Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`Filing Date: January 8, 2004
`Issue Date: June 24, 2008
`
`TITLE: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MODELLING A COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-00631
`
`1
`
`
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`001
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`Filing Date: January 8, 2004
`Issue Date: June 24, 2008
`
`TITLE: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MODELLING A COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF TAL LAVIAN, Ph.D.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-00631
`
`1
`
`
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`001
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`I, Tal Lavian, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I submit this Reply Declaration to respond to certain points made in
`
`the November 9, 2015 Declaration of Daniel Menascé (“Menascé Declaration”)
`
`submitted by the patent owner. For the convenience of the reader, this Reply
`
`Declaration will address the particular points raised by Dr. Menascé in the order in
`
`which they appear in the Menascé Declaration.
`
`I.
`
`RESPONSE TO MENASCÉ OPINIONS RE PERSON OF ORDINARY
`SKILL
`
`2.
`
`Paragraphs 38-40 of the Menascé Declaration adopt a definition of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art different from the one expressed in my opening
`
`declaration. (Menascé Decl. ¶ 40.) Dr. Menascé states, however, that his opinions
`
`would not change if he applied my definition. (Id.)
`
`3.
`
`I respectfully disagree with Dr. Menascé and adhere to my original
`
`formulation for the reasons stated in my opening declaration. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 18-21.)
`
`Nevertheless, I agree with Dr. Menascé that the differences between our competing
`
`formulations are not material for purposes of the invalidity analysis. My opinions,
`
`therefore, would not be different if I were to apply Dr. Menascé’s formulation of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`2
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`002
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`II. RESPONSE TO MENASCÉ OPINIONS RE MEANING OF
`“NETWORK EVENT”
`
`4.
`
`Dr. Menascé provides a number of opinions about “event-driven
`
`systems” in the context of software applications, and the meaning of the term
`
`“network event.” (Menascé Decl. ¶¶ 49-54, 99-105.) Dr. Menascé contends that
`
`“network event” should be construed as “an action or occurrence within the
`
`network that is detected or received by the system.” (Id. ¶ 99.) I respectfully
`
`disagree with Dr. Menascé on these issues.
`
`5.
`
`I am informed that in determining the legal meaning of “network
`
`event” to a person or ordinary skill in the art, the “intrinsic evidence” such as the
`
`specification of the ’300 patent is more relevant than “extrinsic evidence” such as
`
`dictionaries, textbooks and other external sources. Although Dr. Menascé agreed
`
`with this principle at his deposition (Menascé Depo. at 15:8-15), it does not appear
`
`that his analysis applied it. The analysis employed in the Menascé Declaration
`
`relies almost entirely on external sources, which Dr. Menascé elevates far above
`
`the patent’s own description of “network events.”
`
`6.
`
`For example, Dr. Menascé relies on dictionaries and textbooks
`
`describing event handling
`
`in unrelated contexts (such as user
`
`interface
`
`programming in the Apple Macintosh environment). (Menascé Decl. ¶¶ 49-54,
`
`100, 101.) As I will explain below, I do not believe a person of ordinary skill in
`
`3
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`003
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`the art would have found these materials informative in ascertaining the meaning
`
`of “network event” as it is used in the ’300 patent. A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood “network event,” as that term is used in the patent, as
`
`one or more operations that can be executed on or by a network or network device,
`
`as noted in my previous declaration. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 54.) A simpler yet equivalent
`
`formulation in scope would be “one or more operations executed in a network.”
`
`7.
`
`Dr. Menascé appears to equate an “event” to a signal, such as a
`
`hardware or software interrupt, that notifies a computer that something needs
`
`attention. (Menascé Decl. ¶¶ 49-53.) He further states that “[a] ‘network event’
`
`can trigger an operation, command, or program, but is not itself an operation,
`
`command, or program and is not executed or performed.” (Id. ¶ 111.)
`
`8.
`
`This is the critical point where the analysis adopted by Dr. Menascé
`
`goes awry. In the context of the patent, a “network event” is the operation to be
`
`executed or performed, not the preceding occurrence that may have triggered it.
`
`For example, the following passage in the specification describes a “network
`
`event” is something that is “executed:”
`
`Network events may be executed using the communications network
`representation. The network event may be selected from the group
`consisting of provisioning, circuit provisioning, service provisioning,
`switch provisioning, rollback, and delete.
`
`4
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`004
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`(’300, 2:51-55 (underlining added).) The passage above lists exemplary network
`
`events (e.g. provisioning, rollback, delete, etc.) that “may be executed using the
`
`communications network representation.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
`
`9.
`
`The patent makes clear that the word “executed” refers to using a
`
`computer processor to perform or carry out an operation or series of operations,
`
`such as a network event. (’300, 6:21-24 (“The processor 100 then executes the
`
`computer program instructions stored in the main memory 120 to implement the
`
`features of the network inventory adapter and the present invention.”), 6:55-56 (“In
`
`step 218 [of Figure 5], the system then executes the event as required.”).) In my
`
`opinion, the fact that the patent describes “network events” as being “executed” is
`
`a strong indication that the proposed construction suggested by Dr. Menascé is
`
`inaccurate.
`
`5
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`005
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`
`10.
`
`Indeed, Figure 5 (at right)
`
`shows a flowchart that relates to the
`
`method recited in claim 1. In step 210,
`
`the system determines whether an event
`
`needs to be processed. If so, the system
`
`identifies the needed objects in the object
`
`model (step 214), then determines the
`
`order of operations
`
`to process
`
`the
`
`network event (step 216). (’300, 6:49-
`
`55.) “EXECUTE EVENT” appears as
`
`the final step 218 in Figure 5. As the specification explains, “[i]n step 218, the
`
`system then executes the event as required.” (’300, 6:55-56 (emphasis added).)
`
`11. The fact that a “network event” in the ’300 patent refers to operations
`
`that are executed in the network is clear from other passages that expressly refer to
`
`each exemplary “network event” listed above (e.g. provisioning, rollback, delete)
`
`as an “operation,” “service function,” “implementation,” etc.:1
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The list of exemplary events identified in the specification is mirrored in claims
`
`5 and 19 of the ’300 patent. (’300, 10:5-8, claim 5 (“ . . . wherein the network
`
`6
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`006
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`
`• “The adapter may also refer to the XML document representation [i.e.
`the network representation] while performing operations on the
`objects in the network inventory, the operations including, but not
`limited to, provisioning, rollback, and delete.” (’300, 3:45-48.)
`• “The above XML document is an example of how any desired
`operation such as, for example, provisioning, assurance, usage,
`modify, delete, and rollback, may be performed.” (’300, 8:33-35.)
`• “In one embodiment, the model is generated in a network database.
`Furthermore, the model can be used for any service function such as,
`for example, provisioning, assurance, usage, modify, delete, and
`rollback.” (’300, 8:48-52.)
`• “An example of a rollback implementation is herein described. A
`rollback is the restoring of the status of the network inventory
`whenever a network operation or provision operation fails. The
`rollback implementation may be automated to execute when an
`operation fails.” (’300, 6:57-61.)
`
`Dr. Menascé even describes these exemplary network events as “operations” in his
`
`declaration.
`
` (Menascé Decl. ¶ 72 (“provisioning operation,” “rollback
`
`operation”).)
`
`
`
`event comprises at least one of provisioning, circuit provisioning, service
`
`provisioning, switch provisioning, rollback, and delete.”), claim 19 (same).)
`
`7
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`007
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`
`12. The specification provides a detailed description of one such network
`
`event – a “rollback” event –and provides exemplary XML code that describes how
`
`the event is processed and its operations carried out. (’300, 7:6-7 (“Exemplary
`
`XML code including specifications for the rollback activities is as follows: . . .”).)
`
`A rollback event may be executed “whenever a network operation or provision
`
`operation fails.” (’300, 6:59-60.) The information needed to perform the rollback
`
`operation is embedded in the XML file itself. (’300, 8:33-35 (“The above XML
`
`document is an example of how any desired operation such as, for example,
`
`provisioning, assurance, usage, modify, delete, and rollback, may be performed.”).)
`
`13. The specification makes clear that, in this example, the “network
`
`event” is the rollback operation, not the failure of a network or provisioning
`
`operation that may have triggered it. (’300, 7:64-65 (“When the adapter receives
`
`an event to rollback a line, the adapter gets a Service Instance ID (SIID) as input.”)
`
`(underlining added), 2:52-55 (“The network event may be selected from the group
`
`consisting of . . . rollback . . . .”).)
`
`14. Referring to this rollback operation, Dr. Menascé states that the patent
`
`“describes an example of a ‘network event’: the failure of a provisioning operation,
`
`which requires an automated rollback.” (Id. ¶ 102; see also id. ¶ 72) I respectfully
`
`disagree for the reasons stated above. The ’300 patent nowhere refers to “failure of
`
`a provisioning operation” as a “network event.” As explained in detail above, the
`
`8
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`008
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`specification makes clear that network events are “executed” by the system. (’300,
`
`e.g., 2:51-52, 6:55-56.) Dr. Menascé does not explain how “the failure of a
`
`provisioning operation” is something that is “executed.”
`
`15.
`
`In an attempt to support his proposed construction, the Menascé
`
`Declaration describes exemplary “events” in other computing contexts such as key
`
`presses, button clicks, mouse movements and various types of error conditions
`
`such as divide-by-zero errors or virtual memory page faults. (Menascé Decl., ¶¶
`
`51-53.) But as I explained above, one of ordinary skill in the art would not use the
`
`verb “execute” (as used in the ’300 patent) to describe what happens to a keypress,
`
`mouse click, or the other exemplary “events” identified by Dr. Menascé. A person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, in other words, would not say that “the software
`
`executes a mouse click,” or “the software executes a keypress.” These exemplary
`
`“events” represent signals or messages that are detected by the system, which may
`
`in turn result in the subsequent execution of additional code such as an interrupt or
`
`event handler. But the mouse clicks and keypresses themselves are not “executed”
`
`by a computer processor – but the “network events” in the ’300 patent are. The
`
`generic computing “events” provided in the Menascé Declaration, in other words,
`
`are simply not the same as the “network events” described in the patent.
`
`16. To support his construction of “network event,” the Menascé
`
`Declaration argues that the system of the ’300 patent is an “event-driven” system.
`
`9
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`009
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`(Menascé Decl. ¶ 102.) In the context of the Menascé Declaration and the external
`
`sources it cites, it appears that Dr. Menascé is using the term “event-driven” to
`
`describe a computer programming methodology in which a program receives a
`
`signal and processes it. (Id. ¶¶ 49, 54.)
`
`17. Having carefully reviewed the Menascé Declaration, I do not see how
`
`his discussion of “event-driven” systems has anything to do with the meaning of
`
`the term “network event” as used in the patent. None of the external sources he
`
`relies upon for his description of “event-driven” programs is cited or referenced
`
`anywhere in the ’300 patent. The patent does not contain the phrases “event-
`
`driven,” “event handler,” or “event detection” (or any variant of those terms),
`
`which Dr. Menascé identifies as the hallmarks of an event-driven system. (Id. ¶
`
`54.) As I explained above, the patent’s descriptions of network events and event
`
`processing make clear that the term is used to describe something different from
`
`the generic “events” cited in Dr. Menascé’s external sources.
`
`18. The ’300 patent instead contains only a few brief references to the
`
`ability to “receive” network events over a “middleware bus” or a “network
`
`adapter.” (’300, 2:57-58 (“The network event may be received from the
`
`middleware bus.”), 3:52-54 (“The network inventory adapter may also receive
`
`events from the middleware bus to provision a specific scenario in the network
`
`inventory.”).) But the fact that a network event can be “received” has nothing to
`
`10
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`010
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`do with what a “network event” actually is. As Dr. Menascé correctly
`
`acknowledged at his deposition, the network adapter and the middleware bus are
`
`software components. (’300, 3:12-14, 2:40-41; Menascé Depo. at 109:25-110:1.)
`
`19.
`
`In the exemplary rollback event described in the patent, the network
`
`event is embodied in an XML file (reproduced in the ’300 specification), which
`
`identifies
`
`the network objects and
`
`the operations
`
`to perform,
`
`including
`
`“DeleteCircuit” and “DeleteLink.” (’300, 3:37-41 (“The XML representation also
`
`allows the customer to . . . define the operations that are specified in the XML
`
`document.”), 6:61-64
`
`(“In an exemplary
`
`rollback execution,
`
`the XML
`
`representation may used to identify the various objects that need to be deleted
`
`and/or rolled-back.”), 7:6-7 (“Exemplary XML code including specifications for
`
`the rollback activities is as follows:”), 8:33-35 (“The above XML document is an
`
`example of how any desired operation such as, for example, provisioning,
`
`assurance, usage, modify, delete, and rollback, may be performed.”).) The XML
`
`file thus describes the operations needed to execute the rollback event.
`
`20.
`
`In other words, the “network event” received by the middleware bus
`
`and network adapters (both software) is carried in the XML file that describes the
`
`operations to be performed. That XML file contains no reference to any
`
`provisioning failure, any user action, or any other occurrence that may have
`
`triggered the execution of the rollback event. This further confirms that the
`
`11
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`011
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`“network event” as used in the patent is the operation to be performed as described
`
`in the XML file, not the previous occurrence that may have triggered it.
`
`III. RESPONSE TO MENASCÉ OPINIONS RE DISCLOSURE OF
`“NETWORK EVENT” IN THE HAMNER REFERENCE
`
`21. Turning to the Hamner reference, Dr. Menascé opines that it does not
`
`disclose “network events” because the “tasks” in Hamner are not actions or
`
`occurrences in the network that are received and detected by the system. (Menascé
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 106-115.) As I explain below, even if the Board chooses to adopt the
`
`definition proposed in the Menascé Declaration, or adheres to its existing
`
`definition, Hamner still discloses “network events” as claimed.
`
`A.
`
`“Network Events” Under Dr. Menascé’s Erroneous Construction
`
`22. At the outset, I note that Dr. Menascé does not appear to dispute that
`
`under the construction of “network event” that I provided in my opening
`
`declaration, Hamner discloses this limitation. He expresses no opinion that
`
`Hamner does not disclose “network events” if the term is understood as referring to
`
`an operation or series of operations executed in a network.
`
`23. Nevertheless, even if the Board adopted the construction proposed by
`
`Dr. Menascé, Hamner would still disclose processing of network events. This is
`
`because, as Dr. Menascé acknowledges, the tasks in Hamner are initiated in
`
`response to specific user action such double-clicking a task icon in the user
`
`12
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`012
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`interface. (Menascé Decl. ¶ 108 (quoting Hamner (Ex. 1005), 3:64-67, 4:33-39,
`
`11:25-29).) Dr. Menascé plainly acknowledges that, even under his view, this type
`
`of user action results in the receipt and detection of an “event” by the system. (Id.
`
`¶ 51 (“Examples of events include key presses, button clicks, and mouse
`
`movements.”).) I agree with Dr. Menascé that a mouse click would qualify as an
`
`“event” under his approach because it is an action or occurrence that is received or
`
`detected by the system. Accordingly, if the Board defined “network event” as an
`
`“action or occurrence” that is “received or detected,” Hamner would still disclose
`
`this limitation.
`
`B.
`
`The “Network Event” in Hamner Occurs Within the Network
`
`24. The only argument Dr. Menascé provides for why using a mouse to
`
`select a task in Hamner would not meet the “network event” limitation under his
`
`construction is the assertion that such an action “did not occur in the network.”
`
`(Id. ¶ 109.) Dr. Menascé provides no explanation for this statement, and I
`
`respectfully disagree.
`
`25. Hamner discloses a networked computing environment in which each
`
`computer
`
`is coupled via a
`
`network to other computers. This
`
`is illustrated in Figure 1, which
`
`13
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`013
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`shows network 10 having personal computers 20 and management server 12.
`
`(Hamner, 3:25-33.) “At least some of the services, including control software for
`
`coordinating the various services, are implemented within the management server
`
`12.” (Hamner, 3:33-35; see also id., 2:56-58 (“The present invention includes
`
`steps for providing a number of core services for managing a computer network,
`
`such as a local area network (LAN).”).) Figure 2A discloses a “Management
`
`Console” that allows a task to be selected by the user for execution. (Hamner, Fig.
`
`2A, 11:25-27.) These tasks can include functions such as viewing the screen of a
`
`particular PC, rebooting selected workstations, among others. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 96
`
`(quoting from Hamner, 3:51-56).)
`
`26. Because of the networked nature of the communications system in
`
`Hamner, the user action of selecting a task for execution on a network device
`
`clearly occurs “within the network.” The user action could occur on the
`
`management server 12 or on one of the personal computers 20 connected to it. In
`
`either case, the “action or occurrence” occurs “within the network” because it
`
`originates from, and specifies operations to be performed on, a computer or
`
`computers that are part of the network.
`
`27. At his deposition, Dr. Menascé stated that in his view, a network
`
`event cannot occur “within the network” for purposes of his construction unless the
`
`event is generated by a computer other than the “modeling system” that is
`
`14
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`014
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`performing the steps of the challenged claims. (Menascé Depo. at 110:4-.112:9.) I
`
`see no such requirement in his proposed construction, or in the specification and
`
`claims. The claims place no restrictions on where a “network event” must
`
`originate. The claims do not even receive the generation or receipt of such
`
`events – only steps associated with processing them.
`
`C.
`
`“Network Events” Need Not be “Unpredictable”
`
`28. Dr. Menascé next claims that the tasks in Hamner “are not ‘network
`
`events’ because they are not unpredictable, as are network events (that is, a task is
`
`not an ‘action or occurrence’ as is a network event).” (Menascé Decl. ¶ 110.) But
`
`even under the construction proposed by Dr. Menascé, a “network event” need not
`
`be “unpredictable.” Nothing in his construction requires unpredictability. Dr.
`
`Menascé agreed at his deposition. (Menascé Depo. at 68:25-69:8.) Dr. Menascé
`
`also agreed at his deposition that prior to the ’300 patent, there were computer
`
`systems that generated events (such as timing events) at regular time intervals. (Id.
`
`at 27:16-20, 29:23-30:5.)
`
`29. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that an “event” (in the context used by Dr. Menascé) could occur at regular
`
`intervals and thus be “predictable.” For example, one common computing “event”
`
`(using the definition provided by Dr. Menascé) is a timer interrupt. Computers for
`
`decades have included timing circuits that generate timing interrupts at precise and
`
`15
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`015
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`predictable intervals, which can be handled by interrupt handler software. For
`
`example, the IBM PC generates a consistent timer interrupt every 55 ms (or
`
`approximately 18.2
`
`times per second).
`
` (See Norman S. Matloff, IBM
`
`Microcomputer Architecture and Assembly Language (1992), at 336.) These
`
`precise and predictable timing “events” are critical for proper functioning of the
`
`hardware and software in almost all computers in use today. These timing events,
`
`in fact, are critical for multitasking and other processes that require that computer
`
`programs take a turn executing for a period of time (e.g. 50 ms). (Id. at 340-41.)
`
`Accordingly, there is no basis to assert that an “event,” let alone a “network event,”
`
`requires unpredictability.
`
`30. And even if the definition provided by Dr. Menascé was adopted, and
`
`that definition was further interpreted to require unpredictability, Hamner would
`
`still disclose the claimed “network events.” This is because the user interface in
`
`Hamner has no way of predicting when the user will decide to launch the
`
`application that brings up the Management Console (Figure 2A), or when the user
`
`will decide to click on a task in the user interface. The “network event” in this
`
`scenario is thus unpredictable, thus satisfying even Dr. Menascé’s proposed (and
`
`erroneous) requirement.
`
`16
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`016
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO MENASCÉ OPINIONS RE DISCLOSURE OF
`“PROCESSING THE NETWORK EVENT” IN MATHENY AND
`HAMNER
`
`31. Dr. Menascé next argues that that the combination of Matheny and
`
`Hamner does not disclose the step of “processing a network event using the
`
`network model, wherein the processing includes identifying one or more network
`
`objects of the plurality of network objects, and the processing further includes
`
`determining an order of operation on the one or more network objects.” (Menascé
`
`Decl. ¶ 116, 124-131.) But most of the arguments presented in his declaration
`
`depend on an erroneous construction of “network event” as explained above. The
`
`Menascé Declaration does not attempt to analyze the disclosures of Matheny or
`
`Hamner under my proposal.
`
`A. Hamner Discloses “Identifying One or More Network Objects”
`
`32. Dr. Menascé does not appear to dispute that Hamner discloses
`
`processing tasks “using the network representation” as claimed. (Menascé Decl. ¶¶
`
`124, 125 (discussing this clause only as to the Matheny reference).) Dr. Menascé
`
`instead focuses on the next processing substep, “identifying one or more network
`
`objects of the plurality of objects.” (Id. ¶¶ 126-131.) But his arguments approach
`
`this limitation with the erroneous assumption that “processing the network event”
`
`can occur in Hamner only when the system actually executes a selected task. (Id.
`
`17
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`017
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`¶¶ 129-131.) This assumption in turn flows from his erroneous construction of
`
`“network event.”
`
`33. The term “processing” as recited in claim 1 encompasses a broad
`
`range of activities that can occur before execution of a network event. Claim 1
`
`itself states that the processing step includes “identifying one or more network
`
`objects,” and “determining an order of operation on the one or more network
`
`objects.” (’300, 10:54-57.) The specification makes clear that these two steps
`
`(shown as steps 214 and 216 in Figure 5) occur before the network event is
`
`actually executed (step 218). (’300, 6:52-56; Fig. 5.)
`
`34. Hamner discloses a similar sequence of events. As I explained in my
`
`previous declaration, the processing of network events (e.g. tasks) occurs in
`
`Hamner when the system uses the network model to identify the network devices
`
`and the tasks that can be performed on them – which happens before the selection
`
`of a particular task to execute. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 95, 97.) In particular, Hamner
`
`discloses a group view generator 341 that uses the network model to identify
`
`device groups and the devices within them. (Id. ¶ 97 (citing Hamner, 9:61-67).)
`
`The task manager 305 in Hamner also uses the network model to determine which
`
`tasks can be performed on the devices. (Id. ¶ 95 (citing Hamner, 11:8-11, 11:18-
`
`21.) As I explained in my previous declaration, “[b]ecause the ‘network model’ is
`
`18
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`018
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`used to determine and store the available tasks, Hamner discloses using the
`
`‘network model’ to process network events.” (Id. ¶ 95.)
`
`35.
`
`Indeed, “tasks are linked to devices and groups of devices. The task
`
`manager 305 examines these links to determine the available tasks for particular
`
`devices and groups.” (Hamner, 11:17-20.) This shows that Hamner is both
`
`“processing network events using the network representation,” and “identifying
`
`one or more network objects of the plurality of objects,” both steps being
`
`performed in Hamner before the user selects a particular task to execute.
`
`36. But even if “network event” is construed as urged by Menascé, and
`
`limited to the user act of selecting a task to execute in Hamner, it would not change
`
`my opinion. As I explained in my opening declaration, Hamner discloses that
`
`tasks can include functions that are performed on a specifically-identified device,
`
`such as “viewing the screen of a particular PC,” “rebooting selected workstations,”
`
`among others. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 96 (quoting from Hamner, 3:51-56).) These tasks
`
`could not execute correctly if the objects for which they are to be executed are not
`
`identified by the system. Indeed, the process of initiating a task in Hamner
`
`involves the user selecting both the task and the device upon which the task will
`
`operate:
`
`The user can cause any displayed task to be performed upon a device.
`A task is initiated by the user’s selecting the bitmaps of the desired
`
`19
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`019
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`
`task and the device or group upon which the task is to be performed,
`and then entering a predetermined user input, such as selecting an
`option from a pull-down menu, or double-clicking with the cursor
`control device on one of the tasks.
`
`(Hamner, 4:33-39.) Dr. Menascé agrees that user action can constitute an “event”
`
`under his own formulation. (Menascé Decl. ¶¶ 49, 51.)
`
`37. And even after a task and device (or device group) is selected, the
`
`system in Hamner again performs the processing and identifying step. As Dr.
`
`Menascé explained at his deposition, the system in Hamner passes the identity of
`
`the selected device or device group into the task as a “parameter.” (Menascé
`
`Depo., at 96:25-99:3; see also Hamner, 11:3-7 (“A task consists essentially of an
`
`atomic script and any associated parameters. A parameter associated with a task
`
`may be a device upon which a task will be performed.”), 8:67-9:2 (“If a device has
`
`a task, then that task is performable taking the device as a parameter.”), 11:11-17
`
`(further disclosures of using “parameters” to identify the device on which a task
`
`will operate).) The term “parameter” in computer science refers to an item of
`
`information that is an input to (or “passed into”) another program or process. In
`
`this case, the task receives an identification of the device “upon which a task will
`
`be performed.” (Hamner, 8:67-9:2; Menascé Depo. at 98:2-8.)
`
`38. Accordingly, the steps of “processing network events using the
`
`network model” and “identifying one or more network objects of the plurality of
`
`20
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`020
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`network objects” take place at least three times in the task execution process in
`
`Hamner. First, they occur before user selects a task when the view generator and
`
`task manager construct the display in Figure 2A listing the tasks and the applicable
`
`devices, as described in my previous declaration and above. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 95, 97.)
`
`Second, these steps take place in Hamner when the user selects the task using the
`
`user interface, which meets both limitations because it uses the network model to
`
`identify the task and the device to which the task applies. Finally, after the user
`
`selects the task and device, the step of processing and identifying one or more
`
`network objects occurs when the system passes the identification of the network
`
`device as a parameter to the task. Each of these examples is sufficient to disclose
`
`the processing of network events using the network model, and identifying one or
`
`more network objects in the model, as required by the claim.
`
`39. Dr. Menascé claims that “[b]ecause the device is already known when
`
`the task is selected, there is no need to identify any devices (the ‘network objects’)
`
`as part of processing the task after the task has been selected.” (Menascé Decl. ¶
`
`129.) I respectfully disagree. This argument erroneously equates “identifying”
`
`with “discovering for the first time.” But the claim requires only the step of
`
`“identifying,” and that step does not require that the identification represent the
`
`first time the network object is encountered. Subsequent acts of identification in
`
`the software, including user identification of the device, and the identification of
`
`21
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1011
`IPR2015-00631
`
`021
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`the device in a parameter passed into the task, qualify as further acts of
`
`“identifying” that each independently satisfies these claim limitations.
`
`B. Hamner Discloses “Determining an Order of Operation”
`
`40. Dr. Menascé next asserts that Hamner does not disclose the step of
`
`“determining an order of operation on the one or more network objects.”
`
`(Menascé Decl. ¶¶ 132-134.) But Dr. Menascé does not dispute that the tasks in
`
`Hamner comprise scripts, which include a sequence of instructions for performing
`
`operations on a network device. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 102-104, 106.) The process of
`
`identifying and then executing a script clearly involves determining an order of
`
`operation – in fact, determining that order is fundamental to the execution of any
`
`computer program. (Id. ¶ 106.)
`
`41. Dr. Me
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
