Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`U.S. 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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL MENASCE, Ph.D. REGARDING
`CLAIMS 1, 7, 8, 10, 21, AND 22 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,392,300
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`SerViceNow V. HP
`
`IPR20 1 5 -0063 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR20 1 5-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... .. 1
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED .................................................................... .. 12
`
`III.
`
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW .......................................................... ..12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness ...................................................................................... .. 13
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................... .. 14
`
`IV.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... ..15
`
`.<
`
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS ......................................................................... .. 16
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY ................................... ..17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Networks ........................................................................................... ..17
`
`Computer models ..................
`
`.......................................................
`
`19
`
`C.
`Event-driven systems ........................................................................ ..19
`THE INVENTION OF THE ’30O PATENT .............
`.................................23
`
`VII.
`
`VIII.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE CITED PRIOR ART REFERENCES .................... ..39
`
`A. Matheny ............................................................................................ ..39
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Xl\/H. in A Nutshell (Harold) ............................................................ ..4l
`
`Hamner .............................................................................................. ..41
`
`Pitt ..................................................................................................... ..44
`
`CHAL-LEN ’3-‘JG
`
`CLAIMS ARE. NON=
`
`OBVIOUS BECAUSE CLAIM LIMITATIONS ARE NOT
`TAUGHT BY THE PRIOR ART ............................................................... ..45
`
`A.
`
`Hamner does not disclose “a network event.” .................................. ..46
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR20 l 5-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`The term “network event” should be construed as “an
`
`action or occurrence within the network that is detected
`or received by the system.” ..................................................... ..47
`
`The tasks described in Hamner are not “network events”
`under the proper construction of the term. ............................. ..50
`
`Hamner does not disclose “a network event” under the
`
`Board’s construction of the term. ........................................... ..55
`
`Neither Matheny nor Hamner alone, nor the combination of
`Hamner with Pitt, discloses “processing a network event using
`the network model .
`.
`. .” ................................................................... ..56
`
`1.
`
`The claimed “identifying” and “determining” sub-steps
`must use the network model and the network event must
`
`be detected or received before it is processed. ....................... ..57
`
`Matheny does not disclose “processing a network event
`using the network model” under the plain language of the
`claims. ..................................................................................... ..60
`
`Hamner does not disclose “identifying one or more
`network objects of the plurality of network objects”
`under the proper reading of the claims. .................................. ..61
`
`Hamner does not disclose “determining an order of
`operation on the one or more network objects” under the
`proper reading of the claims. .................................................. ..64
`
`Pitt does not disclose “determining an order of operation
`on the one or more network objects” under the proper
`reading of the claims............................................................... ..65
`
`Matheny does not disclose “a network model.”................................ ..67
`
`1.
`
`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.” .................................................. ..68
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR20l5-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Matheny does not disclose a “network model” under the
`proper construction of the term. ............................................. ..69
`
`Matheny does not disclose a “network model” under the
`Board’s construction of the term. ........................................... ..71
`
`X.
`
`THE CHAI.LENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS BECAUSE A
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART WOULD NOT
`
`HAVE COMBINED MATHENY WITH HAMNER OR MATHENY
`
`AND HAMNER WITH PITT ..................................................................... ..72
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined
`Matheny with Hamner. ..................................................................... ..72
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined
`Matheny and Hamner with Pitt. ........................................................ ..76
`
`XI.
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... ..8O
`
`XII. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS—EXAMINATION .................................... ..8O
`
`XIII. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT ....................................................................... ..8l
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`1, Daniel A. Menascé, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am a University Professor of Computer Science at George Mason
`
`University (“Mason”) in Fairfax, Virginia. University Professor is the highest rank
`
`conferred by Mason’s President and Board of Visitors to “its faculty women and
`
`men of great national or international reputation. The rank of University Professor
`
`is reserved for such eminent individuals.” See Section 2.2.5 of Mason’s Faculty
`
`Handbook, available at http://www.gmu.edu/resources/facstaff/
`
`handbook/GMU_FACULTY_HANDBOOK-2014_Final.pdf. Only a very select
`
`group of Full Professors at Mason become University Professors.
`
`I have been a
`
`Professor of Computer Science at Mason since 1992.
`
`2.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of
`
`California at Los Angeles (“UCLA”) in 1978.
`
`I obtained a Master of Science
`
`degree in Computer Science in 1975, as well as a Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering in 1974, both from the Pontifical Catholic University in Rio
`
`de Janeiro, Brazil (“PUC-Rio”).
`
`3.
`
`Prior to joining Mason, from 1978-1992, I was Professor of Computer
`
`Science and Chair of the Computer Science Department at PUC-Rio. During this
`
`time, I have also held visiting faculty positions at the University of Maryland
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015—0063 1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`Institute for Advanced Computer Studies (“UMIACS”), University of Maryland,
`
`College Park, and at the University of Rome, Italy. From 1981 to 1991, I was the
`
`co-founder and CEO of Tecnosoft, a software company that specialized in the
`
`development of large computerized information systems for companies such as
`
`Brazilian oil company Petrobras and Brazilian telecommunications company
`
`Embratel.
`
`I designed and personally directed the development of these information
`
`systems for these and other customers. Tecnosoft also developed and
`
`commercialized two database management systems and a software system for
`
`capacity planning and Quality of Service (“QOS”) prediction of computer systems.
`
`4.
`
`I have devoted the past 40 years of my professional career to the area
`
`of computer science and in particular to the fields of analytical modeling and
`
`simulation of centralized and distributed computer systems, operating systems,
`
`computer systems architecture, communications networks, electronic commerce,
`
`Web-based systems, database design and management, service-oriented
`
`architectures, software performance engineering, secure computer systems,
`
`autonomic computing, and operating systems. My field of expertise includes the
`
`study and comparison of computer-based systems and software architectures for
`
`commercial applications, including information systems in a variety of settings,
`
`from PCs to secure networked and Web—based environments.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR20 1 5-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`5.
`
`During my time at Mason, I was the lead designer of Mason’s
`
`Executive Master of Secure Information Systems, the Founding Director of its
`
`Master of Science in E—commerce program, and the founding co-Director of
`
`Mason’s E-Center for E-Business.
`
`6.
`
`Also during my time at Mason, I co-founded the Center for the New
`
`Engineer (“CNE”) in 1993, and was the Associate Director of CNE from 1993 to
`
`1998. Under my direction, CNE created a library of Web-accessible tutorial
`
`modules that covered eight topics in computer science, one in general engineering,
`
`a refresher for high-school math, and a refresher for college statistics.
`
`7.
`
`In 1998, CNE was renamed the HyperLearning Center (“HLC”) (see
`
`http://denninginstitute.com/cne/cne_hist.html), and I became its director until
`
`2001, when the Center ceased to exist. CNE and HLC received over $3.4 million
`
`in research funding from the United States Department of Defense Advanced
`
`Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”), the National Science Foundation (“NSF”),
`
`and the Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”).
`
`8.
`
`From 2005 to 2012, I was the Senior Associate Dean of the Volgenau
`
`School of Engineering at Mason (“School of Engineering”). As Senior Associate
`
`Dean, I was in charge of research, graduate programs, graduate admissions,
`
`promotion and tenure of the faculty, and Web information systems for the entire
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR20l5—00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`School of Engineering. As Senior Associate Dean of the School of Engineering, I
`
`was also the director of the school’s Ph.D. degree program in Information
`
`Technology. In that role, I attended all doctoral dissertation defenses to make a
`
`final determination whether the doctorate should be awarded before appending my
`
`signature.
`
`9.
`
`During my academic career, I have taught a variety of courses at the
`
`graduate and undergraduate level, including courses dealing with computer
`
`networks, distributed systems, e-commerce, Web services, performance modeling
`
`and analysis of computer systems, computer system architecture, database
`
`management system, operating systems, and autonomic computing. I have also
`
`been the dissertation advisor of 26 Ph.D. students and 52 M.S. students.
`
`10.
`
`I am the author of more than 240 peer-reviewed technical papers that
`
`have appeared in journals and conference proceedings. My publications have
`
`received more than 9,280 citations and my h-index is 46. (The h-index is an index
`
`that attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of the published work of
`
`a scientist or scholar. The index is based on the set of a scientist’s most cited
`
`papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications.)
`
`11.
`
`I am the chief author of several books listed below. These books
`
`contain extensive discussions on the modeling and analysis of a variety of
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR20l5—00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`computer systems. The methods discussed in these books, as well as in my other
`
`published work, are applied to a Variety of settings including computer networks,
`
`multi-tiered Web-based systems, help-desk systems, e-commerce systems, and
`
`software system architectures.
`
`° Performance by Design: Computer Capacity Planning by Example,
`
`published by Prentice Hall in 2004 (cited 457 times).
`
`° Capacity Planningfor Web Services: Metrics, Models, and Methods,
`
`published by Prentice Hall in 2002 and translated into Russian and
`
`Portuguese (cited 805 times);
`
`' Scalingfor E—business: Technologies, Models, Performance, and
`
`Capacity Planning, published by Prentice Hall in 2000 and translated
`
`into Korean (cited 404 times);
`
`° Capacity Planningfor Web Performance, published by Prentice Hall in
`
`1998; and
`
`° Capacity Planning and Performance Modeling.‘ From Mainflames to
`
`Client-Server Systems, published by Prentice Hall in 1994.
`
`12. All my books come with accompanying software that I developed to
`
`solve the mathematical models for queuing theory discussed in the books. These
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR20 l 5—00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`models are used to predict the performance of computer systems and to verify
`
`when their SLAs will be violated.
`
`13.
`
`I have received several lifetime achievement awards and recognitions,
`
`including elevation to the rank of Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) for “contributions to research and education in
`
`performance evaluation of computer systems”; induction as a Fellow of the
`
`Association of Computing Machinery (“ACM”) for “fundamental contributions to
`
`education and practice of computer networks and performance evaluation, and
`
`material contributions to the establishment of a strong computing industry in
`
`Brazil”; a finalist (28 out of 115 nominations) in the 2014 statewide Outstanding
`
`Faculty Award competition among all faculty members of all disciplines in all
`
`public and private higher education institutions of Virginia; the 2001 A.A.
`
`Michelson Award, a lifetime achievement award given by the Computer
`
`Measurement Group, for my contributions to computer metrics; the 2009
`
`Outstanding Research Faculty award by the Volgenau School of Engineering at
`
`Mason; the 2000 Teaching Excellence award from Mason; the 1999 Outstanding
`
`Teaching award from the School of Engineering at Mason; and several best paper
`
`awards.
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR20l5-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`14.
`
`The external funding for my research exceeds $7.4 million and has
`
`been provided by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research
`
`Projects Agency (“DARPA”), the Air Force Office of Scientific Research
`
`(“AFOSR”), the United States National Aeronautic and Space Administration
`
`(“NASA”), the National Science Foundation (“NSF”), the National Geospatial-
`
`Intelligence Agency (“NGA”), the National Institute of Standards and Technology
`
`(“NIST”), Dominion Virginia Power, Virginia’s Center for Innovative Technology
`
`(“CIT”), OPNET Technologies, TRW, Hughes Applied Information Systems,
`
`Embratel, the Brazilian Research Council (“CNPq”), the Brazilian Ministry of
`
`Science and Technology, and IBM Brazil.
`
`15.
`
`I have consulted for many government organizations and private
`
`companies, including the U.S. Army, NASA, the U.S. Mint, the Defense
`
`Information Systems Agency (“DISA”), the Ballistic Missile Defense
`
`Organization, the National Institutes of Health, IBM, SABRE (travelocity.com),
`
`United Online (netzero.com), Lockheed Martin, Capital One, and the Inter-
`
`American Development Bank. The vast majority of these consulting engagements
`
`involved developing models for the network and computer systems of these
`
`organizations.
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015—OO631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`16.
`
`As an example, I designed and implemented for the National Institutes
`
`of Health (from 1994 to 1996) an object—oriented modeling tool, called CMWLan,
`
`to do capacity planning for their local area networks. The tool was deployed to all
`
`institutes, centers, and divisions of the NIH.
`
`17.
`
`I have experience with the design of complex data-intensive
`
`distributed information systems in the commercial arena through Tecnosoft, the
`
`company I founded and managed from 1981 to 1991, and in the scientific domain
`
`where I helped NASA design the federated architecture of its Earth Orbiting
`
`System Data and Information System (“EOSDIS”). For the latter work, I received
`
`the outstanding paper award from the IEEE International Conference on
`
`Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, Southern Florida, USA, November 6-
`
`10, 1995, for the paper “A Performance-Oriented Design Methodology for Large-
`
`Scale Distributed Data Intensive Information Systems.”
`
`18.
`
`I have been invited to give keynote addresses at several conferences,
`
`universities, and companies around the world. Examples include:
`
`°
`
`“Resource Optimization for Iaas and SaaS Providers,” International
`
`Computer Measurement Group Conference, San Antonio, Texas,
`
`November 3, 2015.
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`“On the Use of Performance Models in Autonomic Computing,”
`
`Congress of the Brazilian Computer Society, Curitiba, Brazil, July 18,
`
`2012;
`
`“Self-Architecting Software Systems,” University at Buffalo,
`
`September 20, 2011;
`
`“Virtualization and the On-Demand Data Center,” Green Computing
`
`Summit, Washington, DC, December 3, 2008;
`
`“Achieving QoS in Complex Distributed Systems through Autonomic
`
`Computing,” Alcatel Technical Academy, Antwerp, Belgium, October 3,
`
`2005;
`
`“Quality of Service Challenges for Web Based Systems and E-
`
`commerce,” E-Quality Research Center, University of Twente, The
`
`Netherlands, September 30, 2005;
`
`“On the Use of Online Performance Models in Autonomic Computing,”
`
`IBM Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, NY, July 15, 2004;
`
`“QoS Challenges and Directions for Large Distributed Systems,”
`
`Workshop on Quality of Service for Geographically Distributed Systems,
`
`Rome, Italy, June 9, 2004;
`
`

`

`Declarationof Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015—OO631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`“Self-Managing E—commerce Sites,” WWW/Internet 2003 IADIS
`
`International Conference, November 6, 2003, Algarve, Portugal;
`
`“Software, Performance, or Engineering?,” Third International Workshop
`
`on Software and Performance (WOSP 2002), July 24-26, 2002, Rome,
`
`Italy;
`
`“QoS Issues in Web and E—commerce Services,” Distinguished Lecturer
`
`Series, Computer Science and Engineering Division, University of
`
`Michigan, October 25, 2001;
`
`“Using Performance Models to Dynamically Control E—Commerce
`
`Performance,” 2001 Aachen International Multiconference on
`
`Measurement, Modeling, and Evaluation of Computer—Communication
`
`Systems, Aachen, Germany, September 12, 2001; and
`
`“Understanding Workloads in E-Business,” Microsoft Research, Seattle,
`
`WA, May 1, 2001.
`
`I was the General Chair of ACM’s 2007 Federated Computing
`
`Research Conference (“FCRC”) held in June 2007 in San Diego. This is the
`
`largest and most prestigious research event in the computer science field and
`
`includes sixteen co—located conferences and many workshops with a total
`
`attendance of more than 2,000 researchers.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`20.
`
`I am a member of the editorial board of ACM’s Transactions on
`
`Internet Technologies (TOIT), ACM’s Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive
`
`Systems (TAAS), and of Elsevier’s Performance Evaluation Journal.
`
`I was an
`
`Associate Editor of ACM’s Transactions on the Web (“TWEB”) journal, an
`
`Associate Editor of Elsevier’s Electronic Commerce Research and Applications
`
`journal, a member of the Editorial Board of IEEE’s Internet Computing, and an
`
`Associate Editor of Elsevier’s Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society.
`
`21.
`
`I am top secret qualified and currently cleared at the secret level by
`
`the U.S. Department of Defense.
`
`22.
`
`In addition, I am the co—inventor of a U.S. patent entitled “Meta-
`
`Protocol” and of the pending U.S. patent application entitled “System and Method
`
`for Managing Insider Security Threats.”
`
`23. A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`24.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $675/hour
`
`for my time. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this declaration.
`
`25.
`
`I have no financial interest in HP.
`
`I similarly have no financial
`
`interest in the ’300 patent, and have had no contact with the named inventors of the
`
`300 patent.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015—0063 1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`26.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, claims, and file history of the ’300
`
`patent.
`
`I understand that this inter partes review is ongoing and other documents
`
`have been filed.
`
`27.
`
`I have also reviewed the following documents:
`
`° Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300 (“Pet”)
`
`(Paper 1), including all exhibits cited therein;
`
`° Decision: Institution of Inter Partes Review (“Decision on
`
`Institution”) (Paper 12), including all exhibits cited therein;
`
`° All documents cited in this declaration.
`
`I have read and understood each of the above documents.
`
`28.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the application for the ’300 patent was filed.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`29.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015—0063 1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`A.
`
`Obviousness
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is considered obvious if the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time the invention was made. The obviousness analysis involves several
`
`factual inquiries: (i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention; and (iv) the existence of objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness (“secondary considerations”), such as unexpected results, long
`
`felt but unresolved need, failure of others, and industry skepticism followed by
`
`acceptance.
`
`31.
`
`In connection with obviousness, I have been informed that there
`
`should be some reason that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine or modify the relevant prior—art teachings to obtain the claimed invention.
`
`Furthermore, there must be a reasonable expectation of success that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have obtained the claimed invention based on the
`
`teachings of the prior art. An invention is more likely to be deemed non-obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art if it yields unexpected results or if the prior art
`
`teaches away from the claimed invention.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`32.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`33.
`
`In connection with objective indicia of non-obviousness, I have been
`
`informed that there must be a nexus between the claimed invention and the
`
`evidence of objective indicia.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`34.
`
`I understand that before a patentability analysis can be conducted, the
`
`claims of a patent must be interpreted. I have been informed and understand that a
`
`claim in inter partes review is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light
`
`of the specification.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that in the Decision on Institution the Patent and Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (the “Board”) initially construed the following claim terms:
`
`
`Initial Construction
`
`
`“information about at least one object in the network
`or a relationship between ob'ects in the networ ”
`
`
`“a computer-based representation of a plurality of
`
`objects in a network and the relationships between
`
`
`I those objects”
`“an action or occurrence, including actions generated
`by users of devices on a network, that is received or
`detected bietwork”
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`“network representation”
`
`“network model”
`
`
`“network event”
`
`
`
`Decision on Institution at 5-9 (Paper 12).
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR20l5-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`36.
`
`I have applied the Board’s construction of these terms in this
`
`declaration, unless noted otherwise.
`
`37. With respect to the constructions of “network model” and “network
`
`event,” in my opinion, as explained below in Section IX, the Board should
`
`reconsider its constructions of these terms. For each term, I have first applied what
`
`I believe to be the proper construction of the term, and then applied the Board’s
`
`construction immediately thereafter when appropriate.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`38.
`
`I have been advised that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`field” is a hypothetical person to whom one could assign a routine task with
`
`reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully carried out.
`
`39.
`
`The ’30O patent application was filed in the USPTO on anuary 8,
`
`2004, and does not claim priority to any earlier filing date, either in the U.S. or any
`
`foreign patent offices. Accordingly, I understand that the patent’s claims must be
`
`construed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of January
`
`8, 2004.
`
`40.
`
`Based on my understanding of the ’300 patent and my knowledge and
`
`experience, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer science, electrical engineering, or related discipline, and either (1)
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR20 1 5-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`approximately one year of relevant industry experience or (2) an advanced degree,
`
`such as a Master’s degree or Ph.D., in computer science, electrical engineering, or
`
`related discipline.
`
`As reflected in my qualifications set forth above, as of 2004, I would have
`
`met or exceeded that level of experience.
`
`I have also considered the definition of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as set forth in the declaration of Dr. Lavian.
`
`Lavian Decl. (Ex. 1002) 1] 19. Under that definition, my opinions are the same as
`
`set forth in this declaration.
`
`V.
`
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS
`
`41.
`
`I understand that inter partes review has been instituted by the Board
`
`on the following ground presented in the petition filed by ServiceNow, Inc.
`
`(“ServiceNow” or “Petitioner”) (Paper 1):
`
`' Ground 1: Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 21, and 22 as obvious over the
`
`combination of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2002/0161883 to
`
`Matheny (“Matheny”) (Ex. 1003) in view of excerpts from Harold et al.,
`
`XML in a Nutshell (2001) (“Harold”) (Ex. 1004), U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,796,951 to Hamner (“Hamner”) (Ex. 1005), and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,717,934 to Pitt (“Pitt”) (Ex. 1007).
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`VI. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Networks
`
`42. A network consists of a group of computer and other devices
`
`connected by physical links and other types of connections. Networks can include
`
`a variety of devices besides computers, such as printers, servers, storage -devices,
`
`routers, switches, and gateways.
`
`’300 patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:36-40, 4:2-6.
`
`Common types of networks include local area networks (“LANs”) and wide area
`
`networks (“WANS”). The devices on the network communicate using standard
`
`communication protocols that dictate the rules that each device must use to
`
`communicate.
`
`43. A network allows applications running on computers in the network to
`
`communicate with each other, exchange data, and share resources such as printers
`
`and storage devices. Examples include a browser at a user’s computer interacting
`
`with a web server that could be located in a different continent, or a printer that is
`
`shared by several computers on the network.
`
`44.
`
`The many connections in a network and sharing of data and resources
`
`create numerous dependencies in the network. For example, a shared printer and a
`
`storage device may be connected only to a server, which manages access to the
`
`printer and the storage device. The printer and storage device therefore are
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`Case No. IPR20l5—0O63l
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`dependent on the server. Computers may also be connected to a server that
`
`provides access to other services, such as the Internet.
`
`45.
`
`Some types of networks use additional types of connections called
`
`“virtual circuits,” which are connections that are created on top of physical links
`
`and which may also receive data from other virtual circuits underneath them in a
`
`hierarchy. Although the details are not important for present purposes, these
`
`virtual circuits are dependent on the circuits (both virtual and physical) below them
`
`in the network.
`
`46. Networks have to be designed to be reliable, i.e., robust in the face of
`
`failures including link and router failures and to exhibit a certain level of expected
`
`performance (e.g., measured in average packet delay or jitter). Many different
`
`design options may be available for a given network based on its reliability and
`
`performance requirements and on cost constraints.
`
`47. Moreover, once a network is in operation, it needs to be managed
`
`(either automatically or semi-automatically) so that the operational status of its
`
`components is constantly assessed and corrective actions are taken when needed to '
`
`restore the network to a state that meets its design requirements.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015—0063 l
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`B.
`
`Computer models
`
`48.
`
`A computer model is a computer program that is designed to provide a
`
`representation of a real-world system. A computer model can be used to simulate
`
`the behavior of the real-world system that has been modeled, which can help
`
`provide insight into the system and how it would react under various scenarios.
`
`Computer models and simulations are used in a wide range of disciplines,
`
`including physics, climatology, mathematics, economics, and engineering.
`
`C.
`
`Event-driven systems
`
`49.
`
`Event-driven systems are systems in which actions or occurrences
`
`such as sensor outputs, hardware signals, or messages are detected and then the
`
`part of the system programmed to process the event produces a reaction or
`
`response to the event. An event can occur at any time (i.e., it is unpredictable), and
`
`will be detected or received by a specific mechanism, such as a software listener,
`
`watcher, or by using a hardware interrupt. 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 detected by a
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Daniel Menascé
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00631
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,300
`
`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”);
`
`Sydow (Ex. 2010) at 69 (“Macintosh programs always have been event-based. An
`
`event is an action of some kind, such as a click of mouse or the press of a key.
`
`When it occurs, the program responds”), 73 (2002) (Ex. 2010) (“Sydow”) (“One
`
`of the primary jobs of the Carbon Event Manager system software is to watch for
`
`events.”).
`
`50.
`
`The purpose of an event is to notify a system that something needs
`
`attention, and thus the event communicates information about what needs attention
`
`by creating an “event notification,” which is typically then sent to an event handler.
`
`The part of the system or component that receives the event will be programmed to
`
`respond or react to the event. The responding part of the system or component
`
`does not know or control when the event will occur.
`
`51.
`
`Examples of events include key presses, button clicks, and mouse
`
`movements. These inputs are events that occur at an input device (i.e., a mouse or
`
`keyboard) and are communicated locally to the processor of the computer, which
`
`interp