Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`US. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company
`Patent Owner
`
`US. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`Filing Date: May 14, 2003
`
`Issue Date: April 12, 2011
`
`TITLE: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING WEB SERVICES
`
`'VIA A FRAMEWORK OF INTERFACES
`
`DECLARATION OF TAL LAVIANI PH.D.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-_
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`001
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`BRIEF SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ............................................................. 1
`
`INTRODUCTION AND'QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Qualifications and Experience ............................................................ 2
`
`Materials Considered. ........................................................................ 6
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..................................................... 8
`
`STATE OF THE ART OF THE RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME OF
`
`THE ALLEGED INVENTION ............................................................................ 9
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`THE ’981 PATENT’S TECHNIQUE FOR MANAGING WEB SERVICES .............. 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Specification of the ’981 Patent ............'.................................... 12
`
`The Claims of the ’981 Patent .......................................................... 15
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................... 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`”Web Service” ........................................................................ 17
`
`”Managed Object” and ”Service Managed Object” ................ 18
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`”Managed Object” ....................................................... 18
`
`”Service Managed Object” ........................................... 20
`
`”Manager” ............................................................................. 22
`
`”Interface,” ”Managed Object Interface,” ”Service
`Interface” ............................................................................... 23
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`”Interface” ................................................................... 24
`
`”Managed Object Interface” ...................................... 26
`
`c.
`
`.
`
`”Service Interface” ....................................................... 26
`
`5.
`
`”Conversation” ...................................................................... 27
`
`VI.
`
`APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO THE CLAIMS‘OF THE ’981
`PATENT ........................................................................ . ............................. 29
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Brief Description and Summary of the Prior Art ............................... 30
`
`The Collaborate References Are Combinable ................................... 33
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`002
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`C.
`
`Each Limitation of Claims 1, 22 and 23 is Disclosed by the
`Collaborate References and Fox ...................................................... 37
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................... 37
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`”a computer processor” (Claim 1[a]) ............................ 38
`
`”a service managed object executable on the
`
`computer processor” (Claim 1[b]) ................................ 39
`
`”the service managed object is associated with
`the Web service and includes at least one
`
`interface configured to allow a manager to access
`
`management features for the Web service” (Claim
`
`1[c]) ............................................................................. 42
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`”the service managed object is associated
`
`with the Web service” (Claim 1[c], first part) .....43
`
`”the service managed object. .
`
`. includes at
`
`least one interface configured to allow a
`
`manager to access management features
`
`for the Web service” (Claim 1[c], second
`
`part) ................................................................... 43
`
`d.
`
`”the at least one interface is configured to provide
`a list of conversations associated with the Web
`
`service.” (Claim 1[d]) .................................................... 50
`
`2.
`
`The Collaborate References and Fox Disclose Claim 22 ......... 56
`
`a.
`
`”service interface” limitations (Claims 22[a], 22[b]) ..... 58
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`”a service interface” (Claim 22[a]) ..................... 58
`
`”wherein the service interface is configured
`
`to include infOrmation for managing a Web
`
`service, including information indicating
`conversations associated with the service
`
`that are in progress” (Claim 22[b]) ..................... 61
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`003
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`b.
`
`”a managed object interface associated with the
`
`service'interface” (Claim 22[b]) ................................... 64
`
`3.
`
`The Collaborate References and Fox Disclose Claim 23 ......... 68
`
`D.
`
`The Collaborate References Are Properly Prior Art ..........>................ 71
`
`VII.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 75
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`004
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981,
`
`I, Tal Lavian, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and
`
`could and would testify to these facts under oath if called upon to do so.
`
`2.
`
`,
`
`l have been retained by counsel for ServiceNow, Inc. (Petitioner) in
`
`this case as an expert in the relevant art.
`
`3.
`
`l have been asked to provide my opinions relating to claims 1, 22 and
`
`23 (”Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981 to M. Homayoun
`Pourheidari et al.
`(”the ’981 patent”), which I understand is owned by Hewlett-
`
`Packard, Inc. (”Patent Owner” or ”HP”).
`
`BRIEF SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`4.
`
`V Claims 1, 22 and 23 purport to disclose a system and computer
`
`program product for managing a web service. They do not describe anything that
`
`was new or non-obvious by the time the application for the ’981 patent was filed
`
`in May 2003. As explained in detail in Part VI of this Declaration, the features
`
`described in these claims were disclosed in product manuals for a prior art
`product called ”BEA WebLogic Collaborate,” which were published almost two
`
`years before the filing date of the patent. Because each element of each
`
`challenged claim is disclosed-or suggested by the prior art as described below, and
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had ample motivation to combine,
`
`each challenged claim is obvious. The bases for my opinions are set forth below.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`A.
`
`5.
`
`Qualifications and Experience
`
`I possess
`
`the knowledge,
`
`skills, experience,
`
`training and the
`
`education to form an expert opinion and testimony in this case. A detailed record
`
`of my professional qualifications,
`
`including a list of patents and academic and
`
`professional publications,
`
`is set forth in my curriculum vitae attached to this
`
`declaration as Exhibit A.
`
`6.
`
`I have more 'than 25 years of experience in the networking,
`
`telecOmmunications, Internet, and software fields.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Computer
`
`Science from the University of California at Berkeley in 2006 and obtained a
`
`Master’s of Science (”M.Sc.”) degree in Electrical Engineering from Tel Aviv
`University, Israel, in 1996.
`In 1987,
`I obtained a Bachelor of Science (”B.Sc.”) in'
`
`Mathematics and Computer Science, also from Tel Aviv University.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently employed by the University of California at Berkeley
`
`and was appointed 'as a
`
`lecturer and Industry Fellow in the Center of
`
`Entrepreneurship and Technology (”CET”) as part of UC Berkeley College of
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`006
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`US Patent No. 7,925,981'
`
`Engineering.
`
`I have been with the University of California at Berkeley since 2000
`
`where I served as Berkeley Industry Fellow, Lecturer, Visiting Scientist, PhD.
`
`Candidate, and Nortel’s Scientist Liaison, where some positions and projects were
`
`done concurrently, others sequentially.
`
`8.
`
`l have more than 25 years of experience‘as a scientist, educator and
`
`technologist, and much of my experience relates to computer networking
`
`technologies. For eleven years from 1996 to 2007, I worked for Bay Networks and
`
`Nortel Networks.
`
`Bay Networks was in the business of making and selling
`
`computer network hardware and software. Nortel Networks acquired Bay
`
`Networks in 1998, and I continued to work at Nortel after the acquisition.
`
`Throughout my tenure at Bay and Nortel,
`
`l held positions including Principal
`
`Scientist, Principal Architect, Principal Engineer, Senior Software Engineer,'and led
`
`the development and research involving a number of networking technologies.
`
`9.
`
`Prior to that, from 1994 to 1995, I worked as a software engineer and
`
`team leader for Aptel Communications, designing and developing mobile wireless
`
`devices and network software products.
`
`From 1990 to 1993,
`
`I worked as a
`
`software engineer and team leader at Scitex Ltd., where I developed system and
`
`network communications tools (mostly in C and C++).
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`10.
`
`I have extensive experience in the area of network communications
`
`and Internet technologies including design and implementation of computer—
`
`based systems for managing communications networks, including the ability to
`
`monitor and provision networks. While with Nortel Networks and Bay Networks
`
`(mentioned above) my work involved the research and development of these
`
`technologies.
`
`For example,
`
`I wrote software for Bay Networks and Nortel
`
`Networks Web based network management
`
`for Bay Networks switches.
`
`I
`
`developed Simple Network Management Protocol
`
`(SNMP) software for Bay
`
`Network switches and software interfaces for Bay Networks’ Optivity Network
`
`Management System.
`
`I wrote software for Java based device management
`
`including
`
`software
`
`interface
`
`to the
`
`device management
`
`and
`
`network
`
`management for the Accelar routing switch family network management system.
`
`11.
`
`I have extensive experience in network communications, including
`
`control and management of routing and switching architectures and protocols in
`
`layers 1-7 of the OSI model. Much of my work for Nortel Networks (mentioned
`
`above) involved the research and development of network communications
`
`technologies.
`
`For example,
`
`I wrote software for Bay Networks and Nortel
`
`Networks switches and routers, developed network technologies for the Accelar
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`008
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`US. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`8600 family of switches and routers, the OPTera 3500 SONET switches, the
`
`OPTera 5000 DWDM family, and the Alteon L4-7 switching product family. In my
`
`lab,
`
`I installed, configured, managed and tested many network communications
`
`equipment of competitors such as Cisco Systems, Juniper Networks, Extreme
`
`Networks, Lucent and Alcatel.
`
`12.
`
`I am named as a co-inventor on more than 80 issued patents and |
`
`co-authored more than 25 scientific publications, journal articles, and peer-
`
`reviewed papers.
`
`Furthermore,
`
`I am a Senior Member of the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers (”IEEE”).
`
`13.
`
`I currently serve as a Principal Scientist at my company Telecomm
`
`Net Consulting Inc., where I develop network communication technologies and
`
`provide research and‘consulting in advanced technologies, mainly in computer
`
`networking and Internet technologies. In addition, I serve as a C0- Founder and
`
`Chief .Technology Officerr(CTO) of VisuMenu, Inc., 'where I design and develop
`
`architecture of visual
`
`IVR technologies for smartphones and wireless mobile
`
`devices in the area of network communications. The system is based on cloud
`
`networking and cloud computing utilizing Amazon Web Services.
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`009
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`14.
`
`Additional details of my background are set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae, attached as Exhibit A to this Declaration, which provides a more complete
`
`description of my educatiOnal background and work experience.
`
`I am being
`
`compensated for the time I have spent on this matter. My compensation does not
`
`depend in any way upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`I hold no interest in the
`
`Petitioner (ServiceNow, Inc.) or the patent owner (Hewlett-Packard Company).
`
`B.
`
`Materials. Considered
`
`15.
`
`The analysis that
`
`I provide in this Declaration is based on my
`
`education and experience in the field of computer systems, as well as the
`
`documents I have considered including U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981 (”’981 patent”)
`
`[Ex. 1001], which states on its face that it issued from an application filed on May
`
`14, 2003.
`
`I also reviewed U.S. Patent No. 7,945,860 (”’860 patent”) [Ex. 1003],
`
`which the ’981 patent incorporates by reference and identifies as having related
`
`subject matter. (’981, 1:7-12.)
`
`16.
`
`I reviewed various documents dated prior to May 2003 describing
`
`the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’981 patent. As
`
`explained below, some of these documents are relied upon as actually disclosing
`
`the limitations of the ’981 patent, while others are being relied upon primarily for
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`010
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`US Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`background purposes..The prior art documents that I rely upon in this Declaration
`
`as actually disclosing the limitations of the claims are:
`
`
`
`
`Introducing BEA WebLogic Collaborate, BEA Systems, |nc., July 2001
`(”Introducing Collaborate”)
`
`
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`Administering BEA WebLogic Collaborate, BEA Systems, Inc., July
`2001 (”Administering Collaborate”)
`
`
`
`
`
`1006
`
`Programming BEA WebLogic Collaborate Management
`Applications, BEA Systems, lnc., July 2001 (”Programming
`Collaborate”)
`
`Web Publisher’s Construction Kit with HTML 3.2, David Fox & Troy
`Downing, Waite Group, 1996, pp.480-544 (”Fox")
`
`
`
`This Declaration also cites the following additional prior art documents for
`
`purposes of describing-the relevant technology, including the relevant state of the
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention of the '981 patent:
`
`
`
`
`Java Web Services, David A. Chappell & Tyler Jewell, O’Reilly &
`‘
`Associates, March 2002, pp.1—12 (”Chappell”)
`
`
`
`
`Applied .SOAP: Implementing .NET XML Web Services, Kenn
`Scribner & Mark Stiver, Sams Publishing, 2001, pp.10-48
`
`(”Scribner”)
`
`XML in a NUtshell, Elliotte Rusty Harold et al., O’Reilly & Associates,
`2001, pp.xi-xvi, 3-10 (”Harold”)
`
`
`
`
`
`BEA Unveils Comprehensive Web Services Strategy and Support For
`Widest Range of Web Services Standards in the Industry, PR
`Newswire, Feb. 26, 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`011
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`US. Patent No. 7,925,981.
`
`
`
`
`1012
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, Microsoft Press, 2002,
`pp.279-80
`
`
`
`BEA and Gauss Interprise Announce Strategic Relationship,
`Canadian Corporate Newswire, Aug. 27, 2001
`
`1013
`'
`
`
`
`"I.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`17.
`
`I understand that an assessment of claims of the ’981 patent should
`
`be undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`the earliest claimed priority date, which I understand is May 2003.
`
`18.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of May 2003
`
`would have possessed at
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in computer science (or
`
`equivalent degree or experience) with at least four years of practical experience
`
`or coursework in the deSign or development of systems for network-based
`
`communication between computer systems, including systems for sending and
`
`receiving messages between computers using known technologies such as Web
`
`Services and XML.
`
`19. My opiniOns regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my over 25 years of experience in the field of network
`
`communications, computer science and engineering, my understanding of the
`
`basic qualifications that would be relevant to an engineer or scientist tasked with
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`012
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`US. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`investigating methods and systems in the relevant area, and my familiarity with
`
`the backgrounds of colleagues and co-workers, both past and present.
`
`20.
`
`Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the '981 patent have been based on the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of May 2003.
`
`IV.‘
`
`STATE OF THE ART OF THE RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME OF THE
`
`_ ALLEGED INVENTION
`
`‘
`
`21.
`
`The ’981 patent generally discloses a computer-based system for
`
`managing web services. In this section, I provide a brief background of the state of
`
`web services technology prior to May 2003 pertinent to the ’981 patent.
`
`22.
`
`”Web services” were not an invention of the ’981 patent. Web
`
`services were an outgrthh of the World Wide Web phenomenon that began in
`
`the mid 19905. (Chappell, Ex. 1007, at p.7.)
`
`In particular, during the early days of
`
`the web, business could be conducted using straightforward and simple
`
`technologies. For example, using the HyperText Transfer Protocol (”H'I‘I'P”), a
`
`web server received a request from a client such as a web browser, and processed
`
`the request using the Common Gateway Interface (”CGI”), which provided a way
`
`for the web server to access an external application such as business application.
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`013
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`US Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`The web server could then return a response to the web browser in the form of a
`
`HyperText Markup Language (”HTML”) web page.
`
`(Fox, Ex. 1008, at p.482—83.)
`
`23.
`
`But the industry realized that as web-based business grew, especially
`
`larger enterprises such as rental car companies and airlines, there was a need for
`
`coordination among a potentially large number of distributed systems. (Chappell,
`
`Ex. 1007, at p.7.)
`
`”Web services” were one of a number of technologies that
`
`attempted to address. that issue. (Chappell, Ex. 1007, at p.1; see also id. at p.9
`
`(”[T]he base.[web services technologies] are not themselves very exciting; they
`
`are just new dressing for the same old distributed-computing model.”).)
`
`24.
`
`As described in the Background section of the ’981 patent, ”web
`
`services” are ”an approach to distributed computing in which interactions are
`
`carried out
`
`through the exchange of eXtensible Markup Language (XML)
`
`messages.” (’981, 1:55-58.) That characterization is generally consistent with
`
`other publications on the subject. (E.g., Scribner, Ex. 1009, at p.10 (”Web Services
`
`can be described as any functionality that
`
`is accessible over the Internet,
`
`generally (but not necessarily) using one or more eXtensible Markup Language
`
`(XML) messages in the communications protocol.”); Chappell, Ex. 1007, at p.1 (”A
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`014
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`web service is a pieceof business logic, located somewhere on the Internet, that
`
`is accessible through standard-based Internet protocols such as HTTP or SMTP.").)
`
`25.
`
`The term ”XML” generally refers to an industry-standard set of rules
`
`for encoding information.
`
`XML ”provides a standard format for computer
`
`documents,” and ”is flexible enough to be customized for domains as diverse as
`
`web sites, electronic data interchange, vector graphics, genealogy, real-estate
`
`listings, object serialization, remote procedure calls, and voice-mail systems, and
`
`more.”
`
`(Harold, Ex. 1010, at p.3.) XML was particularly desirable because it
`
`promised a document format that could be shared between computer systems
`
`and application programs. By 2001,
`
`it was recognized that ”XML is one of the
`
`most important developments in document syntax in the history of computing,"
`
`and had ”become the syntax of choice for newly designed document formats
`
`across almost all computer applications." (Harold, Ex. 1010, Preface, xi.)
`
`26.
`
`The specification of the ’981 patent acknowledges that web services
`
`were already being deployed commercially before the alleged invention. (’981,
`
`2:44-45 (”Enterprises are adopting Web services technology to address their
`
`business integration needs[.]”).) For example, the technology was being used to
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`015
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`integrate the booking systems of Dollar Rent A Car Systems, Inc. and Southwest
`
`Airlines Co. (Chappell, Ex. 1007, at p.6.)
`
`27.
`
`One such commercial system was WebLogic Collaborate by BEA
`
`Systems, Inc. A press release dated February 2001 (more than two years before
`
`.the filing date of the ’981 patent) explains that ”BEA’s open and extensible BZB
`
`collaboration platform, BEA WebLogic Collaborate,
`
`integrates trading partners
`
`across the Web and enables complex Web Services to be deployed with
`
`transactional integrity, security, and reliability.” (Ex. 1011, at p.‘2.) As I discuss in
`
`more detail
`
`in Part VI.A below, the prior art references describing WebLogic
`
`Collaborate that I discuss‘in this Declaration describe features to monitor and
`
`manage a web service, including a web-browser-based Administration Console.
`
`THE ’981 PATENT’S TECHNIQUE FOR MANAGING WEB SERVICES
`
`A.
`
`The Specification of the 1’981 Patent
`
`28.
`
`As mentioned above,
`
`the ’981 patent, entitled ”Systems and
`
`Methods for Managing Web Services via a Framework of Interfaces,” generally
`
`describes a web service management system that allows a manager to monitor
`
`and control associated web services. Figure 1A provides a general overview of one
`
`embodiment of the management system:
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`016
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`US. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`100
`\4
`
` m
`
`116
`
`face Coil
`rvic
`in
`tion
`
`
`
`
`Service Configuration Intertace
`
`
`
`
` M
`Operational WSDL URI
`Service Managed Obieci
`
`Service Monitoring Interface
`
`
`
`Service lniertacetsi
`Conversations
`
`
`Get Conversation Ev Id
`
`
`MO 0 3860.:-
`122
`lnterlace 5)
`Last Message
`
`
`Last Fault Message
`Manager
`
`Service Discovery interface
`
`1.0.2.
`Container
`
`
`Service Performance Interface
`
`Failed Message Count
`
`1142
`
`
`Service Managed Object
`Success Message Count
`
`
`
`Total Message Count
`Service intertace{s]
`1.1.4
`
`Success Maximum Response Time
`
`
`Managed Object Intertace(s)
`123
`Success Minimum Response Time
`
`
`Success Cumulative Response Time
`
`
`Failed Maximum Response Time
`
`
`Failed Minimum Remnse Time
`
`Failed Cumulative Response Time
`
`Service Control Interface
`
`
`Start
`Stop
`
`Restart
`
` Event Types Status values
`
`Starting
`Starting
`
`
`
`Stopping
`stopping
`
`
`Stopped
`
`.f 18
`
`interface
`Descriptions
`
`Agencies
`m
`
` DiSCOVeYY
`
`(’981, Fig. 1A.)
`
`FIG. 7A
`
`29.
`
`The management system includes a ”service managed object” (e.g.,
`
`110) that has an interface for exposing management features of an associated
`
`web service (e.g., 106) to a manager (e.g., 102). With reference to Figure 1A
`
`(above), the ’981 patent describes a ”service managed object” as follows:
`
`' Service managed obiects 108I 110 represent
`
`the management
`
`features of resoUrcels) that perform services 104I 106. Interfaces in
`
`one or more categories can be included in service interfaces 112, 114
`
`for each service managed object 108,110. Service interfaces 112,
`
`114 can allow manager 102 to access information regarding the state
`
`of services 104, 106, as well as to control the operation of services
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`017
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`104, 106.
`
`(’981, 4:51-60 (underlining added).)
`
`30.
`
`The ’981 patent also states that ”[s]ervice managed objects .
`
`.
`
`. can
`
`be considered managed objects.” (’981, 7:27-29.) A ”managed object” is
`
`described as ”a management representation of a resource.” (’981, 7:26-29.) The
`
`’981 patent describes ”resources” as broadly including ”documents,
`
`images,
`
`downloadable files, services, electronic mailboxes, and other resources.” (’981,
`
`5:66-62.) The '981 patent further states that a ”[m]anaged object. .
`
`. implements
`
`managed object interfaces .
`
`.
`
`. to provide a common set of basic management
`
`capabilities to monitor and/or control the underlying resource(s) represented by
`
`managed object .
`
`.
`
`. through various features such as attributes, operations, and
`
`event notifications.” (’981, 7:30-35.)
`
`31.
`
`As mentioned above, a service managed object provides an interface
`
`for exposing management features of an associated web service to a manager,
`
`such as a list of ”conversations” associated with the service. The ’860 patent
`
`(which the ’981 patent incorporates by reference) describes a ”conversation” as
`
`follows:
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`018
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`US. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`The term ”conversation” is a set of related [messages sent and
`
`received by a particular conversation. Conversations 104, 106 are
`
`typically invoked by other resources, such as Web services (not
`
`shownl. The messages received by a particular conversation 104, 106
`
`may be sent by more than one other conversation, and a particular
`
`resource, such as a Web service, can invoke multiple conversations
`
`that may or may not be
`
`related to the resource’s other
`
`conversations.
`
`(’860, 4:45—52 (underlining added).)
`
`B.
`
`The Claims of the ’981 Patent
`
`32.
`
`The two independent claims addressed in this Declaration—i.e.,
`
`claims 1 and 22—purport to recite a system and computer program product for
`
`managing a web service.
`
`The first
`
`independent claim addressed in this
`
`Declaration is claim 1, which recites:
`
`1. A system for managing a Web service, comprising:
`
`[a]
`
`[b]
`
`a computer processor; and
`
`a
`
`service managed object executable on the computer
`
`.
`
`processor, wherein:
`
`[c]
`
`the service managed object is associated with the Web service
`
`and includes at
`
`least one interface configured to allow a
`
`manager to access management features for the Web service;
`
`and
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`019
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`[cl]
`
`the at least one interface is configured to provide a list of
`
`conversations associated with the Web service.
`
`(’981, 19:34—43 (Claim 1).) I added the bracketed notations (e.g., ”[a]," ”[b],” etc.)
`
`to facilitate easier identification of these limitations in my Declaration. The
`
`second independent claim addressed in this Declaration is claim 22:
`
`22. A computer” program product tangibly embodied in a computer
`
`readable storage medium, comprising:
`
`[a]
`
`[b]
`
`a service interface; and
`
`a managed object
`
`interface associated with the service
`
`interface,wherein
`
`[c]
`
`the service interface is configured to include information for
`
`managing a .Web service,
`
`including information indicating
`
`conversations associated with the service that are in progress.
`
`(’981, 21:31-39 (Claim 22).) The other claim addressed in this Declaration—Le,
`
`claim 23—depends from independent claim 22 listed above. I address that claim
`
`in more detail in Part VI below.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction ’
`
`33.
`
`l have been informed by counsel that invalidity analysis is a two-step
`
`process. In the first step, the scope and meaning of a claim is determined by
`
`construing the terms of that claim. In the second step, the claim as interpreted is
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`020
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`US. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`compared to the prior art. Thus, before I address the application of the prior art
`
`to the claims of the ’981 patent in Part VI below,
`
`I provide constructions for
`
`certain terms in those claims.
`
`34.
`
`l have been informed by counsel that a claim in an unexpired patent
`
`subject to inter partes review must be given its ”broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears,” which is different
`
`from the manner in which the scope of a claim is determined in litigation. | apply
`
`the ”broadest reasonable Construction” standard in my analysis below.
`
`1.
`
`”Web Service”
`
`35.
`
`The term'”Web service” appears in both of the independent claims
`
`(i.e., claims 1 and 22) that I address in this Declaration. The term is discussed in
`
`the Background section of the specification, which states:
`
`The term Web services, also referred to herein as ”services”,
`
`describes an approach to distributed computing in which interactions
`
`are carried outthrough the exchange of eXtensible Markup Language
`
`'lXMLl messages, .
`
`. Essentially any transaction or bit of business
`
`logic can become a Web service if it can be accessed and used by
`
`another system over a network such as the Internet.
`
`(’981, 1:55-67 (underlining added).)
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`021
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`36.
`
`In Part IV above,
`
`I provided a general overview of web services
`
`technology as it existed prior to the ’981 patent.
`
`in my opinion, the statement in
`
`the ”Background” section quoted above is generally consistent with how one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood ”Web service” as of May 2003.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`I have interpreted the term ”Web service” under its broadest
`
`reasonable construction to mean ”a service or system that interacts with another
`
`system through the exchange of eXtensible Markup Language (XML) messages.”
`
`2.
`
`"Managed Object" and “Service Managed Object"
`
`37.
`
`The term ”managed object” is recited in a number of ways in the
`
`claims.
`
`Independent
`
`claim 1
`
`recites
`
`a
`
`”service managed obiect," while
`
`independent claim 22 recites a ”managed obiect
`
`interface.”
`
`I will therefore
`
`separately address ”managed object" and ”service managed object.”
`
`a.
`
`”Managed Object" .
`
`38.
`
`The term ”managed object,” generally speaking, refers to an object
`
`(such as a software program, process or system) that is responsible for managing
`
`a resource.
`
`In my opiniOn, the broadest reasonable construction of ”managed
`
`object" to one of ordinary skill in the art is ”an object for managing a resource.” I
`
`.
`
`derive this definition from the following passage of the specification:
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`022
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`US. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`Referring to FIG. 18, an embodiment of managed object 128 with
`
`managed object interfaces 130 is shown. Managed object 128 is a
`
`management representation of a resource. For example, service
`
`managed objects 108, 110 in FIG. 1A can be considered managed
`
`objects 128.
`
`Managed object 128 implements managed object interfaces 130 to
`
`provide a common set of basic management capabilities that allow
`
`manager 102 to monitor andZor control the underlying resourcels)
`
`represented by managed objects 128 through various features such
`
`as attributes, operations, and event notifications.
`
`('981, 7:30-35 (underlining added).) This is consistent with an earlier passage in
`
`the specification stating that ”[s]ervice managed objects 108, 110 represent th_e
`
`management features of resourcelsl that perform services 104, 106.” I (’981, 4:53-
`
`55 (underlining added).)
`
`39.
`
`The
`
`specification describes
`
`”resources”
`
`broadly as
`
`including
`
`”documents,
`
`images, downloadable files, services, electronic mailboxes, and
`
`other
`
`resources.”
`
`.(’981,
`
`5:67-6:2.)
`
`The
`
`specification
`
`also
`
`describes
`
`”management” as including ”managed object
`
`identity, monitoring, discovery,
`
`control, performance, configuration, and security.” (’981, 5vz8-11.) Based on my
`
`ServiceNow, Inc.'s Exhibit 1002
`
`023
`
`

`

`Declaration of Tal Lavian in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`US. Patent No. 7,925,981
`
`analysis of the s