as requiring early and late clock signals. The court has rejected that construction, and therefore the Manufacturers' construction of "internal clock signal" must also fail.



(I include the following concerning the word "data" as an instructive example for Interwoven/Vertical arguments.)
3. "Data"

"The dispute turns on whether "data" refers to any bit of information, or whether "data" refers only to bits of information
written to or read from a memory array. The court previously declined to construe the term "data," (citation) and it is not clear why the term must be construed here as no motion for summary judgment of non-infringement or invalidity turns on the construction of the term "data.""

"...the asserted claims predominantly use the term "data" as a noun and in those contexts, the Manufacturers' construction seems more precise. Accordingly, the court adopts the Manufacturers' construction of "data," namely, as "one or more bits written to/read from the memory array" where the term appears as a noun. The court is mindful, however, that it is being asked to interpret "data" without the context of any invalidity or non-infringement arguments. In the event that this construction of "data" conflicts with the context of a specific claim, the court will revisit the issue."

"There is scant case law applying section 112, paragraph 2. Where it has invalidated a claim, the claim contradicted the specification and the patentee "admit[ted] as much." (citation) This court has interpreted Allen Engineering as holding that a claim is invalid if the claim cannot be logically reconciled with the specification. (citation)

Applying this standard, the Manufacturers' motion must fail. The Manufacturers point to nothing in the claims that logically contradicts the specification. Instead, the Manufacturers emphasize that Drs. Farmwald and Horowitz repeatedly referred to "the present invention" in describing certain embodiments. This is insufficient to show a violation of section 112, paragraph 2. Accordingly, the Manufacturers' motion for summary judgment on this ground is denied.

VI. ORDER
For the reasons set forth above... The court denies [**156] the Manufacturers' motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.

DATED: July 10, 2008

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

(There are numerous episodes in Exhibit 7 that remind me of the current situation where Interwoven is claiming non-infringement and invalidity. I'll attempt to cover some of it over the next two weeks as we wait for the Markman hearing scheduled for December 14. If you see something in your reading of any of the exhibits that are of interest or controversy please let me know.)

(Exhibit 8 is also useful case history reinforcing the fact that patent language is to be considered from the perspective of someone of "ordinary skill in the art" and not a belabored and tortured contention over easily understood and commonly used terms. This case history also deals with definition changes similar to that argued by Interwoven and Vertical.)

(Vertical's presentation seems more surefooted confident and concise. Interwoven appears to be floundering in a dictionary sea of unfathomable depth.)

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

Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-8 Filed11/28/11
Exhibit 8


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEPOMED, INC., Plaintiff, No. C 09-5587 PJH v. LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS

(excerpts)
A patentee is presumed to have intended the ordinary meaning of a claim term in the absence of an express intent to the contrary. (citation) The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term 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." (citation)

The person of ordinary skill in the art is "deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim . . . but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification." (citation) Indeed, a patent's specification "is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis" and claims "must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." (citation). Because the specification must contain a description of the invention that is clear and complete enough to enable those of ordinary skill in the art to make and use it, the specification is therefore "always highly relevant" to the court's claim construction analysis. (citation).

In some cases, the specification may reveal that the patentee has given a special definition to a claim term that differs from its ordinary meaning; in such cases, "the inventor's lexicography controls." (citation). The specification also may reveal the patentee's intentional disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope. "In that instance, as well, the inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor's intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive." Id. Although the court must read the claim in view of the specification, the claims are not limited to preferred embodiments or illustrative examples appearing in the specification. (citation)

The prosecution history "can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be." (citation) These components of the intrinsic record are the primary resources in properly construing claim terms.

... if the court is unable to resolve a disputed claim term, it may consider extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony, inventor testimony, and technical treatises and articles. (citation) However, while courts have discretion to consider extrinsic evidence, such evidence is "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language."

(conclusion)
D. Depomed’s Motion to Strike
Depomed seeks an order striking Lupin’s newly-proposed claim construction for terms (1) and (2). Depomed argues that Lupin’s proposed construction differs from that in the claim construction statement in that it omits the phrase "at least 20%" and adds "solid" to the phrase "swollen polymeric matrix." Depomed also seeks an order striking what it claims is newly-offered evidence to support Lupin’s proposed constructions.

As the court indicated at the hearing, neither side’s position in this dispute is particularly meritorious. Lupin’s problem is that the Local Rules are clear that the joint claim construction statement is a final binding document. Depomed’s problem is that it appears to view this motion as providing an opportunity to go through every line of Lupin’s opposition brief - in other words, to permit another bite at framing the arguments in reply to Lupin’s opposition. The court has considered the motion, to the extent discussed at the hearing, and has determined that it should be DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2011

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

(So it would appear Vertical intends to stand on a single definition that embodies the nature of their invention while Interwoven dances around trying to pick off any possible interpretation beyond a strictly traditional reading of computer science. The thing VCSY longs have going for themselves is that the law will be decided based on the perspective of someone of ordinary skill in the art... namely a nobody like me.)

(If there could be any other interpretation of Interwoven's position and claims those others who claim to be in possession of "ordinary skill in the art" would be able to come up with a counter argument. But they can't. Why? Because Interwoven has tortured the poor words to such an extent they are unrecognizable.)

(to be continued some more)

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: post rating 4
Msg. 313265 of 314207
(Reply to 313262 by smoothsailing20)
Jump to msg. #
smooth - Two things. First Interwoven's complaint is so petty and inconsequential and the established law so clear we can be confident that motion will be denied. After that the degree to which Interwoven attempts to manipulate the language of the patent where ordinary skill provides an abundance of understanding already marks Interwoven's effort as disingenuous.

 

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

By: moonpunk
29 Nov 2011, 10:00 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313266 of 314207
Jump to msg. #
Looks like RB is truncating posts above a certain number.

 

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

By: moonpunk
29 Nov 2011, 11:27 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313274 of 314207
(Reply to 313269 by tbacha3030)
Jump to msg. #

tbacha I think the judge will probably consider the motion to strike in the Markman already scheduled. It turns out to be such a small thing - if that's what Interwoven is depending on they're not very smart.

I'm really surprised those on the board who have pretended to have knowledge about computing haven't offered anything beyond insults and taunts. You would think having "ordinary skill in the art" would qualify them to say at least something in defense of Interwoven's position.

I take that as admission Vertical's terms are easily understood and Interwoven doesn't have a case.

 

 

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: post rating 4
Msg. 313282 of 314207
(Reply to 313279 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #
mrfkup No. You haven't even offered a reasonable discussion about the patent language. Anybody can say "bogus". Any pretender that is. An honest person who actually has the experience will explain why they come to a conclusion. In fact they're eager to offer an explanation. You do everything you can to avoid giving any explanation beyond "bogus".

That's how we can conclude you do NOT have the experience you claim. Most likely you depend on somebody else to give you talking points and scripts and since you've been pulled off the job you can't get any of those scripts and you have to remain silent.

Your silence proves the language in the Vertical patents are easy to understand and therefore valid.

 

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

By: moonpunk
30 Nov 2011, 12:00 AM CST
Rating: post rating 3
Msg. 313314 of 314207
Jump to msg. #
The reason Interwoven won't go through the Markman hearing is the same reason mirror has consistently refused to discuss the patents: common and plain language easily understood by anyone with ordinary skill in the art.

Trying to push their convoluted and tortured logic through the judge's ears would be a horror show.

Isn't that why you've refused to discuss the patents mirror? They've been in force since 2004 and you've never touched them. Isn't that odd? It's because you either can't because you don't have the knowledge (meaning you don't even have ordinary skill in the art) or you can't because then you would be pushed into a corner trying to defend your lame position (and your employers would be really angry with you).

So which is it gang? Is mirror just plain stupid? Or is he just plain dishonest?

- - - - -
View Replies »

 

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

 

By: moonpunk
30 Nov 2011, 02:04 PM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313343 of 314207
(Reply to 313321 by beenwaitin0)
Jump to msg. #
been 313321 Because they think VCSY is failed. They think it's bankrupt. Therefore they think their technology can't possibly play any part.

Human nature is to investigate where there is success - not failure. The light is better for looking around success. And when their investigation hit a brick wall they stop because they can't responsibly continue. They can't get a word out of Wade or anyone else from Vertical so all they have is speculation and they can't publish speculation.

You and I can talk about the speculations and appearances all we like here. But they can't talk about it in their publications. They have to wait and see. And those who think these guys are "in the know" remain ignorant and thus slough off any discussion about any possible connection with a "failed" company.

It's how Wade has been able to maneuver amongst the feet of the giants without inviting a stomp and we all intuitively know it although logic says that's a crazy strategy.

So where is the weak point in the industry when it comes to putting the entire puzzle together for "big data"? It's where your analytical packages meet the world of ad hob connectivity at the face of any data resources any where.

The Digits reporter gives the typical industry line about the 15% relational data 85% unstructured data (never mind that number was brought forward circa 2002-2003 and the industry has been searching hard for an answer ever since).

Where's the problem? The British guy cuts to the chase at 1:25: "Isn't that what big companies in the computing business have been trying to do since... DOS?... you know ... since the 70's... since the space race... Take a ton of data unscramble it make it useful yes sure. And I want a Ferrari too."

And off the Digits guy goes on yet another ramble about the fundamental point being that businesses are making decisions based on incomplete information and we need to analyze all that information.

That's where the mass mind in the industry stops and glazes over in the "big data" discussion; never able to think beyond to what's really keeping the industry from applying analytical muscle to the systemic problem at hand.

The entire piece dances around a central issue typified by the Digits reporter:

2:35 "The whole notion around big data ... there are numerous companies trying to struggle with this...uh...many of them startups using a technology called Hadoop that's an open source thing that kinda grew out of Google (just as Ajax grew out of XMLhttpRequest which Marc Lucovsky took from Microsoft development over to Google in 2004/2005) which I won't go into now (but he knows the history) but it's a big big problem that a lot of companies are trying to struggle with right now and HP's big play is grabbing Autonomy which specializes in software that grabs all this unstructured stuff and makes sense of it and determines meaning from it and combining it..."

And here at 3:00 he's interrupted by the woman who demonstrates the ignorance in 90%+ of industry ranks who have no idea what the architects are talking about. She demonstrates that ignorance by saying "but what kind of meaning?..."

The 90% can't understand why you ever want to do that sort of thing in the first place. And because they are only now getting serious about thinking the problem through they completely overlook that the critical key to "grabbing" all the stuff BEFORE you can even begin to "make meaning" of it is to be able to GRAB IN THE FIRST PLACE.

INTEGRATION of data from ANY source and ANY type to be able to work transparently with ANY source of ANY type is the requirement problem that's kept the industry from pulling this off no matter how many billions they pour into R&D. And not so much the ability to mate with different data but the ability for the machine to do the mating without ever having seen the problem before.

Pre-packaged connectivity means somebody wrestled with the parameters and invocation sequences required by the objects (which may not be objects until you're able to treat them that way in the first place) first met. If you have to have a human do any of that you're going to break when it comes time to meet unfamiliar demands during operation. If you can depend on a machine to do that you can operate without a bump.

If you can't approach the problem treating data in an ARBITRARY way you can't grab effectively. And if you can't equip the machine to arbitrate the difference between one data as object and another data as object you must employ a human to complete that path. And if you must employ a human to complete that path you now have a scale model of chaos and error built into your solution which will rear its ugly head when your machines demand a larger scale... or when that scale demands mating to unfamiliar resources in unfamiliar circumstances.

So out of the 10% who understand how and why you would want to have machines extracting "meaning" out of this jumble of unrelateable data we call "unstructured" data (which combined with structured data we now call "big data") how many understand the critical first task lies within the ability to GRAB the data in an arbitrary way? Around 0.1%. The principal architects and the principal managers ... and you and I and all other studious VCSY longs.

The honest ones at least.

The "skeptics" are employed to keep the smoke screen as dense as possible for as long as it takes to break VCSY invalidate the patents or come to a settlement.

There's a way to test what I'm saying. Ask mirror to explain to you how the industry would be able to grab all data of any sort and employ it amongst any software of any type. Ask Al to say what "arbitrary" means to him.

Neither of them will answer. The market writer's job is to continue confusion... never to clear it up. He won't because he can't (because if he could the big industry would have solved all their problems long ago). He won't because he is prevented (because if he did he would discuss how the patent describes grabbing data in an arbitrary way by machine and not requiring the human in the loop). He won't because he knows the moment he starts discussing the patents he ends up having to give definition to the contended words in the patent and he'll give away the obvious understanding available to anyone of ordinary skills in the art... should they bother to read and think.

Typical of the 90% who don't know or understand the problem the woman bumbles up to the first inkling as to why you might want to search unstructured data at 3:10: "...is it market research?"

The Digits reporter goes deep at 3:20 "An example is INTENT..."

Relational data tells us what known general purpose paths the data suggests. Non-relational data made relational in some ad hoc fashion demonstrates the why and when intended.

But as mirror once pointed out the methods and software needed to carry off this kind of analysis has been available for decades... true. But the ability to put the data into those analytical packages in a carefree way has NOT existed... EVER. At least not legally.

So notice where the vital point is (the Digits guy gives us the clue very simply) at 3:30: "So what HP has done here is created this gigantic platform they call IDOL 10..." and he stumbles around the base of the explanation at 3:40 without ever touching what IDOL10 is supposed to do. (I thought you were supposed to be a journalist Digits guy. I thought you were supposed to educate the industry instead of hiding the explanation.)

Ah haaaaa. So the essential point in this entire discussion somehow lies within the tasks done by Autonomy's IDOL! So just what does Idol do? Well according to Autonomy it profiles and processes data for further use in the analytical packages. It pre-processes before the stream is dumped into the processing system.

IDOL means "Intelligent Data Operating Layer". So it has to do with a layer between the world of data and the world of operation. "Intelligent"??? Isn't that what VCSY says McAuley as lexicographer in patent 744 could have used instead of "arbitrary" in describing objects handled in a 744 way?

And what was the version before IDOL 10? "Autonomy IDOL Server 7". What happened in 8 and 9? And how is 10 suddenly able to do what 7 could never do?

And what's the advantage?

"From now on you can build apps that natively throw around structured and unstructured information as one item together."
Mike Lynch, Autonomy

In other words "arbitrarily".

Why hasn't anyone been able to do this before? Lawyers; speed bumps to paradise.

Patent 744 explains how data can be treated by machine in practical ways the manual world can only describe in theory. Patent 629 describes how that capability can be packaged for machine use in derived software. The current child application continuing 629 desribes how that capability can be packaged in software languages for machines to build their own derived frameworks. Patent 521 describes how those capabilities from framework to language can be packaged for remote/local transformation at any scale. Patent application Emily describes how that remote/local transformation capability can be carried by language to any machine.

The woman represents the 90% mirror plays to as baffled by "bogus" "buzzwords" and jaded by incessant "hype" cycles promulgated by an industry always just on the verge of figuring out HOW to GRAB...only to fail at scale and start yet one more expensive R&D effort to solve the same problem: arbitrating between different segments of the scaling monster.

The 10% above that 90% know there must be a way and they know the meaning derived will be astounding. But they don't know how because they depend on the best minds in the industry to come up with a solution. Yet they're baffled by why the problem is intractable for so long.

We were supposed to be there at Java. But Java failed at scale. We were supposed to be there at Ajax. But Ajax fails at scale. We were supposed to be there at Hadoop. But Hadoop fails precisely at the same point all other methods of arbitrating between different points: at the point where the size of the applied framework overpowers the framework's ability to govern the differences at joints.

It's not a muscle problem. These industrial giants and their cherry picked startups have the muscle. It's not a bone problem. The maturation cycles on each of these "next big things" is already old. Those are the two elements everyone considers vital yet they don't understand framework structure.

Call it a tendon/ligament problem. Call it the joining material problem. The join we know. The result of the join we know. But how to make sure the join is strong enough to resist fragmentation at super-loaded scale is what the industry has not been able to produce on their own.

Build a scaffold out of pipe or bamboo. Make the material of the scaffold as strong as possible (we've employed our best mathematical minds to devise ways of analyzing to make up the structure after all these years - so that work is done and has been done for a long time).

Come up with the most ingenius way of lashing the pieces together. Certainly the industry has fiddle farted around with those different methods and each attempt has built their own little industry empire around Java Ajax Comet Hadoop to name only a few). Each has been the industry's salvation only to see yet another attempt supercede the previous.

The greater the scale the greater the pressure on the joined parts... where? At the fastener. And where in the fastener? In the way the fastener grips adjoining pieces of the framework. The part that actually creates the mating two different pieces of structure will fail first unless it is perfectly simple and elegant.

The entire industry knows the problem. They simply don't know the solution because the prime architects and management are not going to tell newspapers they don't have the solution. They're going to tell them they're "working on it" and the solution is "just around the corner"... "next year for sure".

Hadoop was supposed to be their salvation (just like Java was supposed to be their salvation back in the day). But what has come from all this arguing and grumbling? It turns out XML is their salvation. And not just XML but XML used in ways it's never been used (legally) before.

Well you see the result of the biggest companies in the world "working on it" for the past decade: Autonomy is ahead of all the rest BUT they say they're using technology from 2006 and "something else". Obviously "something else" or all these others who are hanging their hats (and heads) on Hadoop with "limited success" would not have such "limited" success.

Limits indicate arbitration must be accomplished to eradicate each and every limit.

So what could possibly be the "something else".

I'll show you a quick and easy place to begin looking and nobody will believe you if you tell them (and that's why they won't look):

http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/enterprise-search/autonomy-idol-enterprise-search-and-the-improvements-required-25522
Autonomy IDOL (Enterprise Search) and the Improvements Required
Rishi Kandel | Jun 21, 2008

"...after being such a great product in the market, there are many things that need to be improved to make this product to little more manageable by normal System Administrators as well as making it bit more marketable.

"To start with let's examine the IDOL Server's configuration file which is the bible to the server and core of everything. At first glance, it seems pretty simple and easy, the simple text file with name value structure for the parameters to be passed to the server. It's great!! Looks like anyone can do it. More we understand, it gets more complex. "

Now remember where we ended up seeing the first kink in the Android armor that invites developers to begin infringing on 744 - therefore the reason why Samsung and LG are lawsuit targets for Vertical: the configuration file. Not so much that the configuration file can't be in XML. Controlling content and format with XML is prior art. Not so much that XML allows the configuration file to be a central point to controlling the entire operating system or application framework. But in that the configuration file in XML tempts the developer to begin employing functionality centered around a single file rather than a widely scattered set of libraries and functional units.

And if the idea in Emily is to empower XML statements with the ability to provide immediate and abstracted functionality at the very locus of the data's existence we can then imagine single configuration files empowered to do all the work traditionally done by elaborate interconnection schemes sewing the seams between operating systems applications systems and platforms.

Who's going to believe such a simple problem is standing in the way of paradise?

There's much more from there but that is where the 10% can at least begin studying to come to an understanding. The 90% won't understand until they see it being done. The 0.1% are already there... they just need permission from their lawyers to make it public.

HP has integrated Vertica and Autonomy in record time if we're to believe HP only started working on the problem when the Autonomy acquisition was closed. If we're to believe lawyers respect patent boundaries HP has been working on this situation for a long time and is only now confident enough to make some announcements.

HP either believes they will prevail in the Markman and the Judge will make a summary decision to invalidate or they believe they will not prevail in the Markman and they know they will settle before the event.

The entire thing hinges on Al's definition of "arbitrary". It's really that plain simple and uncomplicated.

- - - - -
View Replies »


http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313345

By: moonpunk
30 Nov 2011, 03:39 PM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313345 of 314207
(Reply to 313344 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #
And what is your definition of "arbitrary" mirror? Why can't the industry do what HP wants to do with Autonomy and why IDOL10.

You won't touch any of it. But your ego demands you continue posting to rescue some self respect.

I believe HP is going to settle before the Markman hearing. Meg Whitman says she needs another "two weeks" to decide webOS.

If she felt they were going to go through with the Markman she would have said "by the end of December" as the judge's decision regarding the Markman won't be available in two weeks.

So how will Interwoven dispute the definition of "arbitrary" mirror? How do you define the word?

- - - - -
View Replies »


http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313347


By: moonpunk
30 Nov 2011, 03:49 PM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313347 of 314207
Jump to msg. #
Basing a future on an unknown such as a Markman hearing outcome is a dangerous thing to do. Is Meg Whitman playing chicken? Or is she letting competitors perceive the conflict run its course while pulling elements together to make a blockbuster announcement January 1?

If she knows the outcome of the Markman she knows what here path will be. If she does not know the outcome of the Markman she is taking a great risk at having to delay any announcement in 2012 that could propel HP forward. More objectively playing a risk card at this point would put her entire future with HP in doubt with other principals and the board.

If Microsoft can't define "arbitrary" (see Case 2:07-cv-00144-DF-CE Document 52 Filed 06/06/2008 MICROSOFT’S BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION) and Interwoven has to work its way around to a definition of arbitrary (see Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document76 Filed11/14/11 INTERWOVEN, INC.’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-5) while Vertical depends on the common and plain definition of arbitrary then how would Whitman et al be confident of a favorable Markman outcome?

Answer is she can't. Therefore settling with VCSY before the Markman would allow her to move forward with an announcement she's already made (IDOL10) without fear of Samsung and/or LG and putting her strategy in question.

So until somebody can come up with a definitive explanation as to how "arbitrary" can mean anything favorable to Interwoven when it was clearly not favorable to Microsoft (MSFT had to use "arbitrary" to define arbitrary) the question of Interwoven "kicking" anybody's butt but their own is up in the air.


http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313354
By: moonpunk
30 Nov 2011, 04:24 PM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313354 of 314207
Jump to msg. #
Does he need a shove?

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

Case 2:07-cv-00144-DF-CE Document 52 Filed 06/06/2008
MICROSOFT’S BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

page 15
Term: arbitrary object
Microsoft:
Any combination of application logic and data desired by the developer that is interchangeable with another arbitrary object of another type.
Vertical:
An object that can be created independently by individual preference and that can be accessed solely by name.
--------------------
Flaw: Microsoft failed to define "arbitrary" - choosing instead to use the word "arbitrary" in the definition.
--------------------

Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document76 Filed11/14/11
INTERWOVEN, INC.’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

page 20
Term: Arbitrary Object(s)
Interwoven:
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 referenced in a consistent manner within the arbitrary object framework.
Vertical:
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 and functionality.
--------------------
Flaw: Interwoven fails in the same way attempting to use "arbitrary" in the definition.
--------------------

In both cases Vertical defines the term with unambiguous meaning without having to fudge or blur.

Additionally Interwoven is attempting to commandeer the meaning of object limiting the patent claims by inferring the traditional software world's understanding of "object" in order to set up for attack on VCSY's use of content/form/functionality... just as mirror wants to do.

In other words while an object in traditional use may be "used to generate the form, the functionality, and the content of said computer application or web site" the 744/629 patent demonstrates objects may be a component of content or/and form or/and functionality by which applications may be built using only the name of the object thus an arbitrary use of an arbitrary name identifying an arbitrary object.

Those two things "arbitrary" and "content form functionality" demonstrate the novelty and usefulness of the patent while mirror and Interwoven demonstrate the inherent limitations embodied in their use of the terms. Mirror can't even struggle with content form functionality so how are we supposed to expect him to define arbitrary? LOL

Now if you were Meg Whitman would you bet your career the reputation of everyone on the board and the future of HP on winning based on Interwoven's convoluted effort? Or would you bow to the commercial imperative and common sense to buy a license and move forward with outfitting IDOL10 within a webOS environment and a 744/629 ecosystem?

I know what I would do because it will cost $X-negotiable before the Markman but could end up costing $Y-unlimited thereafter.

- - - - -
View Replies »


http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313358
By: moonpunk
30 Nov 2011, 05:01 PM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313358 of 314207
(Reply to 313357 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #
"I am not a legal or patent expert" that never stopped you before throughout the past 11 years.

"so I don't have a strong opinion on how these issues will be used in court." But these are the only issues that will be used in court and yet you say Interwoven is "kicking VCSY's butt". How can you know then? So you're saying there's no way you can possibly know because you don't understand the context or the content of the issues.

"terms like "arbitrary:, 'form", "function", "context", "data", "metadata", etc. are difficult to define presicely."

I don't see that you even bothered to try this time around. You certainly gave it a go when it was Microsoft's turn in the barrel. I can come up with a precise definition within a few minutes. Of course I obviously know a great deal more about the English language than you. So in other words your opinion is pointless and mine is more valid.

"They are context-related terms the software industry argues endlessly about." Actually no. The industry has already demonstrated they don't know what arbitrary means. Microsoft can't define it and Interwoven can't define it. Vertical uses a dictionary based view of it in the hands of the only lexicographer that matters: the patent inventor who has successfully explained his meaning to the USPTO on numerous occasions. As for content form and function just because you don't know how to use those terms doesn't mean they aren't well defined.

"Depending on the situation, they will mean different things." No they will always "mean" the same thing. Different sides will attempt to appropriate their most favorable meaning by use of distortion of the original meaning.

"That is what I have learned during 25 years of software development in various corporate IT depts." You mean all three departments ranging a one year experience repeated 25 times? Your "knowledge" shows you have a very shallow level of experience that doesn't measure up to substantive discussions. So all your opinions about VCSY technology can therefore be discarded as unlearned and uneducated.

"Personally, I don't think our court system is up to the task" So you've assumed your side is going to lose. Well at least you're a realist even though you have fantasies about your own importance.

"I think Interwoven has more on the ball in this type of case." Didn't you say the judge will decide based on the definitions? Interwoven shows they know tricks. But tricks don't work when it comes to language. You're demonstrating that right now.

"We'll know soon." As Meg Whitman says we'll know in two weeks.

Such a shame you turned out to be such a simpleton and dunce. But I guess if one has to hide one might as well hide under something that's easy to become.


http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313372

By: moonpunk
30 Nov 2011, 07:44 PM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313372 of 314207
(Reply to 313371 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #
Seems now you're in a talkative mood mirror. OK Then let's talk. Microsoft could have taken VCSY apart by simply keeping their in-house lawyers on the case for one more day then waited to hear from the judge.

By your position you claim Microsoft would have prevailed in the Markman hearing. But that's now what a logical view of Microsoft's actions show.

Additionally I don't think Wade would have been responsible letting Microsoft use the technology until others had been brought in to demonstrate ownership and enforcement on the patent claims. We are only now seeing Microsoft begin to show evidence of a new capability they've been unable to show at any time. I consider that evidence the confidential portion of the license from 2008 is being fulfilled and the embargo against Microsoft using the technology is being removed... just in time for HP and others to begin using it as well.

So you can couch your language in Al terms but it doesn't add up and you know it. You have really got to be ashamed of yourself for having to weasel and snivel like that while avoiding more substantive matters in front of you.

Whitman has drivers Ballmer didn't have to contend with. Ballmer had time and circumstances for cover and camouflage. Whitman does not have that luxury but must now deliver quickly where Ballmer could afford to diddle around and wait and it played into his favor for VCSY to prevent Microsoft from enacting the license provisions until now.

- - - - -
View Replies »


http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313377
By: moonpunk
30 Nov 2011, 08:00 PM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313377 of 314207
(Reply to 313375 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #
All you have is personal opinion and no facts. You like to sling that kind of blanket statement around as though you know what you're talking about but you obviously don't. You claimed Microsoft was going to squash VCSY in the Markman hearing in 2008. They didn't. Microsoft folded.

Ballmer has been shown to be the guy in charge at Microsoft in many more ways than one and he owns Microsoft's stockprice chart since 2000. Ballmer was caught between an industry media that ridiculed Microsoft because MSFT couldn't get on the web on one side and Microsoft's own developers who were sick and tired of Microsoft's crippled ADO .Net capabilities. He was forced to settle by those two pincer points.

Whitman has the board to mull over decisions and directions. That's even better for us because it doesn't become a personality game but rather a business imperative driving HP. So HP going through this Markman December 14 is a roll of the dice the board is not going to want to make.

Your statements make you look like a clueless noob... which is what we've all come to know you as. But your statements are so ridiculously naive they aren't even worth reading.

Don't you have any substance at all?


http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313381
By: moonpunk
30 Nov 2011, 08:17 PM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313381 of 314207
(Reply to 313379 by mrrrfk)
Jump to msg. #
Interwoven won the decision to keep the case in San Francisco but it was a huge mistake for them. If they had stayed in Texas they would have plenty of time to maneuver and build a market. But now they are up against a Markman hearing December 14.

So congratulations mirror. Your side won and ended up in a huge screw up. I'm sure you've very proud to be so "right".

Not only that but they're currently in a high pressure situation that demands their bosses decide immediately how they will handle the case... and Interwoven doesn't get to make that decision.

No Vertical did not use the term metadata in their brief but they did use "data" and "code" - both of which Interwoven agrees with. And both use "formatting" which is one of the uses for metadata.

Or don't you agree formatting is one aspect of metadata?

So of all the different things people might think you would be able to discuss all you can do is try to make points on those two issues: Interwoven is in California court and Vertical didn't use the word "metadata".

LOL Glad to see you getting worked up. We might even get you to say something honest by mistake.

Do you realize how petty and foolish you look now?

So "oh man of posed substance" what have you got to say now?

- - - - -
View Replies »


http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313409

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 08:42 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313409 of 314207
(Reply to 313407 by 13truck)
Jump to msg. #
13truck The VCSY/Microsoft Markman was rescheduled two weeks later without objection by VCSY. But the briefs between the two companies were civil to the point of sounding polite and we know after the fact the delay was intended to accomplish negotiation toward a settlement rather than an adjustment period to get ready for the Markman in 2008.

I don't think Niro is in any mood to grant any sort of delay based on the tenor of the current VCSY brief. It sounds like they've had enough of Interowoven's attempts to trick both Vertical and the court and at this point any reason for delay would be contested forcing Interwoven to prove to the court the need for delay.

Because of Interwoven's actions Whitman now finds herself in a do or die situation. If VCSY decides to force Interwoven to go through the Markman as I feel they should her "two weeks" window for deciding on what to do with webOS gets shifted a third time (she's already adjusted the wait and see a week later than her first announcement) and she then gets a reputation for indecisiveness and uncertainty.

A week with the fate of 600 people (the webOS team) hanging in the balance only days before the holidays is a torture the press would love to describe. It would also ##### the consciences (assuming such a thing exists among "the press") of those in the press who probably know the score but can't speak out of turn.


http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313410

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 08:52 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313410 of 314207
(Reply to 313408 by mypointz)
Jump to msg. #
mypoint I agree. What appears convoluted difficult and distorted in the Interwoven brief is demonstrated quite clearly and plainly in the Vertical brief.

This section from the Vertical brief shows quite clearly the predicament Interwoven now owns:

----------------------
B. Interwoven Cannot Evade A Full-Blown Invalidity Analysis

Interwoven cannot evade a full-blown validity analysis (with all the procedural safeguards of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) by raising the specter of invalidity during the claim construction phase. Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999). "Claims are not indefinite merely because they present a difficult task of claim construction."

Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008). "Only claims not amenable to construction or insoluably ambiguous are indefinite." Id. at 1250. Proof of indefiniteness requires "an exacting standard" that is met where the challenger "shows by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history, as well as her knowledge of the relevant art area." Halliburton, 514 F.3d at 1249-50.

The defendants have not even attempted to meet this burden and standard. In Microsoft v. i4i, the Supreme Court recently addressed the burden of proof for showing invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and affirmed the long standing rule that clear and convincing evidence is required. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (U.S. 2011) ("We consider whether § 282 requires an invalidity defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. We hold that it does."). Thus, in order to show that claims are indefinite, an accused infringer must come forth with clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the boundaries of a claim.

As the Federal Circuit held in Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co.: An accused infringer must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that one of ordinary skill in the relevant art could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the specification, the prosecution history, and the knowledge in the relevant art - By finding claims indefinite only if reasonable efforts at claim construction prove futile, we accord respect to the statutory presumption of patent validity and we protect the inventive contribution of patentees, even when the drafting of their patents has been less than ideal. 642 F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted).

A patent claim is sufficiently definite if "one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification." Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, - the claim [is] sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds." Exxon Research & Eng'g Co., 265 F.3d at 1375. See also, Fernandez Innovative Technologies, L.L.C. v. General Motors Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41537, 26-27 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2008) (adopting plaintiff's proposed construction, concluding that the defendants failed to meet the "exacting" standard of indefiniteness and holding that the term "configuration" was sufficiently definite); and Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27444, 115-116 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2008) (holding that because the inventors provided "a general guideline and examples sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine" whether the measurement zone" limitation is satisfied by an accused device, the '745 claim terms are not indefinite).
--------------------

If a nobody moonpunk can rip a hole in Interwoven's contentions (which none of our "skeptics" have been able to sew back together) Niro's people will be able to easily put Interwoven through a shredder.

A Markman decision would be an unavoidable newspaper headline and the decision would establish once and for all the enforceability of 744/629. It would also move the prosecution of the 629 child forward in the USPTO and would establish the principles in 521 for enforcement and those being prosecuted in Emily.

Then Meg Whitman will have to explain how it is the board put HP shareholders in such a terrible situation because there is no "Interwoven" without having a big smiley HP face sticking out there covered with egg.


http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313412

By: moonpunk
01 Dec 2011, 09:03 AM CST
Rating: post rating 4
Msg. 313412 of 314207
(Reply to 313411 by choochoo2000)
Jump to msg. #
chooch A Markman favorable to VCSY would put Interwoven thus Autonomy thus HP under pressure to cancel any plans to put forth any new products which would infringe the claims validated by the Markman.

That's another predicament Interwoven now finds due to their success in having the case in San Francisco instead of Texas. If they had gone to Texas they would be sitting pretty along with Samsung and LG and Vertical (and we) would be forced to wait. But now in San Francisco the day of judgement is nigh.

- - - - -
View Replies »

To be continued...

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:07 PM EST
Updated: Thursday, 8 December 2011 12:53 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
Going back to basics

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
Post Comment | Permalink
Sunday, 20 November 2011

Now Playing: Opinions and Speculations
I'm going to walk through the evolution of the programming languages based on XML (which we know as Emily) over the weekend. Why? Because I like the subject immensely.

I'll take it slow so you don't overload your fuses. As you work up to the idea of using XML as a programming language you have to begin walking out of the box XML was constructed to provide. XML was first developed as a markup language for describing data meaning the content of the data and the format of the data.

The XML form allowed data to be written down on something as simple as a napkin and passed to another human who would be able to use what you've written.

Because XML was adopted to be a standard universal language this allowed anyone to describe a body of data using XML tags and that description could be passed to anyone and the data in its intended content and form could be replicated and used.

Once you had a copy of that XML representation in electronic form you could pass that representation around to machines and the machines would be able to use what was written.

This facility was the only original use of XML intended.

But the Emily patent application described a third use of XML to enable the original content and format use to be included in a representation of programming code. Thus the VCSY Emily inventor said XML could work as a programming language in and of itself using a runtime built to execute the XML content format and code statements.

That work has continued from the patent application date to current real time. There are now numerous uses of XML as a programming code in different depths and different uses. But we'll focus our study in particular on the history of industry developments influencing Microsoft's adoption of languages presaged by VCSY's Emily to be able to put together a picture of the future Microsoft engineers envision.

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

Three things to know about the current state in Microsoft of the issues touching the Emily concept::

First:
Microsoft's F# language is a complete re-implementation of a Caml-like language.

Second:
CAML (Collaborative Application Markup Language) is an XML based markup language used with the family of Microsoft SharePoint technologies (Windows Sharepoint Services and Office SharePoint Server).

Third:
CAML allows developers to both construct and display data. Microsoft refers to elements used to construct data as "Definition" elements and elements used to display data as "Rendering" elements.

Realtime:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Microsoft-F-Hits-All-the-Right-Notes-With-Programmers-324865/
Microsoft F# Hits All the Right Notes With Programmers
By: Darryl K. Taft
2011-09-09
F# is a functional language that came out of Microsoft Research (MSR). The language came on the scene in 2007, though Microsoft researcher Don Syme had launched the project many years earlier. Microsoft describes F# as a succinct, expressive and efficient functional and object-oriented language for .NET that helps developers write simple code to solve complex problems.

As described on its Microsoft Research page, F# is: “A simple and pragmatic language, and has particular strengths in data-oriented programming, parallel I/O programming, parallel CPU programming, scripting and algorithmic development. It lets you access a huge .NET library and tools base and comes with a strong set of Visual Studio development tools. F# combines the advantages of typed functional programming with a high-quality, well-supported modern runtime system.”

In a blurb on F#, TIOBE said: “Finally, a new functional programming language has hit the top 20. Most people thought that hot functional languages such as Scala (#66), Clojure (#107), Haskell (#35) or Erlang (#48) would be the ones that would be the first to compete seriously with the mother of all functional languages, Lisp. But it appears to be Microsoft language F#. The recent rise in popularity of F# comes as no surprise. Apart from being a nicely designed language, F# is available in the latest version of Microsoft's Visual Studio (2010)."

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

CAML (Collaborative Application Markup Language) is an XML based markup language used with the family of Microsoft SharePoint technologies (Windows Sharepoint Services and Office SharePoint Server). Unlike plain XML, CAML contains specific groups of tags to both define and display (render) data.

In general, almost all XML files in a SharePoint installation utilize CAML. Specifically CAML is very important in site and list definitions, via the ONET.XML files as well as other corresponding XML files. Here the CAML is used to define what elements exist on an instance of a site, and the display of these sub-elements, while the ASPX files are used to define how to arrange and display those elements to form the site.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:14 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink

Now Playing: Opinions and Speculations
Show me the first use of XML as a functional language. The USE of a scripting language (in this case XML) is according to its first intended use which was and has always been the representation of data as content. Upon that idea the representation of data as form came along later. Upon that idea... there is no flow from data as content and data as form to data as functionality and a semantic trick does not change the fact. You can google "XML-based scripting languages" all you like but the Emily examination has material supplied by the foremost XML practitioners in the art and there was NO evidence of the use of XML to represent functional code prior to Emily being filed.

Nobody cares about your statement like: "NOBODY WANTS OR NEEDS IT. I question whether it even works since nowhere has it ever been reviewed by any user or developer. It's probably just vaporware at this point."

None of that is relevant to the debate. What matters is finding a use of XML prior to 1999/2000 in which XML is used to drive a functional transformation within a processor. No. There isn't.

There is evidence of XML being used to drive the presentation of data from one data representation to another representation. That's transformation of type and covers the obviousness of representation of form. So content and form were obvious. But nobody prior to Davison filing for Emily had shown XML used as a representation of code that would execute in a processor for the purpose of driving the processor functionality. Not the processor contents or the processor configuration (current state of something like XAML even though they CALL it the eXtensible Application Markup Language - more semantic BS from giant players about to be caught in a box canyon of their own making).

Your statement here has no relevance to the debate either: "Hint: zero revenues have been generated by this great product. Duh. It's bogus,until proven otherwise. "

It wouldn't matter if not one line of Emily code was sold although we know it was used to create the distributed agent processing network for the Apollo smartcard per Jerome Svigal's specifications.

An XML Agent is the immediate demonstration of the use of XML as code and that capability has been shown numerous times in numerous places. Water does precisely that and I know how much you hate to hear that. You'll certainly spout out more irrelevant BS from your hatred but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

If you would bother to read the examiner's objections you will find he has no problem with the use of XML as code. He has problems with the description of the agent doing the functional processing on the grounds it's a virtual machine. But I believe he's made that consideration in error because the virtual machine is not the thing that is novel and VCSY is not trying to patent a virtual machine. They're trying to patent a novel processing language method and the framework that makes it work as a novel functional processing language.

"Many of them have hooks (api's) into real programming languages..."

There you go killing your own arguments. There is no "real" programming language. API's are nothing more than processing agents which can be considered virtual machines. The language is only "real" if it provides a human the opportunity to instruct the transformational processes of a processor containing an arithmetic and logic facility connected to a memory. THAT is what makes a language "real" and the Emily claims demonstrate a REAL XML functional processing language.

You know you've never won any of these arguments. I'm surprised you're even going to try. To me it shows just how diligent you are in pursuing an agenda and that agenda has nothing to do with you not owning the stock. It has everything to do with the industry realizing they missed the boat and they don't want anyone to find out.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:12 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink

Now Playing: Opinions and Speculations
Look at this! Another one:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xexpr/
Abstract
W3C Note 21 November 2000
"In many applications of XML, there is a requirement for using XML in conjunction with a scripting language. Many times, this results in a scripting language such as JavaScript being bound within the XML content (like the tag). XEXPR is a scripting language that uses XML as its primary syntax, making it easily embeddable in an XML document. In addition, XEXPR takes a functional approach, and hence maps well onto the syntax of XML."


Well now mirror you win...wait... almost. Noooooo... Not. Look at the date. VCSY was well over the finish line by the time this appeared.

By the time the patent application hit the street (once it had gone through the 18 month wait from application to publication) EVERYBODY KNEW. But not before. Now you can't find anybody who would testify they're doing that...except Water. I guess those guys and the US Military and MIT are just crazy.

And THAT sweety is the definition of "first to file" in a patent case.

BAAAAPPPP End of debate. You lose. LOL

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:11 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older