Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 1 of 53

EXHIBIT Q

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 2 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 3 of 53

EXHIBIT R

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 4 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 5 of 53

EXHIBIT S

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 6 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 7 of 53

EXHIBIT T

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR
03--18--05.

Document 426-7
-

Filed 06/22/2006
T118

Page 8 of 53
P.01/10 F--279

03:22pm

Fronj--

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, t'IEAGHER & EL0M LI-P
55 UNIVERSOY AVENUE PALO ALTO. CAUFORNIA 9430 I
TEL.EPMONE NO; (650) 470-4500

FAcs,MI No.: 650 470-4570
mhenders@Icddec-coa

·

TRANSMI1TAL SHE
Michael C. Hendershot
DATE March 18. 2005
FLOOR/OFFICE NO 9-3 14 REFERENCE NO: 224040/98

rROM

--

0n&ct PaL. (650) 470-46

g

---..

-.

QIRECT FACoIMI6S.J88S) 3297976
TniS FACSIMILE iS IUTENDSD Oci-Y FOR USE OF TilE A

$5EC5) NAMED HEREIN AND MAY CONTAIN I..ECSALLX PRIVII..E050 AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, iF rou ARE nOT Th inTENDED RECIPIENT OF TniD VACDIMII.,E, TOU ARE MERElY nO'MPiED TnaT ANT L5SEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF mID YACI.1ILE Ia STRiCTLy PROnIuTEO, iF TOIJ hAVE RCCEivCD ThIS FACSIMILE IN ERROR. PUEASC IMMEDI.CTEI..y NOTIPT uS It T&6.C&nOnS AND RETuRn ThE Opçpjq.. FACSIMILE TO uS AT ThE ADDRESs AROVE VIA ThE iflCpa. POSTAl. SERVICE WE WILL REINDuROr. nY CoSts TOIJ INCUR In NOTIFYING uS anD RETURIIIND YnE FaCSIMILE TO

TOTa- NUM8R OF p*GSS INCLUDING COVFR($):

10

PLEASE DELIVER Th Faa.OWING PAGE(S) To:

Matthew C. Lapple, Esg.

Paul, Flastings, Jaitofslcy &
FIRM:

Walker LLP

cn.
FACSIME No

Costa Mesa
714.979.1921

TELERnONE NO.. _____________________________

NAME
CITY

Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esg.

-

FIRM:

Moms, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell .. --. -.

Wihuinton

TEi.EPr,DnE Not: ________________________________

FACSIMILE No'

302.425.30j2

MESSAGE PLAINTIFF MCKESSON'S

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL flSFONSE TO DEFENDANT TRJZETTO'S FIRST SET Of INTEJUtOGATORIES (1-20) follows.

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR
03--18--05

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006
T118

Page 9 of 53
P.02/10

O3:22pm

From--

F--279

N TEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR. THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

MCKESSON INFORMATION SOLUTIONS ) ) LLC, ) Plaintift ) v. )
THE TRIZETTO GROUP, NC.,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-1258--SLIt

) ) ) )

__________________________________________________________________)

PLAINTIFF MCKESSON'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TRIZETT(fl FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORJES (1-20)
Plaintiff, McKesson Information Solutions LLC ('McKesson"), hereby
supplements its responses as follows to Interrogatory Nos. 6-8, 15-18, and 20 of the First Set of Interrogatories by defendant, The TriZetto Group, Inc. ("TriZetto").

GENERAL OBJECTiONS
McKesson incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein the General

Objections set forth in its January 13, 2005 Responses to TriZeno's First Set of
Interrogatories (1-20) and irs February 18, 2005 Supplemental Responses to Defendant

TriZetto's First Set of Interrogatories (1-20)

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR
03--18--05

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006
T--118

Page 10 of 53
P.03/lU
F--2T9

03:22pm

From--

RESPONSES

INTERROGATORY NU
For each asserted claim of the '164 PATENT, describe arty disclosures of the subject matter thereof prior to the date on which the application for the '164 PATENT was filed (including but not limited to, all prior written publications, all sales, all offers to sell, and/or public uses of any product or system embodying or practicing any claimed invention of the '164 PATENT, the dates of any such disclosures, sales, offers for sale and/or public uses, an identification of the products or systems sold, offered for sale andlor publicly used, and an identification of the PERSONS involved in the disclosure, sale, offer, and/or public use and all documents relating thereto).

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6;
McKesson incorporates by reference as if fblly set forth herein its original

response to this interrogatory, including objections. Subject to and without waivingthe
foregoing objections7 McKesson supplements its response to this interrogatory as follows: On February 18, 1988, at least Dr. Robert Hertensrein7 Dr. Don Holloway, and

Kelli Dugan demonstrated a computer system, an early version of what later became known as CodeReview, embodying subject matter of the '164 Patent to Caterpillar. Inc. Non-privileged documents within McKesson's possession, custody, or control relating to this demonstration have been or will be produced.
On March 22, 1988, at least Dr. Robert Irlertenstein, Dr. Don Holloway, and Dr.

George Goldberg demonstrated a computer system, an early version of what later became

known as CodeReview, embodying subject matter of the '164 Patent to Aetna Life Insurance Company. Non-privileged documents within McKesson's possession, custody,
or control relating to this demonstration have been or will be produced.

2

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR
03--18--05

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006
1--118

Page 11 of 53
P.04/iD
F--279

03:22pm

From--

On April 26, 1988, at least Dr. Robert Hertenstein, Dr. Don Holloway. and Kelli
Dugan demonstrated a computer system, an early version of what later became known as
CodeReview, embodying subject matter of the b164 Patent to Blue Cross Blue Shield of

Michigan. Non-privileged documents within McKesson's possession, custody, or control
relating to this demonstration have been or will be produced. On June 8, 1988, a computer system, an early version of what later became

known as CodeReview, embodying subject matter of the '164 Patent was installed at Caterpillar, Iztc. in Peoria, illinois. Non-privileged documents within McKesson's
possession, custody, or control relating to this system have been or will be produced. On June 16, 1988, Dr. Don Holloway offered to implement a computer system, an early version of what later became known as CodeReview, embodying subject matter of

the '164 Patent for ARMCO, Inc. Non-privileged documents within McKesson's
possession, custody, or control relating to this offer have been or will be produced.
McKesson's mv est g4tlon into information responsive to this ufletrogatory is

ongoing and McKesson reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery continues or as circumstances otherwise warrant.

INTERR OGATORY NO.7:
UDENTWY each product or system ever made, sold, or licensed by YOU, by YOUR predecessor-in-interest, by the named inventors of the 164 PATENT, or by any owner, assignee, or licensee of the '164 PATENT that embpdies, practices, or uses any of the alleged inventions claimed in the '164 PATENT including the specific claim(s) of the '164 PATENT that are embodied, practiced, or used in or by each such product or system and the product name, model number, trade name, trademark or other indicia and the dates each product or system was made, sold, or licensed.

3

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR
03--18--05 03:ZSpm From--

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006
T--118

Page 12 of 53
P.05/lu F--279

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7:
McKesson incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein its original

response to this interrogatory, including objections. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, McKesson supplements its response to this interrogatory as
follows:

McKesson has made and licensed CodeReview and ClaimCheck. Value Health Sciences, Inc. has developed and marketed Medical Review System. Solucient, LLC has
developed and licensed Auto-Audit and Auto-Query.

McKesson's investigation into information responsive to this interrogatory is
ongoing and McKesson reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery continues or as circumstances otherwise warrant.

INTERROGATORY NO..8:
For each product or system, the identification of which is sought by Interrogatory No. 7, IDENTIFY the PERSONS most knowledgeable about that product or system and state when it was first described in a printed publication, publicly disclosed, or offered for sale and sold anywhere in the world:

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.8:
McKesson incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein its original response to this interrogatory1 including objections. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, McKesson supplements its response to this interrogatory as
follows:

Codekeview was first installed at Caterpillar, Inc. in Peoria, Illinois on June 8, 1988. ClaimCheck was first shipped on a pilot basis in June 1989. Value Health
Sciences, Inc. developed and marketed Medical Review System on or before October 21,

4

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR
03--18--05
03:23prn

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006
T--118

Page 13 of 53
P.06/10 F--279

From--

1994.

Solucient, LLC first marketed Auto-Audit and Aiuo-Query on or before July 1,

2002.

McKesson's investigation into information responsive to this interrogatory is ongoing and McKesson reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery continues or as circumstances otherwise warrant.

INTERROGATORY NO- 15;
IDENTIFY all reference materials, including without limitation books, publications, and computer software, that were. used or relied upon by any of the inventors of the 164 patent during its conception, development or reduction to practice.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
McKesson incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein its original

response to this interrogatory, including objections. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, McKesson supplements its response to this interrogatory as
follows:

The American Medical Association's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition (CPT-4) manual, software entitled "Clipper" and "dBASE III," and expert shell software marketed by Texas Instruments were used in the development and reduction to

practice of the subject matter of the '164 Patent. McKesson's investigation into information responsive to this interrogatory is
ongoing and McKesson reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery continues or as circumstances otherwise warrant.

INTERR OGATORY NO. 16:
IDENTIFY all PERSONS. in addition to the inventors, who may have contributed to the conception, development or reduction to practice of the invention claimed in the '164 PATENT.

5

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR
03--18--05

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006
T--118

Page 14 of 53
P.07/iD

03:23pm

From--

F--279

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
McKesson incorporates by reference as if fUlly set forth herein its original

response to this interrogatory, including objections. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections. McKesson supplements its response to this interrogatory as

follows:
McKesson is unaware of any persons who contributed to the conception of the claims of the '164 Patent other than the named inventors who, as a matter of law, are presumed to have conceived the inventions claimed in the '164 Patent. 1-n addition to the
named inventors, Peggy Saal, Clifford Alper, Denise Konicelc, R.icbarcl AUler, and Lenore

Tracey may have contributed to the development and reduction to practice of the subject

matter of the 164 Patent.
McKesson's investigation into infonnation responsive to this interrogatory is
ongoing and McKesson reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery
continues or as circumstances otherwise warranr

iNTERROGATORY NO.11;
IDENTIFY all PERSONS involved with the conception, development or commercialization of Health Payment Review, Inc's CodeReview product.

IWSPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17;
McKesson incorporates by reference as if fUlly set forth herein its original

response to this interrogatory, including objections. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, McKesson supplements its response to this interrogatory as

follows;
Dr. Robert Hertenstein, Dr. George Goldberg, Dr. Don Holloway, Kelli Dugan, Dr. Richard Egdahl, Clifford Alper, Richard Adler, Lenore Tracey, Denise Konicek,

6

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR
03--18--05
03:24prn

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006
T--118

Page 15 of 53
P.08/10
F--219

From--

Marcia Radosevich,

and Peggy Saal were involved with the development and

commercialization of Health Payment Review, Tue.' s CodeReview product.

McKesson's investigation into information responsive to this interrogatory is
ongoing and McKesson reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery continues or as circumstances otherwise warrant.

INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
Identify all materials used which were the basis of the CodeReview product, including all prior software, medical device codes and sets of relationships among the medical device codes.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATO RY NO. 18;
McKesson incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein its original

response to this interrogatory, including objections. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, McKesson supplements its response to this interrogatory as

follows:
The American Medical Association's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition (CPT-4) manual, software entitled "Clipper" and "dBASE UI," and expert shell software marketed by Texas Instruments were used in Health Payment Review, Inc.'s development of the CodeReview product. McKesson's investigation into information responsive to this interrogatory is ongoing and McKesson reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery continues or as circumstances otherwise warrant.

INTERROGATORY NO. 20;
Describe in detail the basis for YOUR allegation that TriZetto's alleged infringement of the '164 patent has been willful and wanton.

7

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR
03--18--05

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 16 of 53
F279

03:24pm

From--

T118 P.09/10

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
McKesson incorporates by reference as if fully set fbrth herein its original

response to this interrogatory, including objections. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections; McKesson supplements its response to this interrogatory as

follows:
In its January 20, 2005 responses to McKesson's First Set of Interrogatories,

TriZetto admits that it knew ofthe '164 patent at least as early as 1995." See, e.g.,
TriZeno Responses at 26. TriZetto also previously marketed and distributed ClaimCheck

software that TriZetto knew was covered by claims of the 164 Patent. TriZetto then
acquired Erisco and began marketing the FACETS product, knowing it infringed claims

of the '164 Patent, without obtaining a license from McKesson.
McKesson's investigation into information responsive to this interrogatory is ongoing and McKesson reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery continues or as circumstances otherwise warrant.

DATED: March 18, 2005
By:

Jg

QüizS.
G. Randall

S DEN, ABPS, SLATE MEAGUER & FLOM LISP

525 University Avenue, Suite 1100 Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attorneys for Plaintiff, McKesson Information Solutions LLC

S

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR
03--18--05
03:24prii

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 17 of 53

From--

TH18 P.10/10 F279

PRQOF OF SERVLç
(FRCP 5)
1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Califontia. I,
employed in Santa Clara County, State of California, in the office, of a member of the bar of this

Court, at whose direction the service was made. I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 525 University Avenue, Suite 1100, Palo Alto,

CA 94301.
On March 18. 2005,1 served PLAINTIFF MCKESSON'S SECOND

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TRIZETTO'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORTES(1-20) in the manner described below;

(BY FACSIMILE) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meafler & Elom LLP for collection and processing of document(s) to be transmitted by facsimile, and I caused such document(s) on this date to be transmitted by facsimile to the offices of'
addressee(s) at the numbers listed below.

(BY U.S. MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, and I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fblly prepaid to be placed in the United States Postal Service at Palo Alto, California. on the following party in this action; Matthew C. Lapple, Esq. Paul, Hastings, Janofslcy, Walker LU' 695 Town Center Drive ' Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Facsimile: 714.979.1921
Executed on March 18, 2005 in Palo Alto, California.

Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq. Moths, Nichols, Arsht & TunneU 1201 N. Market Street P0. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Facsimile: 302.425.3012

CLJAJ

Pamela Carrier

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 18 of 53

EXHIBIT U

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 19 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 20 of 53

EXHIBIT V

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 21 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 22 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 23 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 24 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 25 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 26 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 27 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 28 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 29 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 30 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 31 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 32 of 53

EXHIBIT W

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 33 of 53

-I
2 3 5 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

APPEARANCES
2 3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 4 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP 5 BY: BERNARD SHEK, ESQUTRE 6 JON V. SWENSON, ESQUIRE 7 525 University Avenue 8 Suite 1100 9 Palo Alto, California 94301 10 (650) 470-4500 11 [email protected] 12 13 14 FOR THE DEFENDANT: 15 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 16 BY: MICHAEL A. SITZMAN, ESQUIRE 17 DANIEL L. MUINO, ESQUIRE 18 One Montgomeiy Street 19 San Francisco, California 94104-4505 20 (415) 393-8221 21 msitan)thbsondunn.com

MCKESSON INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, )

Plaintiff,

)
) No. 04-1258 SLR

7 vs.
9 10
11

8 THE TRIZETTO GROUP,
Defendant.

)

)

12

DEPOSiTION OF
13

DAVID A. WILSON, Ph.D. 14

PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
15

Wednesday, November 23, 2005
16 17 18 19

20 21

22
23

24 REPORTED BY: JANE H. STULLER, CSR NO. 7223
25

(211471)
Page 1

22 23 ALSO PRESENT: 24 MICHAEL BARBER, VIDEOGRAPHER 25
Page 3

2 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

1

INDEX
WITNESS: DAVID A. WILSON, Ph.D. EXAMINATION: BY MR. SITZMAN

2
3

4 MCKESSON INFORMATION )
SOLUTIONS,
5

4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11

PAGE

Plaintiff,
6

)

6
153

vs.
7 8

)

) No. 04-1258 SLR
)

AFTERNOON SESSION
EXFIIBITS:

THE TRIZETFO GROUP,

Defendant.
9

)

NUMBER
12
13

DEFENDANTS DESCRIPTION
5 5
133

PAGE

10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1 Dr. Wilson's expert report

Deposition of DAVID A. WILSON, Ph.D., taken on behalf of Defendant, at the Law Offices of Skadden Arps, 525 University Avenue, Suite 1100, Palo Alto, California, commencing at 9:11 a.m., on Wednesday, November 23, 2005, before Jane H. Stuller, CSR #7223.

14 15 16 17 18 19

2 '164 Patent
4 Article, Savings from Accurate
Coding of Surgical Claims, the Caterpillar Method

3 Egdahllllertenstein article delivered

inAprilof'87

178

20
21

20 5 Document, LK 37 to LK 145
21

236

22
23

6 Vendor comparison sheet 241 22 7 Dr. Davis's October 24, 2005, report 262 23

24
25
Page 2

24
25
Page 4

1 (Pages 1 to4)
DAVID A. WILSON, Ph.D.

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 34 of 53

Q. Capturing Detailed Expert Knowledge. Before the inventors captured detailed 3 expert knowledge -- and I presume in this respect it 4 is starting to work with Dr. 1-lertenstein and Dr. 5 Goldberg and others? 6 A. Right. 7 Q. Weren't others in the field capturing 8 detailed expert knowledge about all kinds of other 9 aspects in the world? 10 MR. SHEK: Objection, vague and ambiguous. 11 THE WITNESS: Certainly there were other 12 inventions developed where part of the process was 13 capturing expert knowledge, yes. 14 BY MR. SITZMAN: 15 A. Okay. Determine Rules. 16 Again, same question. Clearly before the 17 patentees or the inventors developed or determined 18 the rules for this invention, others out there were 19 developing rules and determining rules for the 20 expert knowledge they were capturing? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And the same thing with Designing Databases 23 to Store Facts. Others were out there designing 24 databases to store the facts that they were
1

1

2

2 novelty, what -- what separates the '164 patent from 3 all the others, is not the process that was
4 undertaken to develop it, but it was the result? 5 A. Yes. 6 MR. SI{EK: Objection, vague and ambiguous. 7 TFIE WITNESS: It was exactly which expert 8 knowledge did you capture, how did you figure out 9 the rules, how did you design the database, how did 10 you design the user interface, how did you design 11 the control flow. What are -- what do you have to 12 do to make this thing actually work. 13 In other words, the engineering 14 requirements say do what you want to do. The design 15 and the prototyping lead you to how to do it. 16 BY MR. SITZMAN: 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. Which is where you are actually inventing

Q. Okay. So the invention in our case or the

25 developing?
Page 89

19 something. 20 Q. Okay. Where in the patent claims is the 21 expert knowledge that was captured in this first 22 point under No. 3? Where is that set forth in the 23 patent claims? 24 A. Well, that expert knowledge, certainly some 25 of it resides in the predetermined database and the
Page 91

1

A. Yes.
Q. And the same thing with Designing a User Interface?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A. Yes.
Q. And the same thing with Determining Control

Flow?

1 set of relationships. Some of it resides in the 2 means for ascertaining, for example -- or means for 3 determining whether the medical codes in one claim 4 is included in another code in another claim. So 5 you use the knowledge as a starting point to 6 eventually figure out facts and relationships and

A. Yes.
Q. And the same thing with Choosing

7 rules and logic.
Now, the initial expert knowledge, for 9 example, did not contain a database design. So you 10 don't get that from the experts. What you get from 11 the experts is a bunch of these are the things I 12 think about when I'm solving this problem. And then 13 you have to invent the design of a database, and you 14 have to decide what facts should I put in the
8

10
11

12
13

14
15

16 17 18 19

20
21

22
23

24
25

Algorithms? A. Yes. Because this is a process. After all, I started with Figure 1, which is a general process for developing almost any kind of software, so it would certainly apply in wide range of areas in turms of the diagram. The actual solution to each of these problems is different for every problem. Q. Okay. So the process that was undertaken was not new or novel, but the solution, as you're saying, was the novel aspect? A. Certainly you could apply the steps, as you just stated, to numerous patented inventions. There are hundreds of inventions involving expert systems. And I -- I think, from some of them I've looked at, they probably went through a process something like this.
Page 90

15 database.
16

Dr. Hertenstein didn't know either one of

17 those things. Dr. Hertenstein -- certainly you 18 didn't get control flow in the algorithms from Dr. 19 Hertenstein. So you -- you got some -- you got his 20 knowledge and you used it to build a computer

21 system.
22 He didn't know anything about building 23 computer systems or databases or program logic or

24 Clipper. So it's not like the knowledge you 25 extracted from Dr. Hertenstein was the answer to the
Page 92

23 (Pages 89 to 92)
DAVID A. WILSON, Ph.D.

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 35 of 53

1
2

3
4'

I, David A. Wilson, Ph.D. do hereby
declare under penalty of perjury that I have read

5 6 7 8
9

the foregoing transcript; that I have made any
corrections as appear noted, in ink, initialed by

me; that my testimony as contained herein, as

corrected, is true and orrect.

10

11

EXECUTED this /3

day of __________, 2005, at

12 ___________,
(City)
13 14

C/
(State)

LIQL
David A. Wilson, Ph.D.

15
16 17 18
'19

20 21 22 23
24

25

294

DAVID A. WILSON, Ph.D.

ct R.pO_] fBARLEYI

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 36 of 53

EXHIBIT X

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 37 of 5392654-00006 T

REC v
OCT 0
2005

JEFFREy T THOMAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

MCKESSON INFORMATION SOLUTIONS LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, )
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-1258-SLR

) )

THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC., Defendant.

) ) ) )

______________________________________________________________________________)

PLAINTIFF MCKESSON'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TRIZETTO'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (21-22)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, plaintiff, McKesson Information Solutions LLC ("McKesson"), hereby supplements its response as follows to the Second Set of Jnterrogatories by defendant, The TriZetto Group, Inc. ("TriZetto").

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
McKesson incorporates by reference the General Objections set forth in its Responses to Defendant TriZetto's First and Second Sets of Interrogatories.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES

INTERROGATORY NO.21:
For each limitation of each asserted claim of the '164 Patent that YOU contend must be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6, identify the structure in the specification corresponding to that limitation (by column(s) and line number(s) or column(s), and identified rule(s) or procedure(s) and all equivalents thereto that YOU contend existed at the time of the filing of the '164 Patent).

d(o5 (s)

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 38 of 53

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE. TO INTERROGATORY NO.21:
McKesson incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein all prior responses

to this interrogatory including objections. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, McKesson supplements its response to this interrogatory as follows: The structures corresponding to the means-plus-function elements of the asserted claims are set forth in McKesson's Supplemental Proposed Claim Terms and
Constructions.

INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
If YOU contend that the preambles of claims 1, 2, and 16 of the '164 Patent are not limitations of the respective claims, state in detail the basis for YOUR contention.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
-

McKesson incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein all prior responses

to this interrogatory including objections. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objections, McKesson supplements its response to this interrogatory as follows:

McKesson does not contend that the preambles of claims 1, 2 and 16 of the '164
patent are not elements of the respective claims.

DATED: October 3, 2005
By:

fl

Jeffery . Ran SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 525 University Avenue, Suite 1100

IA,4

Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attorneys for Plaintiff, McKesson Information Solutions LLC

2

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 39 of 53

PROOF OF SERVICE (FRCP 5)

1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California. I am
employed in Santa Clara County, State of California, in the office of a member admitted pro hac

to the bar of'this Court, at whose direction the service was made. I am over the age of eighteen
years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 525 University Avenue, Suite 1100, Palo Alto, CA 94301.

On October 3, 2005, I served PLAINTIFF McKESSON'S SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TRIZETTO'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
(2 1-22) in the manner described below:

(BY FACSIMILE) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP for collection and processing of document(s) to be transmitted by facsimile, and I caused such document(s) on this date to be transmitted by facsimile to the offices of
addressee(s) at the numbers listed below.
and

(BY U.S. MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service; and I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Postal Service at Palo Alto, California.
on the following parties in this action:

Jeffrey Thomas, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Cmtcher LLP Jamboree Center 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1400 Irvine, CA 92614-8557 Facsimile: (949) 475-4670

Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq. Moths, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Facsimile: (302) 425-3012

Executed on October 3, 2005 in Palo Alto, California.

Yvonne Chen

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 40 of 53

EXHIBIT Y

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 41 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 42 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 43 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 44 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 45 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 46 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 47 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 48 of 53

EXHIBIT Z

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 49 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 50 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 51 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 52 of 53

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 426-7

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 53 of 53