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:  | 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: | 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:  | 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: | 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: | 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: | 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: | 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: | 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: | 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: | 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: | 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: | 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: | 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
