UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,771,290
`Issued: August 3, 2004
`Filed: July 16, 1999
`Inventors: Martin David Hoyle
`Title: COMPUTER INTERFACE METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH
`PORTABLE NETWORK ORGANIZATION SYSTEM AND TARGETED
`ADVERTISING
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00040
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh Regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.
`
`

`
`1, Henry Houh, do hereby declare and state, that all statements made herein of my
`own knowledge are true and that all statements made on mformatlon and belief are
`beheved to be true’ and further that these statements were made w1th_ the
`knowledge that Wlllfill false statements and the like so made are unlshable by fine
`or lmpnsonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the mted States
`Code.
`
`Dated: October 8, 2013
`
`Wiq
`
`Henry Houh
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. ii
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Engagement .......................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................ 1
`C.
`Compensation and Prior Testimony ..................................................... 4
`D.
`Information Considered ........................................................................ 5
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ......................................... 5
`A. Anticipation .......................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Obviousness .......................................................................................... 8
`III. THE ’290 PATENT ...................................................................................... 14
`A.
`Effective Filing Date of the ’290 Patent ............................................ 14
`B.
`Prosecution History Of The ’290 Patent ............................................ 15
`C.
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ........................................... 16
`D. Overview of the Claims of the ’290 Patent ........................................ 16
`E.
`Description of the Background Technology Relevant to the
`’290 Patent .......................................................................................... 16
`1.
`Customized Graphical User Interfaces to UNIX ..................... 16
`2.
`Remote Access to Files From a Personal Computer via
`Dedicated File Access Software .............................................. 30
`Consumer Online Services ....................................................... 31
`3.
`IV. GENERAL ISSUES RELATED TO MY PATENTABILITY
`ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 36
`A.
`The Claims of the ’290 Patent I Am Addressing in this Report ........ 36
`B.
`Interpretation of Certain Claim Terms ............................................... 38
`1.
`“File” ........................................................................................ 39
`Prior Art References ........................................................................... 40
`1.
`Exhibit 1005 – International Publication No. 97/09682 to
`Kikinis ...................................................................................... 40
`Exhibit 1006 – America Online for Dummies 3rd Edition ....... 40
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.
`
`

`
`
`
`V.
`
`PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 1-3 OF THE ’290
`PATENT ....................................................................................................... 41
`A.
`International Publication No. WO 97/09682 to Dan Kikinis ............. 41
`1.
`Overview of Kikinis ................................................................. 41
`2.
`Comparison of Kikinis to Claims 1, 2 and 3 of the ’290
`Patent ........................................................................................ 50
`a.
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 50
`b.
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 57
`c.
`Claim 3 ........................................................................... 63
`Kaufeld, John, America Online for Dummies, 3rd Edition, 1996. ...... 65
`1.
`Overview of AOL .................................................................... 65
`2.
`Comparison of AOL to Claims 1, 2 and 3 of the ’290
`Patent ........................................................................................ 83
`a.
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 83
`b.
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 92
`c.
`Claim 3 ........................................................................... 98
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 98
`3.
`VI. APPENDIX A: MATERIALS CONSIDERED BY HENRY HOUH ......... 99
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`Appendix A:
`
`
`
`List of Materials Considered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Engagement
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Microsoft Corporation as an
`
`expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide
`
`my opinion about the state of the art of the technology described in U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,771,290 (“the ’290 patent”) and on the patentability of claims 1, 2 and 3 of the
`
`’290 patent. The following is my written report on these topics.
`
`B.
`Background and Qualifications
`2. My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Ex. 1004.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1998. I also received a Master
`
`of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1991, a
`
`Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in
`
`1990, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics in 1989.
`
`4.
`
`As further indicated in my C.V., I have worked in the electrical
`
`engineering and computer science fields, including web site and web server
`
`development, on several occasions. As part of my doctoral research at MIT from
`
`1991-1998, I worked as a research assistant in the Telemedia Network Systems
`
`(TNS) group at the Laboratory for Computer Science. The TNS group built a high
`
`speed gigabit network and applications which ran over the network, such as remote
`
`video capture, processing and display on computer terminals. In addition to helping
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 1
`
`

`
`
`
`design the core network components, designing and building the high speed links,
`
`and designing and writing the device drivers for the interface cards, I also set up
`
`the group’s web server, which at the time was one of the first several hundred web
`
`servers in existence.
`
`5.
`
`I authored or co-authored twelve papers and conference presentations
`
`on our group’s research. I also co-edited the final report of the gigabit networking
`
`research effort with the Professor (David Tennenhouse) and Senior Research
`
`Scientist of the group (David Clark), who is generally considered to be one of the
`
`fathers of the Internet Protocol.
`
`6.
`
`I started building web servers in 1993, having set up the web server
`
`for the MIT Telemedia, Networks, and Systems Group, to which I belonged. It
`
`was one of the first several hundred web servers in existence, and went on to
`
`provide what was likely one of the first live Internet video initiated from a web
`
`site. In 1994, I founded a company called Agora Technology Group which set up
`
`advertising-supported web sites service for college recruiting called HIRES
`
`(Hypermedia Internet Recruitment and Employment Services). Agora also
`
`provided web consulting services to companies; Agora set up web sites for Bay
`
`Networks (later purchased by Nortel) and Data Communications Magazine, among
`
`others.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 2
`
`

`
`
`
`7.
`
`From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX
`
`Corporation, a start-up that made business telephone systems that streamed
`
`packetized audio over data networks instead of using traditional phone lines. NBX
`
`was later acquired by 3Com Corporation, and the phone system is still available
`
`and being used at tens of thousands of businesses or more. As part of my work at
`
`NBX, I designed the core audio reconstruction algorithms for the telephones, as
`
`well as the packet transmission algorithms. I also designed and validated the core
`
`packet transport protocol used by the phone system. The protocol is used millions
`
`of times daily currently. Two of the company founders and I received US Patent
`
`No. 6,697,963 titled “Telecommunication method for ensuring on-time delivery of
`
`packets containing time sensitive data,” for some of the work I did there.
`
`8.
`
`Starting in 2001, I was architect for the next generation of web testing
`
`product by Empirix known as e-Test Suite. e-Test Suite is now owned by Oracle
`
`Corporation. e-Test provided functional and load testing for web sites. e-Test
`
`emulated a user’s interaction with a web site and provided web developers with a
`
`method of creating various scripts and providing both functional testing (e.g., did
`
`the web site provide the correct response) and load testing (e.g., could the web site
`
`handle 5000 users on its web site simultaneously). Among Empirix’s customers
`
`was H&R Block, who used e-Test Suite to test the tax filing functionality of their
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 3
`
`

`
`
`
`web site as whether the web site could handle a large expected load prior to the
`
`filing deadline.
`
`9.
`
`I have also continued to develop web sites for various business
`
`projects, as well as setting up web sites on a volunteer basis for various groups that
`
`I am associated with.
`
`10.
`
`I am the author of several publications devoted to a wide variety of
`
`technologies in the fields of electrical engineering and computer science. These
`
`publications are listed on my C.V. (Ex. 1004).
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony
`11.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $550 per hour for my study and
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my
`
`testimony.
`
`12.
`
`I have testified in Federal District Court three times. Most recently, I
`
`testified in the Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T Inc. matter in the Western District of
`
`Texas. I have also testified in the Verizon v. Vonage and Verizon v. Cox matters,
`
`both in the Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 4
`
`

`
`
`
`D.
`Information Considered
`13. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report and those
`
`listed in Appendix A.
`
`14.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions — including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`15. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`16.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ’290 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that have
`
`been explained to me.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 5
`
`

`
`
`
`17. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what
`
`was known before the invention was made.
`
`18.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and
`
`generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal
`
`publications, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Microsoft has the burden of
`
`proving that the ’290 patent are anticipated by or obvious from the prior art by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance of the
`
`evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in
`
`the prior art.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications. My analysis below
`
`compares the claims to patents and printed publications that are prior art to the
`
`claims.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 6
`
`

`
`
`
`22.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the two legal standards is
`
`set forth below.
`
`A. Anticipation
`23.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`24.
`
`I have applied these standards in my evaluation of whether claims 1, 2
`
`and 3 of the ’290 patent would have been anticipated by the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the “prior art” includes patents and printed
`
`publications that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”)
`
`of the claim in the patent. I also understand that a patent will be prior art if it was
`
`filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, while a printed
`
`publication will be prior art if it was publicly available before that date.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior
`
`art, each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that
`
`claim limitations that are not expressly described in a prior art reference may still
`
`be there if they are “inherent” to the thing or process being described in the prior
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 7
`
`

`
`
`
`art. For example, an indication in a prior art reference that a particular process
`
`complies with a published standard would indicate that the process must inherently
`
`perform certain steps or use certain data structures that are necessary to comply
`
`with the published standard.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`28.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 8
`
`

`
`
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must make
`
`certain findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior art. Specifically, I
`
`understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of four factors
`
`(although not necessarily in the following order):
`
`• The scope and content of the prior art;
`• The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`• The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`• Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`may be present in any particular case.
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`32.
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`33.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by those in the field; the taking
`
`of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts and those
`
`skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee proceeded
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I also understand that any of this
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 9
`
`

`
`
`
`evidence must be specifically connected to the invention rather than being
`
`associated with the prior art or with marketing or other efforts to promote an
`
`invention. I am not presently aware of any evidence of “objective factors”
`
`suggesting the claimed methods are not obvious, and reserve my right to address
`
`any such evidence if it is identified in the future.
`
`34.
`
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`I also understand that an example of a solution in one field of endeavor may make
`
`that solution obvious in another related field. I also understand that market
`
`demands or design considerations may prompt variations of a prior art system or
`
`process, either in the same field or a different one, and that these variations will
`
`ordinarily be considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior
`
`art.
`
`35.
`
`I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I
`
`understand that for similar reasons, if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`
`device would have been obvious unless its actual application yields unexpected
`
`results or challenges in implementation.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 10
`
`

`
`
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and experimentation that
`
`does no more than yield predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int'l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc. where the Court rejected the previous requirement of a “teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements of prior art for purposes of
`
`an obviousness analysis as a precondition for finding obviousness. It is my
`
`understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that would have been known
`
`to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or derived from the nature
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 11
`
`

`
`
`
`of the problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why references would have
`
`been combined.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a
`
`problem will not be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the
`
`same problem. I understand that under the KSR standard, steps suggested by
`
`common sense are important and should be considered. Common sense teaches
`
`that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond the particular application being
`
`described in a reference, that if something can be done once it is obvious to do it
`
`multiple times, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art
`
`considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor
`
`in July of 1998 and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior
`
`art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art does not need to be
`
`directed towards solving the same problem that is addressed in the patent. Further,
`
`the individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards
`
`solving the same problem.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or lead away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 12
`
`

`
`
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`would not work or explicit statements saying the combination should not be made.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity.
`
`42.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combination, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
`
`ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical
`
`grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious. The fact that a
`
`particular combination of prior art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that
`
`the combination was obvious even if no one attempted the combination. If the
`
`combination was obvious to try (regardless of whether it was actually tried) or
`
`leads to anticipated success, then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense rather than innovation.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 13
`
`

`
`
`
`III. THE ’290 PATENT
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ’290 Patent
`43.
`
`I understand that the ’290 patent issued from U.S. Application No.
`
`09/744,033, which was filed on July 16, 1999. The ’033 application was a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Application No. 09/118,351, filed July 17, 1998,
`
`which later became U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010.
`
`44.
`
`I understand that a “continuation-in-part” application is a patent
`
`application that is related to an earlier filed patent application, but which adds to,
`
`changes or deletes information relative to what was in the previous application.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that a “continuation-in-part” application may describe an
`
`invention that is not described in the earlier application, and that this may result in
`
`a patent claim being evaluated using the filing date of the continuation-in-part
`
`application, rather than the earlier related application.
`
`46.
`
`I understand that Claims 1 and 2 of the ’290 patent are independent
`
`claims. The effective filing date of claim 1 of the ’290 patent is not earlier than
`
`July 17, 1998, the date on which its parent was filed.
`
`47. Claim 2 of the ’290 patent relies on information found first in the
`
`disclosure of the ’033 application, and which is not found in any prior application
`
`to which the ’290 patent claims “benefit” or “priority.” I understand that the terms
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 14
`
`

`
`
`
`“benefit” and “priority” are legal terms referring to claims made under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 120 or 35 U.S.C. § 119(e), respectively.
`
`48. For example, claim 2 of the ’290 patent specifies requires “[a]
`
`computer-readable memory for use by a client computer in conjunction with a
`
`server that is accessible by the client computer via a network, the server storing a
`
`user profile and user library for each of a number of different users, with the user
`
`library containing one or more files.”
`
`49. No application filed prior to the ’033 application even mentions the
`
`phrase “user library,” much less provides a written description of a system
`
`corresponding to the ’290 patent claims. The effective filing date of claims 2 and 3
`
`of the ’290 patent thus is not earlier than July 16, 1999.
`
`50. Claim 3 depends directly from claim 2, and cannot enjoy an effective
`
`filing date earlier than that of claims 2, from which it depends.
`
`51.
`
`I have therefore used July 16, 1999, as the earliest effective filing date
`
`of the ’290 patent claims in my analysis. However, my analysis would not change
`
`even if July 17, 1998 were the priority date.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History Of The ’290 Patent
`52. The application from which the ’290 patent issued was filed on July
`
`16, 1999 as Application No. 09/744,033, listed Martin David Hoyle as the
`
`inventor.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 15
`
`

`
`
`
`53. The ’290 patent issued on August 3, 2004.
`
`C. The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`54. A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’290 patent
`
`would have been someone with a good working knowledge of networking
`
`protocols, as well as computer systems (including servers) that support these
`
`protocols and techniques. The person also would be familiar with Internet
`
`standards related to communications, programming languages, database systems,
`
`and a variety of client-server systems and technologies. The person would have
`
`gained this knowledge either through education and training, several years of
`
`practical working experience, or through a combination of these.
`
`D. Overview of the Claims of the ’290 Patent
`55. The ’290 patent claims generally concern a system for providing a
`
`customized graphical user interface containing user-selectable items and links to
`
`information resources.
`
`E. Description of the Background Technology Relevant to the ’290
`Patent
`
`56.
`
`In July of 1998, all the technologies addressed in the ’290 patent were
`
`well known to those in the art. I will address some of the more pertinent
`
`technologies below.
`
`1.
`Customized Graphical User Interfaces to UNIX
`57. Prior to July of 1998, customized graphical user interfaces were
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 16
`
`

`
`
`
`common.
`
`58. One such graphical user interface is described in the Ex. 1007
`
`reference, which is the X Window System User’s Guide (“Open Look Guide”).
`
`Ex. 1007 (Open Look Guide) describes Open Look, which ran on UNIX
`
`workstations and was in use as early as March 1995. Ex. 1007 (Open Look Guide)
`
`discloses that users to use one computer were able to remotely access applications
`
`and files on another computer through a graphical user interface.
`
`59. Ex. 1007 (Open Look Guide) discloses that Open Look, which
`
`utilized the X Windows, which itself was developed in 1984. Ex. 1007 (Open
`
`Look Guide) at 3 (“The X Window System, called X for short, is a network-based
`
`graphics window system that was first developed at MIT around 1984. Several
`
`versions of X have been developed, the most recent of which is X Version 11
`
`(X11), first released in 1987. There have been several revisions of X11 since
`
`then.”).
`
`60. Ex. 1007( Open Look Guide) describes the basic function of the X
`
`system’s graphical user interface:
`
`X is typically run on a workstation with a large screen. The X
`Window System also runs on PCs with 80386 CPUs and VGA
`graphics, on special X terminals, and on many larger systems. X
`allows you to work with multiple programs simultaneously, each in a
`separate window.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 17
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1007 (Open Look Guide) at 5.
`
`61. Ex. 1007 (Open Look Guide) discloses that X used a program called a
`
`window manager:
`
`The window manager controls the general operation of the window
`system, allowing you to change the size and position of windows on
`the display. You can reshuffle windows in a window stack, make
`windows larger or smaller, move them to other locations on the
`screen, etc. The window manager provides part of the uesr
`interface—to a large extent it controls the overall “look and feel” of
`the window system.
`
`Ex. 1007 (Open Look Guide) at 7.
`
`62. Ex. 1007 (Open Look Guide) describes running programs from
`
`remote machines over a network. Ex. 1007 (Open Look Guide) at 7 (“Another
`
`strength of X is that it allows you to run programs on machines connected by a
`
`network. You can run a process on a remote machine while displaying the results
`
`on your own screen. You might want to access a remote machine for any number
`
`of reasons, to use a program or access information not available on your local
`
`system; to distribute the work load, etc.”).
`
`63. Ex. 1007 (Open Look Guide) discloses that X relied on a client-server
`
`model :
`
`The architecture of the X Window System is based on what is known
`as a client-server model. The system is divided into two distinct parts:
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p. 18
`
`

`
`
`
`display servers that provide display capabilities and keep track of user
`input and clients, application programs that perform specific tasks.
`
`In a sense, the server acts as intermediary between client application
`programs, and the local display hardware (one or perhaps multiple
`screens) and input devices (generally a keyboard and pointer). When
`you enter input using the keyboard or a pointing device, the server
`conveys the input to the relevant client application. Likewise, the
`client programs make requests (for information, processes, etc.) that
`are communicated to the hardware display by the server. For example,
`a client may request that a win