`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`SERVICENOW, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________________________
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`____________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 323 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.207
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`THE ’981 PATENT ......................................................................................... 4
`A. 
`The invention of the ’981 patent ........................................................... 4 
`B. 
`The challenged claims ........................................................................... 9 
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`A. 
`The claim term “Web service” should be construed as “a
`computing service with a discoverable public interface that is
`accessible using Web protocols through the exchange of
`messages” (Claims 1 and 22). ............................................................. 11 
`The claim term “managed object” should be construed to mean
`“software that acts as a management representation of a
`resource and includes at least an interface for accessing
`management features of the resource” (Claims 1 and 22). ................. 14 
`The claim term “service managed object” should be construed
`to mean “software that acts as a management representation of a
`Web service that performs services and includes at least an
`interface for accessing management features of the Web
`service” (Claim 1). .............................................................................. 15 
`IV. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE ’981
`PATENT IS NOT A CBM PATENT ............................................................ 16
`A. 
`The ’981 patent is not eligible for CBM patent review. ..................... 16 
`1. 
`The ’981 patent does not claim “a method or
`corresponding apparatus for performing data processing
`or other operations used in the practice, administration,
`or management of a financial product or service.” ................... 18 
`a) 
`The Petitioner fails to show that the challenged
`claims of the ’981 patent are financial in nature. ............. 18 
`The Petitioner ignores the claims and improperly
`relies solely on select examples in the specification
`of the ‘981 patent. ............................................................ 19 
`
`b) 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`c) 
`
`d) 
`
`2. 
`
`b) 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`The Board has denied CBM review in cases
`involving challenged claims that are not financial in
`nature. ............................................................................... 24 
`The Petitioner’s cited cases are distinguishable; the
`challenged claims in those cases were clearly
`financial in nature. ........................................................... 27 
`The ’981 patent is “for a technological invention.” .................. 30 
`a) 
`The ’981 patent recites at least one technological
`feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior
`art. .................................................................................... 30 
`The ’981 patent solves a technical problem using a
`technical solution. ............................................................ 31 
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
`ESTABLISH THAT IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT
`ANY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER
`ITS ASSERTED GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY ......................................... 33
`A. 
`Petitioner has not shown that it will likely succeed on its 35
`U.S.C. § 101 challenge. ....................................................................... 34 
`1. 
`The claims of the ’981 patent are not directed to an
`abstract idea. .............................................................................. 39 
`The ’981 patent claims inventive concepts. .............................. 43 
`2. 
`Petitioner has not shown that it will likely succeed on its
`obviousness challenge. ........................................................................ 46 
`a)  Overview of the Cited References ................................... 48 
`b)  None of the cited references alone or in
`combination disclose or suggest “managing a Web
`service.” ............................................................................ 49 
`c)  None of the cited references alone or in
`combination disclose or suggest a “service managed
`object.” ............................................................................. 50 
`d)  None of the cited references alone or in
`combination disclose or suggest a “managed
`object.” ............................................................................. 52 
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 55
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
` TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................passim
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Genesis Gaming Solutions, Inc.,
`No. SACV 11-00189 AG (RNBx), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175600
`(C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2014) ................................................................................... 34
`
`Apple Inc. v. Sightsound Technologies, LLC,
`No. CBM2013-00020, 2013 WL 8538868 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2013) ...... 26, 27, 28
`
`Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.,
`365 U.S. 336 (1961) ............................................................................................ 34
`
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc’ns, Inc.,
`59 F. Supp. 3d 974, 1000 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................. 36, 43
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 35, 37, 41
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .......................................................................... 33, 35, 39, 42
`
`E*trade Fin. Corp.,v. Droplets, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00123, 2014 WL 5583105 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014) ....................... 31
`
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 10
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co.,
`Civ. No. 13-1274-SLR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174725
`(D. Del. Dec. 18, 2014) ....................................................................................... 37
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`J.P. Morgan Chase v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`CBM2014-00160, 2015 WL 430005 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015) ..................passim
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`
`
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) .................................................................................... 44
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................................................ 35
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Atlus U.S.A.,
`No. SACV 13-1870-GW (FFMx), 2014 WL 4772196
`(C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2014) ................................................................................... 36
`
`Research Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 36
`
`Roxane Labs. v. Jazz Pharm., Inc.,
`CBM 2014-00161, CBM 2014-00175, 2015 WL 576797
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2015) ................................................................................passim
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC,
`CBM2014-00162, 2015 WL 470746 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015) ....................passim
`
`SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc.,
`CBM2012-0001, 2013 WL 5947661 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013) ........................... 26
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, 2014 WL 4643533 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 15, 2014) ...................... 44
`
`Ultramercial v. Hulu, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013 ............................................................................ 34
`
`Voltage Sec., Inc. v. Protegrity Corp.,
`CBM2014-00024, 2014 WL 1510661 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2014) ....................... 10
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 44
`
`35 U.S.C. § 323 .......................................................................................................... 3
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................ 32
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`
`
`
`AIA § 18(d)(1) ................................................................................................... 16, 27
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ........................................................................................ 17, 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981 (the “’981 patent”) is directed to a novel system
`
`for managing Web services.1 At the time the application for the ’981 patent was
`
`filed, Web services were emerging as a promising technology for organizations
`
`and businesses across different industries to develop distributed applications over a
`
`network, such as the Internet. However, the distributed nature of Web services
`
`made them particularly challenging to manage. To address this technological
`
`problem, the ’981 patent provides a technological solution that allows for the
`
`effective management of Web services.
`
`The Petition should be denied because the ’981 patent is ineligible for CBM
`
`review under the America Invents Act (“AIA”). The challenged claims of the ’981
`
`1 The ’981 patent is assigned to Patent Owner Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP” or
`
`“Patent Owner”) and is the subject of a co-pending litigation, Hewlett-Packard Co.
`
`v. ServiceNow, Inc., No. 14-cv-00570-BLF (N.D. Cal.), between HP and
`
`ServiceNow, Inc. (“ServiceNow” or “Petitioner”). Petitioner also filed a petition
`
`for inter partes review of claims 1, 22, and 23 of the ’981 patent. Case No.
`
`IPR2015-00707 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2015). Patent Owner filed its Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response to the petition for inter partes review on May 28, 2015. The
`
`PTAB has yet to issue a decision regarding institution of inter partes review.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`patent are directed to useful technology that may be applied to various industries
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`
`
`
`and processes, and have no particular relationship to financial products or services,
`
`as required for CBM review. Petitioner cannot and does not contend that any
`
`limitation of the challenged claims of the ’981 patent relates to a financial activity.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that the ’981 patent is a covered business method patent is
`
`fatally flawed because it is not grounded in the claims, but rather relies on cherry-
`
`picked passages from the specification discussing potential applications of the
`
`invention. The Board has denied institution of CBM review in numerous other
`
`cases in which petitioners relied on the specification to try to characterize the
`
`challenged claims as financial in nature.
`
`Furthermore, the ’981 patent is directed to a “technological invention” – it
`
`uses novel and unobvious technology to address technological problems in the
`
`management of distributed Web services. Petitioner asserts that the ’981 patent is
`
`the “application of technology to an existing financial or business process,” but it
`
`cannot point to any claim language that describes any such existing financial or
`
`business process.
`
`Even assuming that the ’981 patent qualifies for CBM review, the Petition
`
`should nevertheless be denied because Petitioner has not shown that it is more
`
`likely than not that the challenged claims are invalid under either of its invalidity
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`grounds. First, Petitioner asserts that the claims of the ’981 patent are
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but fails to show either that the claims are
`
`directed to an abstract idea or that they do not claim an inventive step. Second,
`
`Petitioner asserts that the claims of the ’981 patent are obvious over U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 2002/0049664 A1 to Kenneth E. Hoffman et al. (“Hoffman”) (Ex.
`
`1004) in view of Marsha Collier et al., eBay for Dummies (2d ed. 2001) (“Collier”)
`
`(Ex. 1005), but its prior art challenge depends on unreasonably broad claim
`
`constructions. For instance, Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “Web service” is “a service or system that interacts with another
`
`system through the exchange of eXtensible Markup Language (XML) messages”
`
`—but this construction is overly broad because it suggests that a “Web service”
`
`could be anything that is capable of exchanging XML files, such as the sending
`
`and receiving of XML files by email or by FM radio, and is therefore disconnected
`
`from the patent specification. Under the proper claim constructions, Petitioner has
`
`no argument that the cited references disclose the invention of the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`Because the Petition fails to establish that the ’981 patent is statutorily
`
`eligible for CBM review, and the two proposed grounds for invalidity are clearly
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`deficient, the Board should not institute review of any of claims 1, 22, and 23 of
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`
`
`
`the ’981 patent. 35 U.S.C. § 323; 37 C.F.R. § 42.207.
`
`II. THE ’981 PATENT
`
`A. The invention of the ’981 patent
`
`At the time that the application for the ’981 patent was filed, Web services
`
`were emerging as a promising technology for developing distributed applications
`
`over a network, such as the Internet. ’981 patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:55-2:47. At the
`
`time, information technology (IT) resources were managed using a variety of
`
`incompatible and often proprietary interfaces and protocols. Id. at 1:35-37. The
`
`problem of managing disparate IT resources became more acute as systems were
`
`increasingly developed using IT resources deployed in remote locations and
`
`accessed via information networks, such as the Internet. Id. at 1:42-45. The ’981
`
`patent specification describes various problems with information network
`
`management. For example, resources that needed to be managed were not readily
`
`identifiable when they were highly distributed and independent of one another. Id.
`
`at 1:45-47. It was also difficult to obtain information about the properties and
`
`attributes of the resources, as well as protocols for exchanging management
`
`information with the resources. Id. at 1:47-51. Another challenge concerned
`
`determining the relationships among the resources used in a system to pinpoint
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`operational problems when one or more of the resources do not respond as
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`
`
`
`expected. Id. at 1:51-54.
`
`At that time of the ’981 patent filing, Web services were being used for
`
`developing distributed applications over a network. Web services were highly
`
`extensible, interacted in a loosely coupled manner, and were deployed and utilized
`
`across networks. Id. at 2:39-42. Although these qualities made Web services
`
`highly powerful and useful for forming distributed applications extending across
`
`an enterprise or the Internet, it also made them particularly challenging to manage.
`
`Id. at 2:48-3:4. For example, because the distributed application may extend
`
`across an enterprise or even the Internet, there are many “viewpoints” from which
`
`to manage an application. Id. at 2:49-53. The numerous viewpoints require
`
`crossing boundaries of control and management domains, while maintaining a
`
`unified, yet customized view for the distributed application. Id. 2:53-56. Another
`
`challenge of managing Web services in a distributed network is that Web services
`
`have been designed to be extensible at all levels and allow for the use of virtually
`
`any kind of data. Id. 3:5-4:8. Yet another example of the challenges of managing
`
`distributed networks of Web services is that a Web service can provide numerous
`
`interfaces into its functionality, and these interfaces have corresponding discovery
`
`standards regarding their own extensibility mechanisms. Id. at 3:19-24.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`The ’981 patent is directed to the effective management of Web services. Id.
`
`at Abstract, 1:55-58, 3:41-4:2, 4:51-5:22. The ’981 patent solves the problem of
`
`managing Web services by using “managed objects” and “service managed
`
`objects.” Id. at Abstract, 3:41-47, 4:51-60, 7:26-27. “Managed objects” act as the
`
`“management representation of a resource” and provide interfaces for a remote
`
`manager to manage the resource. Id. at Abstract, 4:51-60, 7:26-27. In other
`
`words, a “managed object” is software representing and providing an interface for
`
`the management features of a computing resource. Id. “Service managed objects”
`
`are a type of managed object associated with a Web service. Id. at 3:41-47.
`
`Among other functions, the service managed object includes interfaces configured
`
`to present management features of the Web service to a manager software process.
`
`Id. at 3:41-47. The management features provided by the service managed object
`
`include, for instance, allowing a manager to access information regarding
`
`“conversations,” or messages the Web service has exchanged with other systems
`
`and services. Id. at Abstract, 3:41-47, 3:57-62, 4:51-53, 5:56-58. A manager may
`
`access managed objects for multiple resources involved in a business or other
`
`computing process taking place over a network, and thereby gain a unified
`
`management view of the process. Id. at 4:51-67, 5:4-7, 5:23-43, 5:46-51. Thus,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`the system of the ’981 patent is able to effectively manage distributed Web
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`
`
`
`services that extend across various networks and systems. Id. at 3:41-4:2.
`
`Figure 1A of the patent illustrates a Web service management system. Web
`
`services 104 and 106 can exchange information regarding their services, which
`
`may involve a wide variety of tasks such as “language translation or currency
`
`conversion, performing calculations for medical claims processing, and handling
`
`certain aspects of travel planning.” Id. at 1:58-67, 11:28-49. The manager 102
`
`accesses Web services 104 and 106, and can be configured to manage one or more
`
`of the Web services and their communications. Id. at 4:51-53. The manager is
`
`able to manage Web services 104 and 106, and in turn, their communications,
`
`through the use of serviced managed objects. Id. at 4:51-5:3, 7:22-29.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`
`
`Each Web service is associated with a service managed object – here,
`
`service managed object 108 is associated with Web service 104, and service
`
`managed object 110 is associated with Web service 106. As shown in Figure 1A,
`
`each service managed object has a “managed object interface” 122 or 124. The
`
`managed object interface represents the management interface that allows a
`
`manager to access management features for the Web service. Id. at 7:22-56.
`
`As explained in the specification of the ’981 patent, any process can be
`
`implemented as a Web service if it is properly configured with a discoverable
`
`public interface that is accessible using Web protocols through the exchange of
`
`messages. Id. at 1:64-67. For instance, the specification states that distributed
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`networks of Web services can be used to implement systems for performing a wide
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`
`
`
`range of tasks, including “language translation or currency conversion, performing
`
`calculations for medical claims processing, and handling certain aspects of travel
`
`planning.” Id. at 1:60-64. The specification further identifies an online shopping
`
`service system as a “Service Management Example” (id. at 14:25-16:40) and an
`
`auction manager as a “Distributed Business Process Example” (id. at 14:44-19:3).
`
`The specification also explains that “[e]ssentially any transaction or bit of business
`
`logic can become a Web service if it can be accessed and used by another system
`
`over a network such as the Internet” (id. at 1:64-67). In turn, the claimed invention
`
`of the ’981 patent can be used to manage these distributed networks of Web
`
`services. Id. at Abstract, 1:55-58, 3: 41-4:2, 4:51-5:22.
`
`B.
`
`The challenged claims
`
`Petitioner challenges the validity of claims 1, 22, and 23 of the ’981 patent,
`
`which read as follows.
`
`1. A system for managing a Web service, comprising:
`
`[a]
`
`a computer processor; and
`
`[b]
`
`a service managed object executable on the computer process,
`
`wherein:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`[c]
`
`the service managed object is associated with the Web service and
`
`includes at least one interface configured to allow a manager to access
`
`management features for the Web service; and
`
`[d]
`
`the at least one interface is configured to provide a list of
`
`conversations associated with the Web service.
`
`22. A computer program product tangibly embodied in a computer
`
`[a]
`
`[b]
`
`readable storage medium, comprising:
`
`a service interface; and
`
`a managed object interface associated with the service interface,
`
`wherein the service interface is configured to include information for
`
`managing a Web service, including information indicating
`
`conversations associated with the service that are in process.
`
`23. The computer program product of claim 22, wherein the service
`
`interface is further configured to include information regarding at
`
`least one of the group of: the last requested message received by the
`
`service; the last fault message returned from the service; and the
`
`execution environment for the service.
`
`
`
`As can be seen from the above, the claim language does not refer to anything
`
`financial in nature.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`In CBM review, a claim term is given its “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.300(b). “Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms
`
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.” Voltage Sec., Inc. v.
`
`Protegrity Corp., CBM2014-00024, 2014 WL 1510661, at *10 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15,
`
`2014) (citing In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
`
`“Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision.” Id. (citing In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1994)).
`
`A. The claim term “Web service” should be construed as “a
`computing service with a discoverable public interface that is
`accessible using Web protocols through the exchange of
`messages” (Claims 1 and 22).
`
`In the context of the ’981 patent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“Web service” (used in independent claims 1 and 22) in light of the specification is
`
`“a computing service with a discoverable public interface that is accessible using
`
`Web protocols through the exchange of messages.”
`
`First, the specification is clear that a Web service is “a computing service.”
`
`For example, the specification describes a Web service as an “approach to
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`distributed computing” that can be used to perform various tasks such as “language
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`
`
`
`translation or currency conversion, performing calculations for medical claims
`
`processing, and handling certain aspects of travel planning.” ’981 patent (Ex.
`
`1001) at 1:55-64. Additionally, all examples provided in the specification refer to
`
`Web services as a computing service. Id. at 1:60-64, 14:27-63, 15:30-34, 16:16-
`
`40, 16:44-57, 17:46-67.
`
`Second, the specification is also clear that a Web service has a “discoverable
`
`public interface.” In particular, it states that “[a] Web service is a software system
`
`identified by a Universal Resource Identifier (URI) whose public interfaces and
`
`bindings are typically defined and described in an XML document.” Id. at 2:1-4
`
`(emphasis added). The specification further states that “[t]he description can be
`
`discovered by other software systems.” Id. at 2:4-7 (emphasis added).
`
`This is consistent with the extrinsic evidence, which shows that a person of
`
`ordinary skill at the time of the invention of the ’981 patent would have understood
`
`a Web service to require a discoverable public interface. For instance, documents
`
`from the World Wide Web Consortium (or “W3C”) from 2002 defined a Web
`
`service as “a software application identified by a URI, whose interfaces and
`
`binding are capable of being defined, described and discovered.” See Exs. 2001
`
`(W3C: Web Services Description Requirements) at 3 and 2002 (W3C: Web
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Services Architecture Requirements) at 3 (emphases added). The reference to an
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`
`
`
`interface and the capability of being discovered indicate that a Web service must
`
`have a discoverable public interface.
`
`Third, the specification states clearly that a Web service “is accessible using
`
`Web protocols through the exchange of messages.” For example, the online store
`
`example discussed above involves the exchange of messages between Web
`
`services as part of a “conversation.” ’981 patent (Ex. 1001) at 14:37-41.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a service or system that interacts with
`
`another system through the exchange of eXtensible Markup Language (XML)
`
`messages” should be rejected. Although Petitioner and Patent Owner appear to
`
`agree that a Web service involves the exchange of messages, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction otherwise directly contradicts the specification of the ’981 patent.
`
`Petitioner’s construction is impermissibly broad because it ignores the
`
`specification’s clear statements that a key requirement of Web services is to
`
`provide publicly discoverable interfaces. Id. at 2:1-7, 2:22-34. Petitioner’s
`
`construction also omits that a Web service must be accessible using Web protocols.
`
`By ignoring this requirement, Petitioner seems to suggest that Web services could
`
`include anything that is capable of exchanging XML files, such as the sending and
`
`receiving of XML files by email or by FM radio.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
` Petitioner’s proposed construction is also too narrow because the
`
`specification is clear that Web services messages are not always formatted using
`
`XML. For instance, it states that Web services “typically send XML messages
`
`formatted in accordance with the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)
`
`specification.” Id. at 2:17-21 (emphasis added). This passage makes clear that
`
`Web services do not need to use XML messages, even though it is “typical.”
`
`Based on the specification, and consistent with the extrinsic evidence, a Web
`
`service within the meaning of the ’981 patent requires a computing device that has
`
`a discoverable public interface and is accessible using Web protocols.
`
`B.
`
`The claim term “managed object” should be construed to mean
`“software that acts as a management representation of a resource
`and includes at least an interface for accessing management
`features of the resource” (Claims 1 and 22).
`
`Claim 1 recites a “service managed object” and claim 22 recites a “managed
`
`object.” The terms are related. Id. at 7:27-29. This Response will first address the
`
`“managed object” term and then the more specific “service managed object” term.
`
`In the context of the ’981 patent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“managed object” in light of the specification is “software that acts as a
`
`management representation of a resource and includes at least an interface for
`
`accessing management features of the resource.”
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`The specification of the ’981 patent states that a managed object “is a
`
`management representation of a resource”—that is, a managed object represents
`
`the underlying resource from a management point of view—and “implements
`
`managed object interfaces 130 to provide a common set of basic management
`
`capabilities that allow manager 102 to monitor and/or control the underlying
`
`resource(s) represented by managed objects 128 through various features such as
`
`attributes, operations, and event notifications.” Id. at 7:26-35 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner improperly proposes that “managed object” should be construed to
`
`simply mean “an object for managing a resource.” This construction is overly
`
`broad and directly contradicts the specification of the ’981 patent. As the patent
`
`makes clear, a managed object must include an interface for accessing
`
`management features and act as the management representation of a resource. Id.
`
`at 3:41-47, 4:51-60, 7:26-32.
`
`C. The claim term “service managed object” should be construed to
`mean “software that acts as a management representation of a
`Web service that performs services and includes at least an
`interface for accessing management features of the Web service”
`(Claim 1).
`
`In the context of the ’981 patent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“service managed object” in light of the specification is “software that acts as a
`
`management representation of a Web service that performs services and includes
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`at least an interface for accessing management features of the Web service.”
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00077
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`
`
`
`That is, a “service managed object” is a managed object for which the managed
`
`resource is a Web service. See id. at 4:51-60 (“service managed objects represent
`
`the management features of resource(s) that perform services”). The specification
`
`states that “service managed objects . . . can be considered managed objects,” and
`
`thus include at least an interface for accessing management features of the Web
`
`service. Id. at 7:27-29, 7:45-47.
`
`Petitioner proposes that “service managed object” should be construed to
`
`simply mean “an object for managing a resource that is associated with a service.”
`
`As with its proposed construction for “managed object,” this directly contradicts
`
`the specification, which states that a “service managed object is associated with the
`
`Web service and includes at least one interface configured to allow a manager to
`
`access management features for the Web service.” Id. at 3:41-47; see also id. at
`
`4:51-60, 7:26-32, 7:45-47 (emphasis added).
`
`IV. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE ’981
`PATENT IS NOT A CBM PATENT
`
`A. The ’981 patent is not eligible for CBM patent review.
`
` “A petitioner in a CBM proceeding must demonstrate that the patent for
`
`which review is sought is a covered business method patent.” 77 Fe