Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 221

MOTION for Summary Judgment THAT THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,006,227, 6,638,313, 6,725,427 AND 6,768,999 ARE INVALID AS ANTICIPATED AND OBVIOUS by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Declaration of Jeffrey G. Randall in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 3, #6 Exhibit 4, #7 Exhibit 5, #8 Exhibit 6, #9 Exhibit 7, #10 Exhibit 8, #11 Exhibit 9, #12 Exhibit 10, #13 Exhibit 11, #14 Exhibit 12, #15 Exhibit 13, #16 Exhibit 14, #17 Exhibit 15, #18 Exhibit 16, #19 Exhibit 17, #20 Exhibit 18, #21 Exhibit 19, #22 Exhibit 20, #23 Exhibit 21, #24 Exhibit 22, #25 Exhibit 23, #26 Exhibit 24, #27 Exhibit 25, #28 Exhibit 26, #29 Exhibit 27, #30 Exhibit 28, #31 Exhibit 29)(Randall, Jeffrey)

Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

D

Doc. 221 Att.

EXHIBIT 6

ockets.Justia.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. II. III. IV. V.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............................................................................................. 2 MATERIALS CONSIDERED .......................................................................................... 3 TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 4 A. Pre­Computer Organization .................................................................................. 8 1. 2. 3. B. C. Stacks of information................................................................................. 8 Partial overlapping of documents for greater accessibility...................... 11 Document ordering .................................................................................. 22

Speculative Methods for Organizing and Accessing Documents........................ 28 Computer­Based Methods for Organizing and Accessing Documents.............. 31 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. File cabinets and folders .......................................................................... 31 Windows for displaying multiple documents or programs simultaneously ......................................................................................... 51 Partially overlapping windows ................................................................ 53 Representation of 3D objects in 2D systems ........................................... 56 3D representations in 2D computer graphics systems ............................. 60 GUIs for displaying 3D representations in 2D systems........................... 61 Documents displayed in a receding foreshortened stack ......................... 62 Timelines.................................................................................................. 64 Document indexing and searching........................................................... 66

D. E. VI. A. B. C. D. VII. A.

Metadata............................................................................................................... 67 Apple's Advanced Technology Group ................................................................ 67 U.S. Patent No. 6,006,227.................................................................................... 72 U.S. Patent No. 6,638,313.................................................................................... 75 U.S. Patent No. 6,725,427.................................................................................... 78 U.S. Patent No. 6,768,999.................................................................................... 79 Legal Standards.................................................................................................... 82 -i-

MIRROR WORLDS PATENTS ..................................................................................... 69

INVALIDITY: ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS.............................................. 82

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page

1. 2. B. 1. 2. C. D.

Anticipation.............................................................................................. 82 Obviousness ............................................................................................. 83 Construed Terms...................................................................................... 89 Indefinite Terms....................................................................................... 93

Claim Construction .............................................................................................. 89

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art........................................................................ 93 Anticipation/Obviousness References ................................................................. 95 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Mander 724/Piles Project......................................................................... 96 Lucas '330/Workscape............................................................................. 97 Smart Folders ........................................................................................... 98 MEMOIRS............................................................................................... 99 AAAI Fall '95 Symposium Paper.......................................................... 100 TR­1070/Lifestreams ............................................................................ 101 '227 Patent ............................................................................................. 102 Additional Prior Art References ............................................................ 102 Claim Charts .......................................................................................... 111

VIII.

SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES............................................................. 113 A. B. C. Mander '724....................................................................................................... 113 Retrospect .......................................................................................................... 117 1. 1. 2. D. E. 1. 1. F. G. Motivation to Combine Mander '724 with Retrospect .......................... 119 Workscape.............................................................................................. 124 Motivation to Combine Lucas '330/Workscape with Mander '724 ...... 132 Motivation to Combine Lotus Magellan with Lucas '330..................... 135 A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would be Motivated to Combine Thompson­Rohrlich and Inside Macintosh ........................... 141 Lucas '330.......................................................................................................... 121

Lotus Magellan .................................................................................................. 133 Thomson­Rohrlich '852 and Inside Macintosh................................................. 137

TR­1070 ............................................................................................................ 143 AAAI Fall '95 Symposium Paper...................................................................... 145 -ii-

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page

H. I. J.

Spatial Data­Management ................................................................................. 147 MEMOIRS......................................................................................................... 155 Additional Prior Art References ........................................................................ 158 1. SIGIR '93 "Content Awareness in a File System Interface: Implementing the 'Pile' Metaphor for Organizing information" by Rose, Mander, Oren, Ponceleon, Saloon and Wong (APMW0000812­APMW0000821) ...................................................... 159 CHI '92: "A 'Pile' Metaphor for Supporting Casual Organization of Information." by Mander, Salomon and Wong (APMW0000846­APMW0000862) ...................................................... 160 Japanese Publication No. 06­180661 .................................................... 161 U.S. Patent No. 5,621,906 (O'Neil)....................................................... 162 U.S. Patent No. 5,758,324 (Hartman et al.) ........................................... 163 U.S. Patent No. 6,396,513 (Helfman et al.) ........................................... 165 U.S. Patent No. 5,724,567 (Rose et al.) ................................................. 167 U.S. Patent No. 6,202,058 (Rose et al.) ................................................. 168 U.S. Patent No. 5,649,188 (Nomura et al.) ............................................ 169 The HyperCard Basics (Apple Computer, 1990)................................... 170 U.S. Patent No. 6,006,227 (Freeman et al.) ........................................... 171 "Semantic File Systems," by Gifford, Jouvelot, Sheldon and O'Toole (ACM '91) (APMW0018268­APMW0018277) .................... 171 On Location 2.0.1, by On Technology, Inc. (1989­90)......................... 172 Vannevar Bush Article........................................................................... 176 Kullberg Thesis--Dynamic Timelines .................................................. 176 The Eyes Have It: A Task By Data Type Taxonomy for Information Visualizations..................................................................... 178 Robert Spence Office of the Future ....................................................... 179 Document Management Systems........................................................... 183 "Representation in Virtual Space: Visual Convention in the Graphical User Interface" by L. Staples (1993) (APMW0018360­ APMW0018366) .................................................................................... 185 -iii-

2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. K. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Additional Obviousness References Showing the State of the Art.................... 176

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. IX. A.

United States Patent No. 5,060,135 (Levine et al.)................................ 185 United States Patent No. 6,262,732 (Coleman et al.) ............................ 186 "The Role of Time in Information Processing: A Survey," by Bolour et al., ACM SIGART Bulletin (Apr. 1982) ............................... 187 United States Patent No. 5,764,972 (Crouse) ........................................ 187 United States Patent No. 5,479,602 (Baecker & Small) ........................ 187 "Recovery Concepts for Data Sharing Systems," by Ehrard Rahm (1991)..................................................................................................... 188 Email clients and systems (E.g. Elm, Pine, Eudora, Outlook, Lotus Notes, cc:Mail)....................................................................................... 188 Software­Distribution and Change Management Software (E.g. Novadigm's EDM)................................................................................. 188 The World Wide Web............................................................................ 189 "Names should mean What, not Where" by O'Toole & Gifford (1992)..................................................................................................... 189 United States Patent No. 5,649,182 (Reitz) ........................................... 190 "Using Collaborative Filtering To Weave An Information Tapestry" by D. Goldberg et al. (1992) ................................................. 190 United States Patent No. 5,729,730 (Wlaschin '730 patent) ................. 190 Washington Post Article, "The Cyber­Road Not Taken" by David Gelernter (1994)..................................................................................... 191 "LifeLines CHI '96" article ................................................................... 192 Trellis Architecture ................................................................................ 192

CLAIM ELEMENTS ARE WELL KNOWN AND OBVIOUS................................... 194 Organizing Data Units/Documents Into A Main Stream................................... 195 1. 2. 3. B. C. 1. Organizing Locally Generated Data ...................................................... 198 Organizing Data Units/Documents Received From Other Computers .............................................................................................. 199 Documents From Diverse Applications/Document Object Models ...... 200 Generating Persistent/Live Substreams ................................................. 205

Searching/Filtering to Generate Substreams...................................................... 203 Timestamps Identifying Each Data Unit............................................................ 207 -iv-

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page

1. 2. D.

Chronological Indicator having the Respective Timestamp.................. 209 Include Each Data Unit in the Mainstream According to Timestamp in Chronological Indicator .................................................. 211 Archiving Data Units with Timestamps Older Than A Specified Time ....................................................................................................... 213 Archiving Data Units while Retaining Chronological Indicators.......... 214

Archiving ........................................................................................................... 212 1. 2.

E. F. G.

Using Subsystems From Another Operating System......................................... 215 Enterprise Information Management System .................................................... 217 Graphical User Interface Elements .................................................................... 218 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Receding, Foreshortened Stack.............................................................. 218 Document Representations and Glance Views ...................................... 221 Sliding Without Clicking To Display The Glance View ....................... 225 Document Representations With Markings Common To A Class Of Documents ........................................................................................ 226 Glance View with Command Buttons ................................................... 227

H. I. X. A. XI.

Motivation to Combine References ................................................................... 228 Lack of Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness .................................. 229 Lack of Antecedent Basis for Claims 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 29, 31, 37 and 39 of the '427 patent ........................................................................ 236 1. Legal Standards: Materiality and Cumulative Art ................................. 237

INVALIDITY UNDER 35 USC §101 AND §112 ........................................................ 235

MATERIALITY ............................................................................................................ 237 B. C. D. Materiality of the CHI '92 "Piles" Article to the '227 Patent............................ 238 Materiality of TR­1070 to the '227 Patent ........................................................ 240 Materiality of MEMOIRS to the '227 patent..................................................... 243

-v-

[Retrospect @ back cover/AMPW0000704, with emphasis and callout added] Retrospect was designed to perform automatic unattended backups once the user schedules scripts to execute automatically. Retrospect User's Guide, p. v/AMPW0000327. Retrospect can automatically archive received documents in many different ways. See e.g., Retrospect User's Guide 95 pp. 23­25, 81­87, 98, 104, 151, 155/ APMW0000398 APMW0000400, APMW0000372, APMW0000396­400, APMW0000405, APMW0000456­ APMW0000460, APMW0000473, APMW0000479, APMW0000518, APMW0000526, APMW0000530, APMW0000529­537, APMW0000704, see also Retrospect User's Guide 93, p. 40, 42, 44. Retrospect copies or moves documents to a secondary storage medium, such as a tape or a disk. Retrospect User's Guide APMW000396, see also Retrospect User's Guide 93, pp. 14, 17, 18, 27, 28, 98, 107, 207. 1. Motivation to Combine Mander '724 with Retrospect

One of ordinary skill would be motivated to add (i.e., combine) the archiving functionality of Retrospect with the file organization and user interface of Mander for several reasons. First, it is desirable to archive files stored on a computer so that information can be
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. STEVEN K. FEINER RE: INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,006,227, 6,638,313, 6,725,427 & 6,678,999

119

Case No. 6:08­CV­88 LED

retrieved if it has been lost. Second, it is also desirable to provide this functionality automatically in order to minimize manual intervention and eliminates the problems that could be caused by a user forgetting to archive files. Third, automatic archival methods of backup help to ensure that backed up files are not accidentally deleted or written over. Retrospect at p. v/APMW0000372. In addition, both Mander '724 and Retrospect are built for the Macintosh operating system. In fact, Retrospect User's Guide expressly states that its incremental backup method is intended for use with a Macintosh operating system. Retrospect User's Guide p. v/APMW0000372. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect Mander '724 to be either written as an application to be run on top of a Macintosh operating system or implemented as part of the Macintosh operating system itself. If, Mander '724 was written as a Macintosh application, then one of ordinary skill in the art would expect both Mander '724 and Retrospect to work in their intended manners if they were installed on the same Macintosh computer. Thus, the results of such a combination would be entirely predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. On the other hand, if Mander '724 was implemented as a part of a new Macintosh operating system, then one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a compatible version of Retrospect to be made available for use with such an operating system. In both cases, since there is nothing in Mander '724 that eliminates the desire or need for data archiving, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it very desirable to use archiving functionality with the file system afforded by Mander '724. In fact, since Retrospect was the "#1 backup software" for Apple Macintosh computers (1995 Retrospect User's Guide p. APMW0000704, 1993 Retrospect User's Guide,

EXPERT REPORT OF DR. STEVEN K. FEINER RE: INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,006,227, 6,638,313, 6,725,427 & 6,678,999

120

Case No. 6:08­CV­88 LED

p. 12), it is entirely predictable to expect the person of ordinary skill in the art to turn to Retrospect to provide archiving functionality to Mander '724. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are predictable positive results from providing the automatic archival backup of Retrospect to Mander '724. For example, being automatic saves time, avoids relying on user memory and also avoids the need for user participation during the backup process. By copying and maintaining archived backup files on a secondary storage medium, a copy of these files are still available even if a user intentionally or accidentally deletes the original files on the user's Macintosh. One of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to combine Retrospect with Mander '724 because moving seldom­used or old files to archival storage automatically is desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art to afford a convenient way to free up local hard drive space on a computer. C. Lucas '330 U.S. Patent No. 5,499,330 entitled "Document Display System for Organizing and Displaying Documents as Screen Objects Organized Along Strand Paths", to Peter Lucas and Jeffrey Sean (referred to in my report as "Lucas '330," or the "'330 patent" or simply "Lucas"), was filed on September 17, 1993 and issued on March 12, 1996. A copy of Lucas '330 may be found at APMW0000705­APMW0000732. I understand that Lucas '330 is prior art under 35 USC §102(b) and is asserted under 35 USC § 103. The '330 patent was not before the Examiner during the prosecution of the '227, '313, '427 or'999 patents. It is my opinion that Lucas '330 in combination with Lotus Magellan and its manuals (described below) renders obvious, under 35 USC §103, at least claims 13­17, 20 and 22 of the '227 patent; claims 1­3 and 9­11 of the '313 patent; and claims 1, 2, 5, 7­10, 13, 15­

EXPERT REPORT OF DR. STEVEN K. FEINER RE: INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,006,227, 6,638,313, 6,725,427 & 6,678,999

121

Case No. 6:08­CV­88 LED

1.

Workscape

Lucas '330 is related to the work Peter Lucas and colleagues conducted at MAYA on the Workscape document management system. See http://www.maya.com/about/peter­lucas and http://www.maya.com/portfolio/dec­workscape. Workscape was a joint effort between Digital Equipment Corporation and Maya Design Group in the 1990s. At least three references describe the development of Workscape (collectively referred to as the "Workscape references" or simply "Workscape"): 1. "Workscape video" available on You Tube under the heading "Workscape Demonstration" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9F17JrG­SE) dates to 1993. 2. "Workscape: A Scriptable Document Management Environment" by Peter Lucas and Lauren Schneider is a published description of a demonstration presented at the CHI '94 Conference in April 1994. 3. "Designing Workscape: An Interdisciplinary Experience" by Joseph M. Ballay, is a paper presented at the CHI '94 Conference in April 1994.3 All of the Workscape references were publicly known and available more than one year before June 28, 1996 and are therefore, prior art to the Mirror Worlds patents. The Workscape references describe a document management system that adheres to the client­server model. In this system, the client computers are able to receive and utilize documents from any number of repositories. See, e.g., Workscape: A Scriptable Document Management Environment, pp. 9­10, Workscape video at 3:27­4:20.

3

This Ballay paper references and includes a screen shot of the Hypercard stack implementing

the "200 Points of Light" demo, which is shown in the 200 Points of Light video.
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. STEVEN K. FEINER RE: INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,006,227, 6,638,313, 6,725,427 & 6,678,999

124

Case No. 6:08­CV­88 LED

to Jeffrey A. Senn et al., filed December 27, 1995 (Continuation of U.S. 08/122,995, filed Dec. 27, 1993) issued November 21, 2000; 9. U.S. Des. No. D395,297 entitled "Screen display with icon," to Hugo T.Cheng et al., filed September 17, 1993, issued June 16, 1998; and 10. U.S. Des. No. D398,299 entitled "Video screen with a combined pile and scroll icon for a video monitor," to Joseph M. Ballay et al., filed September 17, 1993, issued September 15, 1998. All of the above DEC/Maya patents were filed before or claim priority before the filing date of the Mirror Worlds patents. As a result, the DEC/Maya patents are prior art to the Mirror Worlds patents. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine any or all of the DEC/Maya patents with Lucas '330 and/or Workscape because all of these references have at least one common inventor and relate to the inventors' work on Workscape related technology, and many of the DEC/Maya patents share common priority claims to earlier patent applications. 2. Motivation to Combine Lucas '330/Workscape with Mander '724

One of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the user interfaces of Lucas '330 and/or those described in the Workscape references with the file organization and user interface of Mander for several reasons. Both Lucas '330/Workscape and Mander '724 discuss the use of piles for organizing documents stored in a computer. Both Lucas '330/Workscape and Mander '724 also highlight the benefit for using three­dimensional piles for displaying collections of documents. One of ordinary skill in the art searching for various ideas for implementing and displaying collections of documents in piles would be aware of the solutions discussed in both references. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that Lucas '330/Workscape describes methods to display a pile with multiple exemplary layouts including a perspective foreshortened, receding, corkscrew layout. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. STEVEN K. FEINER RE: INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,006,227, 6,638,313, 6,725,427 & 6,678,999

132

Case No. 6:08­CV­88 LED

visual approaches presented in Lucas '330/Workscape could be applied as acceptable substitutions for the visualizations of piles described in Mander '724. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it desirable to use the teachings of Lucas '330 and/or Workscape to present the piles of Mander '724. Further evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider combining Lucas '330 and Mander '724 is that both references (as well as the '227, '313 and '427 patents) cite to the 1983 paper by T.W. Malone entitled "How Do People Organize Their Desks? Implications for the Design of Office Information Systems", which discusses the concept of organizing documents into piles. Further, Lucas '330 cites to a paper by Stephanie Houde, one of the inventors of Mander '724. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art searching for references relating to the concept of piles and the work by the inventors of Mander '330 would come across these references. Such linkages would be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art when considering which references to combine. D. Lotus Magellan Lotus Magellan is a software application first released in the 1980s by Lotus Development Corporation. Lotus Magellan is described in (among other references) "Using Lotus Magellan," by David P. Gobel (Que Corporation, 1989). A copy of User Lotus Magellan is provided at APMW0000050­APMW0000366. Lotus Magellan is also described in "Lotus Magellan's Explorer's Guide," by Lotus (Lotus Development Corporation, 1989). A copy of the Lotus Magellan's Explorer's Guide is provided at APMW0074803­APMW75039. Lotus Magellan is further described in U.S. Patent No. 5,303,361 (the "'361 patent"), entitled "Search and Retrieval System", which was filed on January 18, 1990 and issued on April 12, 1994. A copy of the '361 patent is provided at AMP0018307­AMP0018326. I collectively refer to these

EXPERT REPORT OF DR. STEVEN K. FEINER RE: INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,006,227, 6,638,313, 6,725,427 & 6,678,999

133

Case No. 6:08­CV­88 LED