`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`SERVICENOW, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
`
`Patent Owner
`____________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`Patent 7,392,300
`____________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`Description of the Invention ............................................................................ 2 
`
`III.  Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The claim term “network representation” should be construed to
`mean “computer data that represents objects in a network and
`the relationships between them.” .......................................................... 5 
`
`The claim term “network model” should be construed to mean
`“computer-based representation of a network comprising the
`objects in the network and the relationships between them.” ............... 8 
`
`The claim term “network event” should be construed to mean
`“an action or occurrence within the network that is detected or
`received by the system.” ...................................................................... 10 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The intrinsic and extrinsic evidence supports HP’s
`construction. .............................................................................. 10 
`
`Petitioner’s unsupported construction departs from the
`plain meaning and the specification. ......................................... 14 
`
`IV.  The Petition should be denied because the cited references fail to
`disclose or suggest every claim limitation. .................................................... 18 
`
`A.  Neither Matheny alone nor Matheny combined with XML in a
`Nutshell discloses or suggests “generating a network model
`using the parsed network representation, the network model
`including a plurality of network objects and relationships
`between the plurality of network objects.” ......................................... 19 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Overview of Matheny ............................................................... 20 
`
`The “discovery document” of Matheny is not a “network
`model” as properly construed. .................................................. 21 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`B. 
`
`Neither Matheny nor Hamner discloses or suggests “processing
`a network event using the network model.” ........................................ 23 
`
`1.  Matheny does not disclose or suggest “processing a
`network event using the network model.” ................................ 24 
`
`2. 
`
`Hamner does not disclose or suggest “processing a
`network event” under the proper construction of
`“network event.” ....................................................................... 26 
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 30 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................... 4
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .. 14
`
`BOARD DECISIONS
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Case IPR2012-00026, Paper No. 17 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Dec. 21, 2012) .......................................................................................................... 18
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 18
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`Petitioner seeks to invalidate claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,392,300 (“the ’300 patent”) assigned to Patent Owner Hewlett-Packard
`
`Company (“HP”). Petitioner asserts two grounds in the Petition, both of which
`
`rely on a combination of four prior art references, with three of the four references
`
`being used in both grounds. Both grounds suffer from the same fatal flaws.
`
`Most importantly, the Petition relies on unreasonably broad claim
`
`constructions for three key terms—“network representation,” “network model,”
`
`and “network event”—that are at the heart of the invention. Petitioner’s proposed
`
`constructions are wholly divorced from the patent specification, and if accepted,
`
`would render the terms essentially meaningless. These three terms are key to
`
`understanding the patent and its teachings of the creation of a system that allows a
`
`computer network administrator to monitor and troubleshoot issues within a
`
`network.
`
`Petitioner proposes its overly broad constructions because the cited prior art
`
`references (four in each asserted combination) fail to disclose the construed terms
`
`under their proper, plain meaning constructions. Once the terms are properly
`
`construed, it is readily apparent that the cited references fail to disclose the claimed
`
`invention of the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`As explained below, the Petition and its accompanying expert declaration
`
`span many pages, but at bottom, they rely on references that are fundamentally
`
`different from the ’300 patent. These deficiencies defeat both of Petitioner’s
`
`proposed grounds, such that there is no reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail on at least one claim, and therefore the Board should not institute review.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`
`II. Description of the Invention
`
`The ’300 patent addresses the costly and difficult problem of maintaining
`
`and troubleshooting communications networks. ’300 patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:28-36.
`
`The patent teaches and claims a novel method and system—referred to throughout
`
`the specification as a “network inventory adapter” (see, e.g., id. at Abstract, 3:9-18,
`
`6:21-24) —for creating a flexible and easily-configurable model of a network that
`
`can be used for a variety of additional purposes, including managing performance
`
`and processing network events. Id. at 3:1-18. Any kind of network can be
`
`modeled using the invention, such as “a local area network, wide area network,
`
`virtual private network, or any other suitable network work configuration.” Id. at
`
`2:37-40.
`
`These objectives are accomplished by first generating a network
`
`representation using a structured language such as XML. The network
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`representation contains the network inventory—i.e., devices on the network such
`
`as servers, printers, computers, and routers—and the relationships between them.
`
`Id. at 3:67-4:10 (listing example devices), 6:42-44 (“The network representation
`
`may include a representation of objects in the network and their relationships.”).
`
`One method of generating the network representation involves querying the
`
`network to discover and collect information about the devices and their
`
`connections. Id. at 4:10-13.
`
`The XML network representation can then be parsed and used to create a
`
`computer model of the network. Id. at Abstract, independent claims 1, 10, 21.
`
`Because XML is standardized and flexible, using an XML representation can result
`
`in the reduction in the customization time, reduction in the development cost for
`
`the user, and improvement in the performance of the network, while at the same
`
`time allowing the system to become more widely usable. Id. at 3:55-62.
`
`Once the network model has been generated, it can be used to process events
`
`that occur in the network. When the system detects or receives a network event,
`
`the network objects affected by the network event are located in the network
`
`model, and the system then determines the order in which any operations on the
`
`objects that the network event triggered must be performed. Id. at 5:5-13, 6:49-56.
`
`For example, if the system receives a message (a network event) indicating that a
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`new device has been added to the network (i.e., the device has been provisioned),
`
`the network model is used to identify the objects and connections that need to be
`
`updated. Id. at 8:52-55. If, however, another network event indicates that a
`
`provisioning operation failed, the network model is then used to perform a
`
`“rollback”—i.e., restoring the network inventory to its pre-provisioning status by
`
`identifying the devices that need to be deleted by locating the objects that represent
`
`the devices in the network model. See id. at 6:57-7:5.
`
`III. Claim Construction
`
`In inter partes 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. § 42.100(b). There is a “heavy presumption” that a claim term should be
`
`given its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`
`288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`Petitioner asks the Board to construe three terms—“network representation,”
`
`“network model,” and “network event”—and proposes overly broad constructions
`
`for each that are wholly divorced from the ordinary and customary meaning of the
`
`terms and are not supported by the ‘300 patent specification. These terms should
`
`be given their ordinary and customary meaning, as HP proposes, and Petitioner’s
`
`constructions should be rejected.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`A. The claim term “network representation” should be construed to
`mean “computer data that represents objects in a network and
`the relationships between them.”
`
`In the context of the ’300 patent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“network representation” (used in each of challenged independent claims 1, 10,
`
`and 21) in light of the specification is “computer data that represents objects in a
`
`network and the relationships between them,” which is the plain meaning of the
`
`term. Petitioner’s construction—“information about at least one object in the
`
`network or its relationship to the network” (emphasis added)—cannot be correct
`
`because such a construction covers any information about only a single object or a
`
`single relationship, which is insufficient to form a representation of a network.
`
`The “network representation” described in the ‘300 patent specification
`
`includes at least two objects and the relationships between them. See, e.g., ’300
`
`patent (Ex. 1001) at 6:42-44 (“The network representation may include a
`
`representation of objects in the network and their relationships.”) (emphasis
`
`added); 3:66-4:10 (“[T]he network inventory is a collection of the different objects
`
`in the network and their interrelationships. These objects represent the various
`
`physical or logical entities that exist in the network. For example, these objects
`
`may represent entities including, but not limited to, computers, terminals, servers,
`
`storage devices, database, routers, switches, printers, communications lines,
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`circuits, and other telecommunications media and devices. The network inventory
`
`may also depict the way the various relationships are created among the objects on
`
`the network. A representation of the network inventory may be created using
`
`extensible markup language (XML).”) (emphasis added). In short, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art reading the ‘300 patent specification would know that both
`
`the objects and the relationships between them are essential elements of a network,
`
`and both must be included in the “network representation.”
`
`The plain meaning of the term “network” also requires at least two objects
`
`and a connection (or relationship) between the two objects. Webster’s New World
`
`Computer Dictionary 251 (10th Ed. 2003) (Ex. 2001) (network: “communications,
`
`data exchange, and resource-sharing system created by linking two or more
`
`computers and establishing standards, or protocols, so that they work together”);
`
`IBM Dictionary of Computing 454 (Tenth Ed. 1993) (Ex. 2002) (network: “An
`
`arrangement of nodes and connecting branches”; “A group of nodes and the links
`
`interconnecting them.”).
`
`In contrast, under Petitioner’s construction of “network representation,”
`
`information about a single object or a single relationship will satisfy this limitation.
`
`This construction is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the term, as
`
`discussed above, and with the claims themselves. Independent claims 1, 10, and
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`21 each require generation of a “network representation” by a computer system,
`
`and then require generation of a “network model” using the “network
`
`representation.” The “network model” is defined in the claims to include “a
`
`plurality of network objects and relationships between the plurality of network
`
`objects.” ’300 patent (Ex. 1001) at claims 1 (“the network model including a
`
`plurality of network objects and relationships between the plurality of network
`
`objects”), 10, 21 (emphasis added); see also id. at Abstract and 1:44-47. The
`
`“network representation” therefore must contain sufficient information to generate
`
`a network model that has at least two network objects and the relationships
`
`between them. Even Petitioner appears to recognize this: its own construction of
`
`“network model” is “information about objects in the network and the
`
`relationships between them.” Petition at 15 (emphasis added).
`
`The paragraph of the specification that Petitioner cites to support its
`
`construction does not support its overly-broad construction. See Petition at 14
`
`(citing ‘300 patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:42-48). As Petitioner admits, this paragraph
`
`merely lists examples of the types of objects that can be included in the network
`
`representation. Petition at 14. Moreover, this paragraph makes clear that these
`
`objects can be “in any suitable combination,” as would be required in a network.
`
`See ’300 patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:42-48 (emphasis added). Nothing in these
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`examples suggests that only a single object can form a network or justifies
`
`departing from the plain meaning of the term and its meaning in the specification.
`
`B.
`
`The claim term “network model” should be construed to mean
`“computer-based representation of a network comprising the
`objects in the network and the relationships between them.”
`
`The broadest reasonable construction of “network model” (used in each of
`
`challenged independent claims 1, 10, and 21) is “computer-based representation of
`
`a network comprising the objects in the network and the relationships between
`
`them.” This construction is dictated by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence,
`
`including the plain meaning of the term. Petitioner’s construction—“information
`
`about objects in the network and the relationships between them”—fails to give
`
`effect to the word “model.” The ’300 patent specification makes clear that a
`
`“network model” is a representation of objects in a network and the relationships
`
`between them: “[n]etwork models provide a representation of the various objects
`
`that are modeled in the network inventory and also the relationships that exist
`
`between these objects.” ’300 patent (Ex. 1001) at 3:20-26; see also id. at 4:13-15
`
`(“A network model may be a logical model or a representation of objects in the
`
`network inventory.”). The specification also makes clear that a “network model”
`
`is a computer-based representation. For instance, the specification states, “The
`
`network model may be created and/or stored in memory in any suitable format
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`including, but not limited to, text, markup languages, programing languages . . .
`
`and any other computer-readable format.” Id. at 4:15-19. Thus, in the ‘300 patent,
`
`a “network model” is a computer-based representation of a network comprising the
`
`objects in the network and the relationships between them.
`
`The plain meaning of the term “model” is consistent with this construction
`
`of the term “network model.” The term “model” means a representation of a real
`
`world system. See IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms
`
`594 (Fourth Ed. 1988) (Ex. 2003) (model: “A representation of a real world
`
`process, device, or concept.”). A “network model,” therefore, must be a
`
`representation of the components of a network: two or more objects and the
`
`relationships between them.
`
`Petitioner attempts to broaden its construction of this term by reading out the
`
`term “model.” According to Petitioner’s construction, any “information” is
`
`sufficient to create a “network model,” as long as the information is “about”
`
`objects in the network and the relationships between them. But a collection of any
`
`information about objects and relationships does not form a “model.” Rather, a
`
`“network model” is a computer-based representation of a physical or logical
`
`network, and can only be generated using information that represents the relevant
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`attributes of the network components, such that the collection of information will
`
`be identifiable as a network.
`
`C. The claim term “network event” should be construed to mean “an
`action or occurrence within the network that is detected or
`received by the system.”
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “network event” (used in
`
`each of independent claims 1, 10, and 21) is “an action or occurrence within the
`
`network that is detected or received by the system.” This plain-meaning
`
`construction is supported by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. In contrast,
`
`Petitioner’s construction—“one or more operations that can be performed on or by
`
`a network or network object”—is so broad that it encompasses other, different
`
`terms in the claims of the ’300 patent.
`
`1. The intrinsic and extrinsic evidence supports HP’s
`construction.
`
`As is well understood in computer science, an “event” signals an action or
`
`an occurrence that is detected or received by a system or process. See, e.g.,
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary 198 (Fifth Ed. 2002) (Ex. 2004) (event: “An
`
`action or occurrence, often generated by the user, to which a program might
`
`respond - for example, key presses, button clicks, or mouse movements. See also
`
`event-driven programming.”); Random House Webster’s Computer and Internet
`
`Dictionary 199 (Third Ed. 1999) (Ex. 2005) (event: “An action or occurrence
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`detected by a program. Events can be user actions, such as clicking a mouse
`
`button or pressing a key, or system occurrences, such as running out of memory.
`
`Most modern applications, particularly those that run in Macintosh and Windows
`
`environments, are said to be event-driven, because they are designed to respond to
`
`events.”); IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms 345
`
`(Fourth Ed. 1988) (Ex. 2003) (“event (1) (supervisory control, data acquisition, and
`
`automatic control) (station control and data acquisition). A discrete change of state
`
`(status) of a system or device.”); McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and
`
`Technical Terms 753 (Sixth Ed. 2002) (Ex. 2006) (event: “The moment of time at
`
`which a specified change of state occurs; usually marks the completion of an
`
`asynchronous input/output operation.”). Events can be communicated via
`
`messages, and often will trigger the execution of a program or process. See
`
`Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary 133 (10th Ed. 2003) (Ex. 2001)
`
`(event: “In an event-driven environment, an action, such as moving the mouse or
`
`clicking a mouse button, that generates a message.”). For example, a network
`
`event can be a message sent from a network indicating that a device has been
`
`disconnected, and the reception of this event may require the updating of the status
`
`of the device in a central database.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`The ’300 patent specification describes a “network event” in this same way.
`
`First, the specification explains that a “network event” is received from the
`
`network, such as via the optional middleware bus that interfaces with the
`
`applications on the network. See ’300 patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:55-58 (“[A]ny other
`
`network events or received data may be processed using the present invention.
`
`The network event may be received from the middleware bus.”), 3:52-54 (“The
`
`network inventory adapter [system of the invention] may also receive events from
`
`the middleware bus to provision a specific scenario in the network inventory.”).
`
`Second, the specification explains that after the network event has been
`
`received, the system determines the order of operations to process the network
`
`event or triggers the execution of various operations. See, e.g., id. at 5:9-11 (“The
`
`adapters 34 [system of the invention] may support specific operations and allow
`
`for various operations to be triggered by certain events and commands.”)
`
`(emphasis added). Before those operations are executed, however, the system first
`
`identifies the network objects in the model to be operated on and the order of
`
`operations to be performed. Id. at 3:15-18 (“Upon receiving events from the
`
`network, the adapter [system of the invention] reads and parses the network
`
`representation to determine which network objects are to be operated on and the
`
`order of operation.”), 6:46-55 (“[T]hen the system determines whether an event is
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`to be processed, step 210. . . . If yes, then the system identifies the needed objects
`
`in the network model, step 214. In step 216, the system determines the order of
`
`operations needed to process the network event.”), 7:64-67 (“When the adapter
`
`receives an event to rollback a line, the adapter gets a Service Instance ID (SIID)
`
`as input. For this particular SIID, the associated circuits are retrieved and the
`
`correct circuit is chosen.”) (emphasis added); claims 1, 10, 11, 18, 21 (“processing
`
`a network event” includes determining an order of operation). Thus, the
`
`specification makes clear that a “network event” is an action or occurrence within a
`
`network that is detected or received by the system.
`
`The file history of the ’300 patent also supports HP’s plain meaning
`
`construction. In arguing that the Feldman reference cited by the Examiner did not
`
`disclose processing a “network event,” the applicant described a “network event”
`
`in the same way as it is described in the specification: as something that is
`
`received by the system, and then processed using the network model. See ’300
`
`Patent File History, Nov. 7, 2007 Response to Office Action at 9 (Ex. 2007)
`
`(“Feldman makes no mention of receiving and processing events, much less
`
`processing such events using a network model, or any other type of model.”)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`
`specification to describe the plain meaning of the well-known terms “network” and
`
`“event,” and would understand the combined term to meaning “an action or
`
`occurrence within a network that is detected or received by the system.”
`
`2. Petitioner’s unsupported construction departs from the plain
`meaning and the specification.
`
`Petitioner’s construction of “network event” is “one or more operations that
`
`can be performed on or by a network or network object.” But Petitioner has
`
`identified no evidence that supports its construction, and indeed, the evidence cited
`
`by Petitioner supports HP’s construction, not Petitioner’s construction.
`
`First, the plain meaning of a “network event” is not an “operation,” as
`
`Petitioner’s construction suggests. An “operation” is an action carried out by a
`
`computer while executing a program. See, e.g., Microsoft Computer Dictionary
`
`378 (Fifth Ed. 2002) (Ex. 2004) (operation: “A specific action carried out by a
`
`computer in the process of executing a program.”); McGraw-Hill Dictionary of
`
`Scientific and Technical Terms 1479 (Sixth Ed. 2002) (Ex. 2006) (Operation:
`
`“The sequence of actions resulting from the execution of one digital computer
`
`instruction.”). A “network event,” on the other hand, is an action or occurrence
`
`within a network that is detected or received by the system.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`Second, the ‘300 patent claims themselves make clear that an “operation” is
`
`not a “network event.” The independent claims of the ’300 patent require
`
`“processing a network event using the network model,” where this processing of
`
`the network event includes two steps: “identifying one or more network object of
`
`the plurality of network objects,” and “determining an order of operation on the
`
`one or more network objects.” ’300 patent (Ex. 1001) at independent claims 1, 10,
`
`and 21 (emphasis added). The inclusion of both “operation” and “network event”
`
`in the same claim presumptively means that these terms have different meanings,
`
`and Petitioner has presented no evidence to rebut this presumption. Helmsderfer v.
`
`Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our
`
`precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different
`
`meanings.”). The structure of the claims demonstrates this principle—the step of
`
`“determining an order of operation on the one or more network objects” is
`
`executed as part of “processing” a known “network event,” and thus makes clear
`
`that an “operation” cannot be a “network event.” See ’300 patent (Ex. 1001) at
`
`independent claims 1, 10, and 21. The specification is consistent with the claims:
`
`as discussed above, a “network event” can “trigger” an “operation.” Id. at 5:9-11
`
`(emphasis added); see also id. at 3:15-18, 6:46-56. But nothing in the claims or
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`specification suggests that the term “network event” and “operation” are used
`
`interchangeably. Indeed, the two terms are used very differently in the claims.
`
`Third, Petitioner’s construction of “network event” incorporates the phrase
`
`“performed on or by a network,” which is found nowhere in the ’300 patent. The
`
`claims and specification indicate that an operation can be performed on a network
`
`object, but say nothing about an operation performed “on or by a network.” There
`
`is simply no support for this feature of Petitioner’s broad construction.
`
`Finally, the passages from the ’300 patent specification quoted by Petitioner
`
`support HP’s construction, not Petitioner’s. See Petition at 16-17. Petitioner first
`
`quotes some examples of network events from the specification:
`
`The network event may be selected from the group consisting of
`
`provisioning, circuit provisioning, service provisioning, switch
`
`provisioning, rollback, and delete. However, any other desired
`
`network events or received data may be processed using the present
`
`invention.
`
`‘300 patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:52-57. Petitioner cites “provisioning” from this
`
`passage as an example of a “network event” and contends that this example
`
`supports its construction. Petition at 16. It does not—nothing in this passage
`
`indicates that a “network event” is an operation. Instead, this passage states that
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`“network events . . . may be processed using the present invention,” which is
`
`consistent with HP’s position that a network event is an action or occurrence that is
`
`received by the system for processing. As discussed above, in the ’300 patent
`
`claims and specification, changes to the network, such as a newly-provisioned
`
`device (e.g., a printer that was just connected), are “network events” that are
`
`detected or received by the modeling system (the network inventory adapter in the
`
`specification). Once detected or received, the “network event” triggers operations,
`
`as the specification describes. See, e.g., ’300 patent (Ex. 1001) at 5:9-11 (“The
`
`adapters 34 [system of the invention] may support specific operations and allow
`
`for various operations to be triggered by certain events and commands.”)
`
`(emphasis added). This description is reflected in the claims, which requires
`
`“processing” an identified “network event” by using the network model to identify
`
`the affected objects, and then by determining the order of operation on the
`
`identified objects. Id. at claims 1, 10, 21; see also id. at 7:64-67 (“When the
`
`adapter receives an event to rollback a line, … the associated circuits are retrieved
`
`and the correct circuit is chosen.”) (emphasis added), 8:55-57 (“One example of
`
`assurance is to use the network model to indicate the location of a fault and
`
`monitor the network environment.”). In short, the examples of “network events” in
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`the specification are consistent with the requirements of the claim and HP’s plain
`
`meaning construction of the term “network event.”
`
`Further, Petitioner provides no explanation whatsoever about why the
`
`second quote from the specification (i.e., from col. 6:55-57) supports its
`
`construction. Petition at 16-17. It does not. This passage merely describes the
`
`sequence of steps necessary to process the network event, using language nearly
`
`identical to the claims. For example, the quoted section states, in part, “the system
`
`determines the order of operations needed to process the network event.” ‘300
`
`patent (Ex. 1001) at 6:53-55. This statement demonstrates that the network events
`
`trigger operations and are not the same as operations.
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “network event” is
`
`“an action or occurrence within a network that is detected or received by the
`
`system.”
`
`IV. The Petition should be denied because the cited references fail to
`disclose or suggest every claim limitation.
`
`To establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds,
`
`all limitations of the challenged claims must be taught or suggested by the prior art.
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Case IPR2012-00026, Paper No. 17 at 19
`
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2012). The Petition “must specify where each element of the
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`
`
`claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`The Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing because
`
`the disclosures relied upon by Petitioner do not teach or suggest all the limitations
`
`of the challenged claims. Specifically, the cited references do not disclose or
`
`suggest: (1) “generating/generate a network model using the parsed network
`
`representation” under the proper construction of “network model,” and (2)
`
`“processing a network event” under the proper construction of “network event.”
`
`These elements are required by all challenged claims of the ’300 patent. See ‘300
`
`patent (Ex. 1001) at independent claims 1, 10, 21. For these reasons, the Petition
`
`should be denied.
`
`A. Neither Matheny