Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 484

ANSWER to 460 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim by Eolas Technologies Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(McKool, Mike)

Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Doc. 484

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Eolas Technologies Incorporated, Plaintiff, vs. Adobe Systems Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Apple Inc., Argosy Publishing, Inc., Blockbuster Inc., CDW Corp., Citigroup Inc., eBay Inc., Frito-Lay, Inc., The Go Daddy Group, Inc., Google Inc., J.C. Penney Company, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., New Frontier Media, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., Perot Systems Corp., Playboy Enterprises International, Inc., Rent-A-Center, Inc., Staples, Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc., Texas Instruments Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and YouTube, LLC Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-00446-LED

JURY TRIAL

EOLAS' REPLY TO CDW'S AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO EOLAS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Eolas Technologies Incorporated ("Eolas" or "Plaintiff") hereby replies to the Counterclaim set forth in CDW LLC's ("CDW") Second Answer and Counterclaims to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 460, hereinafter "Answer and Counterclaims") as follows: COUNTERCLAIM 1. Paragraph 1 of CDW's Counterclaims does not contain a statement which

warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied.

1
Dockets.Justia.com

2.

Eolas admits that CDW purports to bring claims for declaratory judgment and that

CDW's Answer and Counterclaims arise under the Patent Laws of the United States and that this Court has jurisdiction over these counterclaims. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the

allegations in paragraph 2 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 3. On information and belief, based solely on CDW's response to paragraph 6 of

Eolas' First Amended Complaint, Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 3 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 4. 5. 6. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 5 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. Eolas admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over it and that venue is

proper in this District, and in the Tyler Division. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 5,838,906 7. Paragraph 7 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a statement

which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. 8. 9. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 8 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. Paragraph 9 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a statement

which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. 10. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 10 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims.

2

11.

Eolas admits that correspondence was sent from Eolas' counsel to counsel for all

defendants in the above captioned matter on August 23, 2010. That correspondence included the following text: To confirm, we provide the following representation to all defendants: Eolas is asserting claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the '906 patent (and their dependent claims) and claims 1, 16 and 36 of the '985 patent (and their dependent claims) against the defendants only for, and is seeking damages only for, acts of infringement wherein the "browser application" limitation is satisfied by something other than Microsoft Internet Explorer. Eolas is asserting claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 of the '906 patent (and their dependent claims) against the defendants only for, and is seeking damages only for, acts of infringement wherein the "executing, on the network server" or "said network server to execute" limitations are satisfied by something other than Microsoft server software. Eolas is asserting claims 20, 32, 40 and 44 of the '985 patent {and their dependent claims) against the defendants only for, and is seeking damages only for, acts of infringement wherein the "communicating via a/the network server"' limitation is satisfied by something other than Microsoft server software. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 11 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims.

12.

Eolas admits that correspondence was sent from Eolas' counsel to counsel for all

defendants in the above captioned matter on August 23, 2010. That correspondence included the following text: To confirm, we provide the following representation to all defendants: Eolas is asserting claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the '906 patent (and their dependent claims) and claims 1, 16 and 36 of the '985 patent (and their dependent claims) against the defendants only for, and is seeking damages only for, acts of infringement wherein the 3

"browser application" limitation is satisfied by something other than Microsoft Internet Explorer. Eolas is asserting claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 of the '906 patent (and their dependent claims) against the defendants only for, and is seeking damages only for, acts of infringement wherein the "executing, on the network server" or "said network server to execute" limitations are satisfied by something other than Microsoft server software. Eolas is asserting claims 20, 32, 40 and 44 of the '985 patent {and their dependent claims) against the defendants only for, and is seeking damages only for, acts of infringement wherein the "communicating via a/the network server"' limitation is satisfied by something other than Microsoft server software. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 12 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. COUNT II DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT INVALIDITY REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 5,838,906 13. Paragraph 13 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a statement

which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. 14. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 14 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 15. Paragraph 15 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a statement

which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. 16. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 16 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 17. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 17 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims.

4

COUNT III DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,599,985 18. Paragraph 18 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a statement

which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. 19. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 19 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 20. Paragraph 20 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a statement

which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. 21. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 21 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 22. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 22 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 23. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 23 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 24. The allegations in paragraph 24 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims contain

statements and/or conclusions of law which do not warrant an affirmance or denial. To the extent a response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 25. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

5

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 25 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 26. The allegations in paragraph 26 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims contain

statements and/or conclusions of law which do not warrant an affirmance or denial. To the extent a response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 27. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 27 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 28. The allegations in paragraph 28 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims contain

statements and/or conclusions of law which do not warrant an affirmance or denial. To the extent a response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 29. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 29 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 30. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 30 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 31. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

6

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 31 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 32. The allegations in paragraph 32 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims contain

statements and/or conclusions of law which do not warrant an affirmance or denial. To the extent a response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 33. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 33 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 34. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 34 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 35. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 35 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 36. The allegations in paragraph 36 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims contain

statements and/or conclusions of law which do not warrant an affirmance or denial. To the extent a response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 37. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

7

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 37 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 38. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 38 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 39. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 39 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 40. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 40 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 41. The allegations in paragraph 41 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims contain

statements and/or conclusions of law which do not warrant an affirmance or denial. To the extent a response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 42. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 42 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 43. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

8

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 43 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 44. Eolas admits that correspondence was sent from Eolas' counsel to counsel for all

defendants in the above captioned matter on August 23, 2010. That correspondence included the following text: To confirm, we provide the following representation to all defendants: Eolas is asserting claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the '906 patent (and their dependent claims) and claims 1, 16 and 36 of the '985 patent (and their dependent claims) against the defendants only for, and is seeking damages only for, acts of infringement wherein the "browser application" limitation is satisfied by something other than Microsoft Internet Explorer. Eolas is asserting claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 of the '906 patent (and their dependent claims) against the defendants only for, and is seeking damages only for, acts of infringement wherein the "executing, on the network server" or "said network server to execute" limitations are satisfied by something other than Microsoft server software. Eolas is asserting claims 20, 32, 40 and 44 of the '985 patent {and their dependent claims) against the defendants only for, and is seeking damages only for, acts of infringement wherein the "communicating via a/the network server"' limitation is satisfied by something other than Microsoft server software. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 44 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 45. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 45 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 46. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

9

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 46 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 47. Eolas admits that its infringement contentions against CDW are in the claim The infringement contentions speak for

charts attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.

themselves. No further affirmance or denial is warranted in response to the allegations in paragraph 47 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 48. Eolas admits that correspondence was sent from Eolas' counsel to counsel for all

defendants in the above captioned matter on August 23, 2010. That correspondence included the following text: To confirm, we provide the following representation to all defendants: Eolas is asserting claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the '906 patent (and their dependent claims) and claims 1, 16 and 36 of the '985 patent (and their dependent claims) against the defendants only for, and is seeking damages only for, acts of infringement wherein the "browser application" limitation is satisfied by something other than Microsoft Internet Explorer. Eolas is asserting claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 of the '906 patent (and their dependent claims) against the defendants only for, and is seeking damages only for, acts of infringement wherein the "executing, on the network server" or "said network server to execute" limitations are satisfied by something other than Microsoft server software. Eolas is asserting claims 20, 32, 40 and 44 of the '985 patent {and their dependent claims) against the defendants only for, and is seeking damages only for, acts of infringement wherein the "communicating via a/the network server"' limitation is satisfied by something other than Microsoft server software. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 48 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims.

10

COUNT IV DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT INVALIDITY REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,599,985 49. Paragraph 49 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a statement

which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. 50. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 50 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 51. Paragraph 51 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a statement

which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. 52. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 52 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 53. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 53 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. COUNT V DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF UNENFORCEABILITY REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 5,838,906 54. Paragraph 54 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a statement

which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. 55. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 55 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 56. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 56 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims.

11

57.

Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 57 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 58. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 58 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 59. The allegations in paragraph 59 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims contain

statements and/or conclusions of law which do not warrant an affirmance or denial. To the extent a response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 60. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 60 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 61. Eolas admits that Doyle worked at the University of California, San Francisco and

that he and the other named inventors conceived of the inventions claimed in the '906 and '985 patents. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 61 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 62. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 62 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 63. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 63 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 64. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 64 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 65. Eolas admits that Doyle left his job at the University of California prior to

founding Eolas. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 65 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims.

12

66.

Eolas admits that Doyle has had and has a financial interest in Eolas. Except as

so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 66 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 67. Eolas admits that there exists a license agreement between Eolas and The Regents

of the University of California. Except as so admitted, Eolas the allegations in paragraph 67 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 68. Eolas admits that Doyle was involved in some aspects of the prosecution of the

`906 patent, some aspects of the reexamination of the `906 patent, and some aspects of the prosecution of the `985 patent. Eolas also admits that Doyle has had and has a financial interest in Eolas. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 68 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 69. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 69 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 70. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 70 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 71. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 71 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 72. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 72 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 73. Eolas admits that the application for the `906 patent was filed on October 17,

1994. The remaining allegations in paragraph 73 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims contain statements and/or conclusions of law which do not warrant an affirmance or denial. To the extent a response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied.

13

74.

Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 74 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 75. Eolas admits that the District Court issued a publicly available ruling (Docket

Number 491) in the action (N.D.Ill. 1:99-cv-626) which states: On May 20, 1994, Michael Doyle received an email from David Raggett which said: The EMBED tag was dropped after the WWW workshop in Boston, late last July. It was felt by most browser writers that further study was needed on how best to implement object level embedding in Web browsers. This feature is still on most people's agenda though. You might want to look at Viola which I seem to remember takes advantage of the tk tool kit to provide a level of embedding. You can find a point to viola off the CERN WWW project page. Beyond this ruling, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 75 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 76. Eolas admits that the District Court issued a publicly available ruling (Docket

Number 491) in the action (N.D.Ill. 1:99-cv-626) which states: On May 20, 1994, Michael Doyle received an email from David Raggett which said: The EMBED tag was dropped after the WWW workshop in Boston, late last July. It was felt by most browser writers that further study was needed on how best to implement object level embedding in Web browsers. This feature is still on most people's agenda though. You might want to look at Viola which I seem to remember takes advantage of the tk tool kit to provide a level of embedding. You can find a point to viola off the CERN WWW project page. Beyond this ruling, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 76 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them.

14

77.

Eolas admits that David Martin was one of Doyle's colleagues at the University

of California in San Francisco and that the `906 patent lists "David C. Martin" as one of the inventors. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following contents as quoted: "Fri May 20 09:00:35 1994"; "David Martin", "Pei Wei"; "In order to do better testings and support of ViolaWWW, I would like to solicit donations for guest accounts on the major Unix platforms. (excuse me for asking this on the list, but...) At this point, this means anything not close to SunOS 4.1.3 and Ultrix 4.2 which I have access to, and paticularly [sic] (but not limited to!) the AIX R6000, Dec Alpha, HP Snake, and SGI systems. Here's the deal: * You give me a guest account, say for atleast [sic] 3 months, on a machine that I can access via the net * I'll restrict my use of the account to viola related portability testings, like making sure that viola compiles and runs on the platform. I'll probably do this only just before releases. * You'll get updated ViolaWWW executable. * Acknowledgement in the Viola credits list, and appreciation of the users who're current [sic] having trouble compiling viola on the particular platforms. So, if your organization has some CPU crunchies to spare, good network connectivity, don't have a firewall, want to help viola development, etc, please drop me a note. Based mostly on network connectivity, I'll select one (maybe two) offer(s) for each different platform." Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 77 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 78. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 78 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims.

15

79.

Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 79 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 80. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "Tue, 30 Aug 1994 23:15:10 -0700"; "FYI . . . press release"; "Researchers at the U. of California have created software for embedding interactive program objects within hypermedia documents. Previously, object linking and embedding (OLE) has been employed on single machines or local area networks using MS Windows-TM-. This UC software is the first instance where program objects have been embedded in documents over an open and distributed hypermedia environment such as the World Wide Web on the Internet." Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 80 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 81. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 81 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 82. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

statement: "Been meaning to propose something for VRML ever since the Geneva W3 conf. But anyway, any body interested in learning more about how violaWWW does this embedded objects thing can get a paper on it from ftp://ora.com/pub/www/viola/violaIntro.ps.gz" Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so

admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 82 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them.

16

83.

Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 83 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 84. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 84 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 85. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 85 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 86. Eolas admits that a publicly available opinion cited as 399 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed.

Cir. 2005) contains the following statement: Michael D. Doyle (Doyle), one of the inventors of the '906 patent, knew of Viola yet did not disclose any information regarding that reference to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). On August 31, 1994, Doyle issued a press release to an e-mail list indicating that researchers at the University of California had "created software for embedding interactive program objects within hypermedia documents." That same day, Wei contacted Doyle via e-mail in response to the press release. Wei alleged that his May 1993 demonstration of Viola (version DX34) to Sun Microsystems engineers exhibited a way to embed interactive objects and transport them over the web. Wei directed Doyle to his paper about Viola (the Viola paper), which was available on the Internet at least by August 13, 1994. Doyle downloaded and read the paper. In a later email exchange, Doyle attempted to get Wei to concede that he was not the first to invent. Additionally, Doyle told Wei the inventions were different. The opinion speaks for itself, and thus no further response is required. To the extent further response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied 87. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "Wed, 31 Aug 1994 21:06:17 -0700"; "Doyle"; "Pei Wei"; "I don't think this

17

is the first case of program objects embedded in docs and transported over the WWW. ViolaWWW has had this capabilities for months and months now"; "How many months and months? We demonstrated our technology in 1993". Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 87 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 88. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "Date: Wed 31, Aug 94 23:16:41 - 0700"; "Doyle"; "Pei Wei"; Not that I wish to content on the point of simply who's first :) But, let's see... Wish I had kept better records and wrote papers about things as they happened!) Definitely by May 8, 1993 we had demonstrated that plotting demo (the very one shown in the viola paper) to visitors from a certain computer manufacturer... This demo was memorable because someone and I at ORA had lost sleep the night before the meeting, in order to cook up that particular plotting demo :) We had to show something cool. That demo wasn't very hard to do because by that time the basic capability was already in place for violaWWW to fetch viola objects over HTTP (or whatever) and plug them into documents. Of course, our wire-frame plotting demo isn't anywhere as comphrehensive as yours. But, the point was that there was a way to embed programmable & interactive objects into HTML documents. You see, the basic object/interpreter engine has been in viola from day one of the old ViolaWWW from mid 1992. So basically it just had to wait until the second (current) incarnation of ViolaWWW for the HTML widget (as it were) to get good enough such that it was feasible to embed such interactive objects inside of a document. If I dig more and harder into my archives I might find more earlier evidence of having shown this to outside parties (we do these demos to interested parties some times)... Unfortunately I don't remember when it was (definitely earlier than May 93) that we

18

showed Time Bernners-Lee a very early demo of the second ViolaWWW with embedded interactive objects. I don't know how your system works (maybe you could post or send me some detailed info or URLs), but I should mention that Viola's basic approach is to use an interpreter to run the "program objects" (as opposed to linked-in executables). I have say, thou [sic], that lots of this stuff is still in the Research & Demo stage, and there's still lots of details to work out. Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 88 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 89. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 89 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 90. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 90 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 91. Eolas admits that a publicly available opinion issued by the Federal Circuit Court

of Appeals cited as 399 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) contains the following statement: In sum, with respect to the district court's prior art rulings, this court finds: the district court erred in finding as a matter of law that DX34 was abandoned, suppressed or concealed within the meaning of section 102(g); Wei's May 7, 1993 demonstration to two Sun Microsystems employees without confidentiality agreements was a public use under section 102(b); and the district court erred in its JMOL that DX37 did not as a matter of law anticipate or render the '906 patent obvious. As a result, this court remands for additional proceedings on these issues.

19

The opinion speaks for itself, and thus no further response is required. To the extent further response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 92. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "Wed, 31 Aug 1994 23:13:47 -0700", "Doyle", "Pei Wei". Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so

admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 92 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 93. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 93 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 94. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: >> EMBEDDED PROGRAM OBJECTS IN DISTRIBUTED HYPERMEDIA SYSTEMS >> >> Researchers at the U. of California have created software for embedding >> interactive program objects within hypermedia documents. Previously >> object linking and embedding (OLE) has been employed on single machines or >> local area networks using MS Windows -TM-. This UC software is the >> first instance where program objects have been embedded in documents >> over an open and distributed hypermedia environment such as the >> World Wide Web on the Internet > > This is very interesting... But, I don't think this is the first case > of program objects embedded in docs and transported over the WWW. > ViolaWWW has had this capabilities [sic] for months and months now. > As Pei's paper on Viola states, that package did not support what it calls "embeddable program objects" until 1994. As our WWW server shows (http://visembryo.ucsf.edu/), we demonstrated a fully functional volume visualization application embedded within a WWW document in 1993. Furthermore, Viola merely implements an internal scripting language that allows one to code "mini application" scripts that are transferred to the local client, and then

20

interpreted and run locally on the client machine. As Pei correctly notes in this paper, this is similar to the use of EMACS' internal programming capabilities. Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 94 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 95. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following "Wed, 31 Aug 1994 23:36:55 -0700"; "Doyle"; "Pei Wei"; "Out of

contents as quoted:

curiosity, did you publicly demonstrate this or publish any results before 1994? I remember talking to people from ORA at the first SIG-WEB meeting in November of 1993 and they said that no such features were yet publicly demonstrable in Viola. I seem to remember that they hinted at the time that someone was trying to get something to work, but it wasn't ready to show yet." Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 95 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 96. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 96 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 97. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 97 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims, and on that basis, denies them. 98. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "Thu. 1 Sep 94 00:08:19 - 0700", "Doyle", "Pei Wei"; 21

[e-mail] (Michael D. Doyle): > As Pei's paper on Viola states, that package did not support what it calls > "embeddable program objects" until 1994. As our WWW server shows > (http://visembryo.ucsf.edu/), we demonstrated a fully functional volume > visualization application embedded within a WWW document in 1993. Well, Viola's model was *demonstrated* in 1993, *released* freely in 1994. But we may be comparing apples and kiwis here, and nevermind on this time thing as far as I'm concerned. > Furthermore, Viola merely implements an internal scripting language that > allows one to code "mini application" scripts that are transferred to the > local client, and then interpreted an run locally on the client machine. As > Pei correctly notes in his paper, this is similar to the use of EMACS' > internal programming capabilities. Right, this is the basic approach in viola. The mention of OLE had me suspect that your system does not sue a scripting language. That's fine. It's just another way of doing it. > What we have accomplished is much different. Just as the Microsoft Windows > OLE function allow any OLE-compliant application to be embedded, in its > native form, within, for example, a MS Word for Windows document, we can > embed ANY interactive application IN ITS NATIVE FORM within a WWW document. > These program objects not only effectively encapsulate both data and > methods, they also "encapsulate" computational resources, since the the > program objects are, themselves, client server applications that actually > run remotely on one or more distributed computational server. The access

22

> of the remote machines is transparent to the user, allowing, for example, > someone running a WWW client on a laptop to interactively manipulate and > analyze huge datasets running on a distributed array of supercomputers > distributed across the country. Actually, you could do it different ways. You could have the viola object running entirely locally, or have the object act as a front-end to a remote back-end. There's no reason why Viola's model can't also do a client-server application (thou, OK not now quite the way you do it). The chatdrawing demo in the paper shows this. That mini app starts up, then makes a connection to a message relay server. And, as for the plotting demo, it actually is really just a front-end that fires up a back-end plotting program (and the point is that that back-end could very well be running on a remote super computer instead of the localhost). For that demo, there is a simple protocol such that the front-end app could pass an X window ID to the back-end, and the back-end draws the graphics directly onto the window ViolaWWW has opened for it. (Viola scripts are compiled to byte-codes for speed's sake, but no, it's not fast enough to do the computation necessary for the plotting!) Anyway, it sounds like what you have is a really defined standard interface (akin to the OLE API), where as Viola's model doesn't have a one (yet :-) -- Viola uses scripting rather than a stardard API for the glues. > The applicability for VR systems is obvious. One of the major hurdles to > widespread acceptance of VR technology has been the burden of large local > computational resources. Our approach allows that computational burden to > be distributed to suitable remote "visualization engines," thereby allowing > users to employ low-end machines to access sophisticated graphical > environments. It further allows easy access to those applications through > the World Wide Web.

23

Yup. No arguments here... There seems to be a few different ways to do VRML. I was more interested in offering yet another piece of what it might take to realise VRML. Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 98 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 99. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 99 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 100. Eolas admits that Doyle was living in Northern California on or about August 31,

1994. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 100 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 101. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 101 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 102. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 102 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 103. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 103 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 104. Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 104 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 24

105.

Eolas admits that the `906 patent contains the following statement: "An example

of a browser program is the National Center for Supercomputing Application's (NCSA) Mosaic software developed by the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign, Ill. Another example is "Cello" available on the Internet at http://www.law.cornell.edu/." The remainder of the publicly available application for the `906 patent speaks for itself, and thus no further response is required. To the extent a further response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 106. Eolas admits that the application for the `906 patent included at least one

information disclosure statement. The publicly available information disclosure statement(s) speaks for itself/themselves, and thus no further response is required. To the extent a further response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 107. Eolas admits that there is a declaration signed by Doyle dated November 22, 1994

which contains the information included in quotes in paragraph 107 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. Except, as otherwise admitted, Eolas denies the allegations of paragraph 107 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 108. Eolas admits that the prosecution history for the `906 patent is publicly available.

The publicly available prosecution history speaks for itself, and thus no further response is required. To the extent a further response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 109. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 109 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 110. Eolas admits that there is a document which contains the following contents as

quoted: "Mon, 21 Aug 1995", "Doyle", >> 8/21/95 CHICAGO: Eolas Technologies Inc. announced today that it has >> completed a licensing agreement with the University of California for the

25

>> exclusive rights to a pending patent covering the use of embedded program >> objects, or `applets,' within World Wide Web documents. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 110 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 111. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "Mon, 21 Aug 1995"; "Doyle", "Pei Wei"; >I sincerely hope this patent isn't going to stick, for the good of >the web as a whole. . . > >And for the record, I just want to point out that the > "technology which enabled Web documents to contain fully-interactive > "inline" program objects" >was existing in ViolaWWW and was *released* to the public, and in full >source code form, even back in 1993. . . Actual conceptualization and >existence occured [sic] before '93 Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 111 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims 112. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "Mon, 21 Aug 1995 13:14:59 -0700", "Doyle"; "Pei Wei"; "We've had this discussion before (last September, remember?). You admitted then that you did NOT release or publish anything like this before the Eolas demonstrations." Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 112 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims. 113. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "Mon, 21 Aug 1995 16:09:46 -0700"; "Doyle"; "Pei Wei";

26

Please carefully re-read my letter to you... I said Viola was demonstrated in smaller settings, but before your demo. The applets stuff was demo'ed to whomever wanted to see it and had visited our office at O'Reilly & Associates (where I worked at the time). This is what I wrote on the VRML list: > Not that I wish to content [sic] on the point of simply who's first :) > But, let's see... (Wish I had kept better records and wrote papers >about things as they happened!) > > Definitely by May 8, 1993 we had demonstrated that plotting demo > (the very one shown in the viola paper) to visitors from a certain > computer manufacturer... This demo was memorable because someone and I > at ORA had lost sleep the night before the meeting, in order to cook up > that particular plotting demo :) We had to show something cool. That date (May 93), at least, predates your demo if I'm not mistaken. Then around August 93, it was shown to a bunch of attendees at the first Web Conference in Cambridge. So, it was shown, just not with lots of publicity and noise. I'm sure I could find more evidence if I spent/waste the time of digging thru archives. If you're talking about any display code transferred over network, look at a number of predating systems, including say net-transmitted postscript (NeWS). For transmitted interactive applications, even the early Viola (started around 88, relased [sic] 1991) had a viola-app net transfer tool (the idea is to have something like a Hypercard like environment on the scale of the net). If you're talking about interactive apps *specifically* on the web, ie applets in-lined into HTML documents etc., and with bidirectional communications, then look at ViolaWWW as it existed around late '92 early '93. Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 113 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims.

27

114.

Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 114 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 115. Eolas admits that a publicly available opinion issued by the Federal Circuit Court

of Appeals cited as 399 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) contains the following statement: In sum, with respect to the district court's prior art rulings, this court finds: the district court erred in finding as a matter of law that DX34 was abandoned, suppressed or concealed within the meaning of section 102(g); Wei's May 7, 1993 demonstration to two Sun Microsystems employees without confidentiality agreements was a public use under section 102(b); and the district court erred in its JMOL that DX37 did not as a matter of law anticipate or render the '906 patent obvious. As a result, this court remands for additional proceedings on these issues. The opinion speaks for itself, and thus no further response is required. To the extent a further response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 116. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 116 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 117. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 117 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 118. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 118 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them.

28

119.

Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 119 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 120. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 120 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 121. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 121 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 122. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 122 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 123. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 123 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 124. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 124 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 125. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 125 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them.

29

126.

Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 126 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 127. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 127 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 128. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 128 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 129. The prosecution history for the `906 patent is publicly available. The publicly

available prosecution history speaks for itself, and thus no further response is required. To the extent further response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 130. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 130 of CDW's Answer and

Counterclaims. 131. The prosecution history for the `906 patent is publicly available. The publicly

available prosecution history speaks for itself, and thus no further response is required. To the extent further response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 132. Eolas admits that the District Court issued a publicly available ruling (Docket

Number 491) in the action (N.D.Ill. 1:99-cv-626) which states: Doyle created a file to hold all the information he found in 1998 about the Viola browser, and he labeled his file "Viola stuff." The "Viola Stuff" file included descriptions of two "beta" releases of the Viola browser, a version 3.0 release in February 1994, and a version 3.1 release in March 1994. There were public announcements in both cases of Internet addresses where "source and binary" code for the Viola browser could be found. He also

30

found extensive links for various purported "demos" of the Viola browser's capabilities. The ruling speaks for itself, and thus no further response is required. To the extent a further response is required, Eolas answers as follows: denied. 133. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "Wed, 31 Aug 1994 21:06:17 -0700"; "Doyle"; "Pei Wei"; "This is very interesting . . . But, I don't think this is the first case of program objects embedded in docs and transported over the WWW. ViolaWWW has had this capabilities [sic] for months and months now." Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 133 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 134. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following "Wed, 31 Aug 1994 23:36:55 -0700"; "Doyle"; "Pei Wei"; "Out of

contents as quoted:

curiosity, did you publicly demonstrate this or publish any results before 1994? I remember talking to people from ORA at the first SIG-WEB meeting in November of 1993 and they said that no such features were yet publicly demonstrable in Viola. I seem to remember that they hinted at the time that someone was trying to get something to work, but it wasn't ready to show yet." Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 134 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them.

31

135.

Eolas admits that there is a document which is accurately described as having

links reading "Announcement" "Agenda" and "Photos of attendees" and having a heading "WWWWizardsWorkshop." Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 135 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 136. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 136 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 137. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 137 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 138. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 138 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 139. Eolas admits that the application for the `906 patent was filed on October 17,

1994. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following contents as quoted: "Date: Mon, 21, Aug 1995 16:09:46 -0700"; "Doyle"; "Pei Wei"; That date (May 93), at least, predates your demo if I'm not mistaken. Then around August 93, it was shown to a bunch of attendees at the first Web Conference in Cambridge. So, it was shown, just not with lots of publicity and noise. I'm sure I could find more evidence if I spent/waste the time of digging thru archives.

32

If you're talking about any display code transferred over network, look at a number of predating systems, including say net-transmitted postscript (NeWS). For transmitted interactive applications, even the early Viola (started around 88, relased [sic] 1991) had a viola-app net transfer tool (the idea is to have something like a Hypercard like environment on the scale of the net). If you're talking about interactive apps *specifically* on the web, ie applets in-lined into HTML documents etc., and with bidirectional communications, then look at ViolaWWW as it existed around late '92 early '93. Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 139 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 140. Eolas admits that the application for the `906 patent was filed on October 17,

1994. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 140 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 141. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "July 27, 1992"; Please send WWW specific bugs to [e-mail], general comments to [e-mail], and anything to [e-mail]. Pei Y. Wei [e-mail] Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except

33

as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 141 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 142. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "Date: Fri, 28 Jan 94 08:02:44 -0800"; Right now, the ViolaWWW that is under development can embed viola objects/applications inside of HTML documents. This is useful in that, for example, if you needed a hyper-active tree widget in your HTML document, and that HTML+ doesn't happen to define it, you could build it as a mini viola application. Same thing with customized input-forms that could conceivably do complicated client-side checking. Or, complex tables. Or, a chess board. Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 142 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 143. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: The new ViolaWWW is now available for ftp'ing. It's beta and feedback is very welcomed. The README file follows...

ViolaWWW, Version 3.0 Beta

Feb 23 1994

ViolaWWW is an extensible World Wide Web hypermedia browser for XWindows.

34

.... Notable features in the new ViolaWWW _________________________________ .... *Embeddable in-document and in-toolbar programmable viola objects. A document can embed mini voila applications (ie: a chess board), or can cause mini apps to be placed in the toolbar. .... Availability __________ Source and binary can be found in ftp://ora.com/pub/www/viola. Sparc binary is supplied. .... Pei Y. Wei ([e-mail]) O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 143 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 144. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted:

35

ViolaWWW, Version 3.1 Beta

Mar 23 1994

ViolaWWW is an extensible World Wide Web hypermedia browser for XWindows. .... Notable features in the new ViolaWWW _________________________________ .... *Embeddable in-document and in-toolbar programmable viola objects. A document can embed mini voila applications (ie: a chess board), or can cause mini apps to be placed in the toolbar. .... Availability __________ Source and binary can be found in ftp://ora.com/pub/www/viola. Sparc binary is supplied. .... Pei Y. Wei ([e-mail]) O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

36

the allegations in paragraph 144 CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 145. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "plotDemo.html." Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 145 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 146. Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "plot.v." Eolas lacks information regarding the accuracy of the quote(s), the purported date on the document, the identity of the sender(s)/recipient(s), the authenticity of the document, etc. Except as so admitted, lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 146 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 147. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 147 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 148. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 148 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them. 149. Eolas lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 149 of CDW's Answer and Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them.

37

150.

Eolas admits that there is a document which purports to contain the following

contents as quoted: "Thu. 1 Sep 94 00:08:19 - 0700", "Doyle", "Pei Wei"; [e-mail] (Michael D. Doyle): > As Pei's paper on Viola states, that package did not support what it calls > "embeddable program objects" until 1994. As our WWW server shows > (http://visembryo.ucsf.edu/), we demonstrated a fully functional volume > visualization application embedded within a WWW document in 1993. Well, Viola's model was *demonstrated* in 1993, *released* freely in 1994. But we may be comparing apples and kiwis here, and nevermind on this time thing as far as I'm concerned. > Furthermore, Viola merely implements an internal scripting language that > allows one to code "mini application" scripts that are transferred to the > local client, and then interpreted an run locally on the client machine. As > Pei correctly notes in his paper, this is similar to the use of EMACS' > internal programming capabilities. Right, this is the basic approach in viola. The mention of OLE had me suspect that your system does not sue a scripting language. That's fine. It's just another way of doing it. > What we have accomplished is much different. Just as the Microsoft Windows > OLE function allow any OLE-compliant application to be embedded, in its > native form, within, for example, a MS Word for Windows document, we can > embed ANY interactive application IN ITS NATIVE FORM within a WWW document. > These program objects not only effectively encapsulate both data and > methods, they also "encapsulate" computational resources, since the the > program objects are, themselves, client server applications that actually > run remotely on one or more distributed computational server. The access

38

> of the remote machines is transparent to the user, allowing, for example, > someone running a WWW client on a laptop to interactively manipulate and > analyze huge datasets running on a distributed array of supercomputers > distributed across the country. Actually, you could do it different ways. You could have the viola object running entirely locally, or have the object act as a front-end to a remote back-end. There's no reason why Viola's model can't also do a client-server application (thou, OK not now quite the way you do it). The chatdrawing demo in the paper shows this. That mini app starts up, then makes a connection to a message relay server. And, as for the plotting demo, it actually is really just a front-end that fires up a back-end plotting program (and the point is that that back-end could very well be running on a remote super computer instead of the localhost). For that demo, there is a simple protocol such that the front-end app could pass an X window ID to the back-end, and the back-end draws the graphi