UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`KOFAX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 5,490,216
` ____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI
`
`1
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 1
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`KOFAX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 5,490,216
` ____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI
`
`1
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Vijay K. Madisetti, hereby declare the following:
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION
`1. My name is Vijay Madisetti, and I am a Professor of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”) in
`
`Atlanta, GA.
`
`2.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Technology in electronics and Electrical
`
`Communications Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in
`
`1984. I received my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences
`
`(EECS) from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989. I am currently a
`
`tenured full Professor at Georgia Institute of Technology, and I have been on the
`
`faculty of Georgia Institute of Technology since 1989. I have authored or co-
`
`authored over 100 reference articles in the area of electrical engineering. I have
`
`also authored, co-authored, or edited several books in the areas of electrical
`
`engineering, communications, signal processing, communications, and computer
`
`engineering, including VLSI Digital Signal Processors (1995) and The Digital
`
`Signal Processing Handbook (First & Second Editions) (1998, 2012), and recently,
`
`Cloud Computing (2013) and Internet of Things (2014). Although I discuss my
`
`expert qualifications in more detail below, I also attach as Appendix A a recent
`
`and complete curriculum vitae, which details my educational and professional
`
`background and includes a listing of most of my publications.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 2
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I have been involved in research and technology in the area of
`
`distributed computer and information systems since the late 1980s, and my work in
`
`this area has focused on secure and efficient distribution of information over
`
`networks, synchronization of updates across a distributed network, and
`
`multiprocessing systems and tools.
`
`4.
`
`In 1987, at UC Berkeley, I worked on implementing a globally
`
`distributed file system, called GAFFES, to facilitate information sharing in a global
`
`network of workstations. GAFFES provided four services to handle naming,
`
`replication and caching, security and authentication, and file access primitives.
`
`GAFFES outlined features of access in terms of users and their roles, and in terms
`
`of beliefs and policies. Every file in GAFFES has at least one role, and the owner
`
`of a role determines the roles that may use that role to operations on software files.
`
`5.
`
`I have authored, co-authored, or edited several books in the past
`
`twenty years, including:
`
`• VLSI Digital Signal Processors
`Madisetti, V.K.
`• Quick-Turnaround ASIC Design in VHDL
`Romdhane, M., Madisetti, V.K., Hines, J.
`• The Digital Signal Processing Handbook (First Edition)
`Madisetti, V. K., Williams, D. (Editors)
`• VHDL: Electronics Systems Design Methodologies.
`Madisetti, V. K. (Editor)
`• Platform-Centric Approach to System-on-Chip (SoC)
`Design.
`Madisetti, V. K., Arpnikanondt, A.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 3
`
`
`
`• The Digital Signal Processing Handbook – Second Edition.
`Madisetti, V. K. (2009/2010)
`• Cloud Computing: A Hands-On Approach
`A Bahga, V. Madisetti (2013)
`• Internet of Things: A Hands-On Approach
`A Bahga, V. Madisetti (2014)
`
`In the past decade I have authored several peer-reviewed papers in the
`
`6.
`
`area of computer and software design, and these include:
`
`• V. Madisetti, et al: “The Georgia tech Digital Signal Multiprocessor,
`IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol 41, No. 7, July 1993
`• V. Madisetti et al, “Rapid Prototyping on the Georgia Tech Digital
`Signal Multiprocessor”, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol
`42, March 1994.
`• V. Madisetti, “Reengineering legacy embedded systems”, IEEE
`Design & Test of Computers, Vol 16, Vol 2, 1999
`• V. Madisetti et al, “Virtual Prototyping of Embedded Microcontroller-
`based DSP Systems”, IEEE Micro, Vol 15, Issue 5, 1995
`• V. Madisetti, et al, “Incorporating Cost Modeling in Embedded-
`System Design”, IEEE Design & Test of Computers, Vol 14, Issue 3,
`1997
`• V. Madisetti, et al, “Conceptual Prototyping of Scalable Embedded
`DSP Systems”, IEEE Design & Test of Computers, Vol 13, Issue 3,
`1996.
`• V. Madisetti, Electronic System, Platform & Package Codesign,”
`IEEE Design & Test of Computers, Vol 23, Issue 3, June 2006.
`• V. Madisetti, et al, “A Dynamic Resource Management and
`Scheduling Environment for Embedded Multimedia and
`Communications Platforms”, IEEE Embedded Systems Letters, Vol 3,
`Issue 1, 2011.
`
`I have over 100 peer-reviewed publications issued from the early
`
`7.
`
`1980s to the present on topics related to computer engineering, computer sciences
`
`and wireless communications and digital system design.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 4
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I am a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineering (“IEEE”), which signifies the highest professional standing in my
`
`research and educational community.
`
`9.
`
`I have already been qualified as an expert in over a dozen trials, and
`
`two recent cases: Harkabi v. SanDisk Corp., No. 08-cv-8203 (S.D.N.Y.) and
`
`Yangaroo Inc. v. Destiny Media Techs. Inc., No. 09-cv-462 (E.D. Wisc.) the
`
`technology at issue was specific to the area of digital rights management of
`
`software products. I testified in both of these cases at trial (Harkabi v. SanDisk)
`
`and by deposition (Yangaroo v. Destiny).
`
`10.
`
`In sum, I have over 25 years of experience in research and
`
`development in the areas of computer engineering and electrical engineering as a
`
`professor, researcher and consultant.
`
`11.
`
`I have been retained by Kofax, Inc. and am submitting this declaration
`
`to offer my independent expert opinion concerning certain issues raised in the
`
`Petition for inter partes Review (“Petition”). I am being compensated at my
`
`normal consulting rate of $450/hour. My compensation is not based on the
`
`substance of the opinions rendered here. As part of my work in connection with
`
`this matter, I have studied U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 (“the ‘216 patent”), including
`
`the respective written descriptions, figures, claims, in addition to the original file
`
`history and subsequent reexamination proceedings. Moreover, I have reviewed
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 5
`
`
`
`various documents from the prior litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court
`
`for the District of Rhode Island, Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 03-
`
`CV0440 (WES) and subsequent Federal Circuit opinions on appeals. Moreover, I
`
`have reviewed the Petition for Covered Business Method Review of the ‘216
`
`patent and also considered at least the following references:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,796,220 to Wolfe (“Wolfe”), entitled “method of
`Controlling the Copying of Software,” filed on December 15, 1986
`and issued on January 3, 1989 [Exhibit 1002]
`
`• Bryon K. Ehlmann, “Designing Software to be Used Up and
`Protecting it from Pirates,” ACM SIGSMALL/PC Notes, vol. 11, iss.
`3 (Aug. 1985) (“Ehlmann”) [Exhibit 1003]
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,199,066 to Logan (“Logan”), entitled “Method and
`Apparatus for Protecting Software,” filed on April 18, 1989 and issued
`on March 30, 1993 [Exhibit 1004]
`
`• Claim Construction Order entered in Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc
`Singapore Private Ltd., v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 1:03-cv-00440-
`WY-DLM (Aug. 22, 2006 D. R.I.) [Exhibit 1007]
`
`• Federal Circuit Opinion, dated Aug. 7, 2008, entered in Uniloc USA, Inc.
`and Uniloc Singapore Private Ltd., v. Microsoft Corp. [Exhibit 1008]
`
`• Federal Circuit Opinion, dated January 4, 2011, entered in Uniloc USA,
`Inc. and Uniloc Singapore Private Ltd., v. Microsoft Corp. [Exhibit
`1005]
`
`
`II. OPINION
`A. Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`12.
`
`It is my understanding that Patent Owner has previously identified,
`
`and the Petitioner is presently suggesting, that the level of a person having ordinary
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 6
`
`
`
`skill in the art as of September 1992 as having a Bachelor’s Degree or equivalent,
`
`in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science, or one to two years of experience
`
`in software development or the equivalent work experience. I have no reason to
`
`disagree with this suggested level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on my
`
`education, training, and professional experience in the field of the claimed
`
`invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the claimed invention. Additionally, I was a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of the filing date of the ‘216 Patent and as of the filing
`
`dates of the two Australian patent applications to which the ‘216 Patent claims
`
`priority.
`
`Background of Software Registration & Activation
`
`B.
`13. Software authorization and licensing systems have been of interest,
`
`and available, to the industry at least since the early 1980s. Appendix B, Suhler, et
`
`al., IEEE Software (1986). This availability and use increased significantly with
`
`the wider use of software by end-users. Suhler at p. 34. As use and distribution of
`
`software increased, however, it became apparent that there were problems
`
`associated with the increased use – an increase in unauthorized use, or pirates.
`
`Suhler at 34. As a result, the industry became more interested in methods of
`
`preventing unregistered sales and unauthorized use
`
`through
`
`the use of
`
`authorization and licensing technologies. Suhler at 35.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 7
`
`
`
`14.
`
`In order for such technologies to be viable, however, software
`
`designers had to take into account cost and compatibility with existing programs
`
`and operating systems, including those that are not otherwise protected and those
`
`that are protected. Suhler at 35. Taking these concerns to mind, some of the initial
`
`technologies included hardware devices, such as dongles. For example, in 1980,
`
`Business Professional Industrial protected its accounting software with a hardware
`
`security device that was inserted into a game paddle port. Suhler at 35. Sensor-
`
`Based System also used the hardware approach by requiring the installation of a
`
`PROM chip in the system. Suhler at 35. The major drawbacks of these systems
`
`were cost, portability, inconvenience and durability.
`
`15. From the hardware devices mentioned above, the focus of software
`
`authorization shifted to preventing unauthorized copying and prevention of
`
`unauthorized execution of software products. Techniques developed to address
`
`this new focus include copy protection, validation and encryption. Suhler at 35-36.
`
`However these all have their own advantages and disadvantages, as described
`
`below:
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`16.
`
` The ‘216 Patent focuses on the validation approach in which
`
`protected software checks the right of the user to execute or operate the software.
`
`Systems using the validation approach typically look for a unique key in the
`
`system, and if it is not found, the program assumes that the software is on an
`
`unlicensed machine and execution is aborted. Suhler at 36. If the key is found, the
`
`program continues to execute.
`
`17. A related validation method is customer-based validation. An
`
`example of this is found in the case of the “Computerized Gradebook.” Ex. 1003,
`
`Ehlmann, “Designing Software to be Used Up and Protecting it From Pirates,”
`
`ACM SIGSMALL/PC Notes, vol. 11, iss. 3, pp. 9-15 (Aug. 1985). I personally
`
`downloaded the Ex. 1003 article from the Association for Computing Machinery
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 9
`
`
`
`website on or
`
`around
`
`July 14, 2014,
`
`from
`
`the
`
`following
`
`link:
`
`http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=383023, which webpage is included in Ex. 1003
`
`as it exists today and reflects the publication information described above. I have
`
`no reason to believe this publication information is inaccurate. The Computerized
`
`Gradebook utilizes a “software-based software authorization system,” also referred
`
`to as a “customer validation procedure.” Ehlmann at 10. A teacher using the
`
`Computerized Gradebook may use the software a number of times without
`
`obtaining authorization. Ehlmann at 10, 14. However, in order to obtain full rights
`
`to the software, the teacher must obtain a password from the vendor. The teacher
`
`does so by either calling or mailing a twelve-digit number displayed on the
`
`software front screen. Ehlmann at 10, 11. The twelve-digit number is made up of:
`
`(1) a six-digit number unique to that piece of software (i.e., serial number), (2) a
`
`two-digit number based on the number of classes recorded in the gradebook, and
`
`(3) a four-digit number that characterizes how the gradebook has been used up to
`
`that time. Ehlmann at 11, 12, 13-14. Thus, this number is unique to the software
`
`and to the user. From this number, the vendor generates a password and transmits
`
`it, orally or physically, to the teacher. Ehlmann at 12, 14. The teacher then enters
`
`the password and the software validates the password “based on the same
`
`computation used by the vendor.
`
` Ehlmann at 14. Once validated, the
`
`Computerized Gradebook is available for further full use.
`
`10
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 10
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Software Registration and Activation According to the Asserted
`Patent
`
`
`
`18.
`
`In the background of the asserted patent, the Applicant describes a
`
`number of software registration systems. Specifically, the Applicant noted systems
`
`that require a user to input a vendor-assigned unique number at the time of
`
`installation. Ex. 1001, ‘216 Patent at 1:11-19. The Applicant noted systems where
`
`an intending licensee is initially given only a shell program and must obtain
`
`essential portions of the program from a remote location upon payment of the
`
`registration fee. Id. at 1:29-56. The Applicant also noted two patents (U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 4,796,220 and 4,688,169) describing registration systems that uniquely
`
`recognize the platform upon which the software is to be run, and only allow the
`
`software to run if the platform is registered.
`
`19. The software registration system described in the ‘216 Patent is based
`
`on a few simple concepts. First, a registration number is generated on a user’s PC
`
`from information input by the user or provided by the software vendor using a
`
`registration algorithm. Ex. 1001, ‘216 Patent at 2:65-3:2, 3:18-21. Second, using
`
`the same inputs and same registration algorithm, another registration number is
`
`generated at a remote registration authority and provided to the user. Ex. 1001,
`
`‘216 Patent at 3:3-9. Finally, these two registration numbers are compared at the
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 11
`
`
`
`user’s computer and if the two numbers match, the protected software is allowed to
`
`run in a fully-enabled mode. ‘216 Patent at 7:38-46.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`20.
`
`I understand that the terms of the ‘216 patent have been construed as
`
`follows:
`
`Claim Term
`Licensee Unique ID (claims 1,
`19, 20) Enabling Key (claim 17)
`Information
`uniquely
`descriptive of an
`intending
`licensee (claim 2)
`
`Algorithm (claims 1, 19, 20)
`
`Includes the algorithm utilized
`by said local licensee unique ID
`generating means to produce
`said licensee unique ID (claims
`1, 19, 20)
`third party
`Generated by a
`means of operation of
`a
`duplicate
`copy
`of
`said
`registration
`key
`generating
`means (claim 17)
`Use mode (claims 1, 7, 19, 20)
`Fully enabled mode (claim 17)
`
`Partly enabled or demonstration
`mode (claim 17)
`
`Has matched (claims 1, 17, 19,
`
`20)
`
`
`
`District Court’s Claim Construction
`“a unique identifier associated with a licensee.”
`District Court CC Order at 9-21.
`“information that is uniquely associated with a
`person who intends to become a licensee so as
`to access full functionality of the digital data”
`District Court CC Order at 22-24
`“a set of instructions that can be followed to
`carry out a particular task” District Court CC
`Order at 29-30.
`“includes the identical algorithm used by the
`local licensee unique ID generating means to
`produce the licensee unique ID” District Court
`CC Order at 30-32.
`
`“generated by a third party’s use of a duplicate
`copy of the registration key generating means”
`District Court CC Order at 33-36.
`
`“a mode/version that allows full use of the
`digital data or software in accordance with the
`license” District Court CC Order at 36-39.
`“a mode that allows partial use of the digital
`data or software” District Court CC Order at 36-
`40.
`“a comparison between the locally generated
`licensee unique ID/registration key and the
`remotely generated licensee unique ID/enabling
`key shows that the two are the same” District
`
`12
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 12
`
`
`
`
`“mode switching means will
`permit said data to run in said
`use mode
`in
`subsequent
`execution … only
`if
`said
`platform unique ID has not
`changed” (claim 7)
`“registration system” (claims 1,
`19, 20)
`
`said mode-
`to
`“provided
`switching means
`by
`said
`intending user” (claim 17)
`“communicated
`to
`intending user” (claim 17)
`
`said
`
`ID
`unique
`licensee
`“local
`generating means” (claims 1,
`19, 20),
`ID
`licensee unique
`“remote
`generating means” (claims 1,
`19, 20)
`“registration key generating
`means” (claim 17)
`“mode
`switching means”
`(claims 1, 19, 20)
`“mode-switching means” (claim
`17)
`
`“platform unique ID generating
`means” (claims 7-9)
`
`
`
`
`
`Court CC Order at 44-46.
`“the mode switching means will permit the data
`to run in the use mode only if the platform
`unique ID is identical to what it was the
`previous time the digital data were run” District
`Court CC Order at 47-49.
`
`“a system that allows digital data or software to
`run in a use mode on a platform if and only if an
`appropriate
`licensing procedure has been
`followed” District Court CC Order at 49-51.
`“provided to the mode-switching means by the
`person who intends to become a licensee”
`District Court CC Order at 51-52
`“communicated to the person who intends to
`become a licensee” District Court CC Order at
`51-52.
`Function: “to generate a
`licensee unique ID”
`Structure: “a summation algorithm or a
`summer and equivalents thereof” District Court
`CC Order at 25-28.
`
`local or remote
`
`Function is “to permit the digital data or
`software to run in a use mode if the locally
`generated licensee unique ID matches with the
`remotely generated licensee unique ID”
`Structure: “program code, which performs a
`comparison of two numbers or a comparator and
`equivalents thereof” District Court CC Order at
`41-44.
`Function: “to generate a platform unique ID”
`Structure: “a summation algorithm or a
`summer and equivalents thereof” District Court
`CC Order at 58-61.
`
`13
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 13
`
`
`
`III.
`
`INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
`A. Legal Framework
`21.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`if the differences between the patent claim and the prior art are such that the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the claimed
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. Obviousness, as I understand it, is based on the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claim, the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and, to the extent that they exist and have an appropriate
`
`nexus to the claimed invention (as opposed to prior art features), secondary indicia
`
`of non-obviousness.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that whether there are any relevant differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention is to be analyzed from the view of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As such, my
`
`opinions below as to a person of ordinary skill in the art are as of the time of the
`
`invention, even if not expressly stated as such; for example, even if stated in the
`
`present tense.
`
`23.
`
`In analyzing the relevance of the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art, I have been informed that I must consider the impact, if
`
`any, of such differences on the obviousness or non-obviousness of the invention as
`
`a whole, not merely some portion of it. The person of ordinary skill faced with a
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 14
`
`
`
`problem is able to apply his or her experience and ability to solve the problem and
`
`also look to any available prior art to help solve the problem.
`
`24. An invention is obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art, facing
`
`the wide range of needs created by developments in the field, would have seen an
`
`obvious benefit to the solutions tried by the applicant. When there is a design need
`
`or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to try the
`
`known options. If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in
`
`the same way, using the technique would have been obvious.
`
`25.
`
`It is my understanding that a precise teaching in the prior art directed
`
`to the subject matter of the claimed invention is not needed and that one may take
`
`into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of the invention. For
`
`example, if the claimed invention combined elements known in the prior art and
`
`the combination yielded results that were predictable to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention, then this evidence would make it more likely
`
`that the claim was obvious. On the other hand, if the combination of known
`
`elements yielded unexpected or unpredictable results, or if the prior art teaches
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 15
`
`
`
`away from combining the known elements, then this evidence would make it more
`
`likely that the claim that successfully combined those elements was not obvious.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that hindsight must not be used when comparing the prior
`
`art to the invention for obviousness.
`
`27.
`
`It is my understanding that obviousness may also be shown by
`
`demonstrating that it would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single
`
`piece of prior art to create the subject matter of the patent claim. Obviousness may
`
`be shown by showing that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
`
`more than one item of prior art. In determining whether a piece of prior art could
`
`have been combined with other prior art or combined with or modified in view of
`
`other information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, the
`
`following are examples of approaches and rationales that may be considered:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 16
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`28.
`
`Applying a technique or approach that would have been "obvious to
`try" (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`with a reasonable expectation of success);
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`invention.
`I understand that the rationale for modifying a reference and/or
`
`combining references may come from sources such as explicit statements in the
`
`prior art, or the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, including any need or
`
`problem known in the field at the time, even if different from the specific need or
`
`problem addressed by the inventor of the patent claim.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider "secondary
`
`considerations" if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an
`
`invention would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which
`
`include: (a) commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention; (b) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of
`
`17
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 17
`
`
`
`others to find the solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention; (f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of
`
`independent simultaneous invention within a comparatively short space of time;
`
`(h) teaching away from the invention in the prior art.
`
`30.
`
`I further understand that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be to prior art features. The
`
`establishment of a nexus is a question of fact.
`
`B. Operating Systems
`31.
`
`I note that claims 10 and 11 require the presence of a “computer
`
`operating system environment.” While Logan does not expressly disclose the
`
`particular architecture of the personal or traditional computers on which their
`
`programs operate, the presence of an “operating system” in such contexts is
`
`required and, therefore, implicitly present. This is true because, by 1992, and even
`
`prior to that time, operating systems for personal computers had become
`
`ubiquitous and necessary to the operation of software on the computer. For
`
`example, in April 1992, Microsoft released Windows 3.1. Even earlier, Apple
`
`released the predecessor to Mac OS (referred to as “System Software” in early
`
`versions) in 1984 (with System 7 being released in 1991) and the LINUX operating
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 18
`
`
`
`system was released in 1991. Indeed, the ‘216 Patent itself identifies multiple
`
`operating systems available at the time, such as Microsoft DOS, IBM OS/2 and
`
`Macintosh System 7. Ex. 1001, ‘216 Patent at 2:32-36. While these are only a
`
`few of the operating systems available at the time, it is clear that operating systems
`
`for traditional personal computers were almost universally being used by 1992 and
`
`that any program running on a computer, including those described in the
`
`references, would be adapted to run under that operating system or in that
`
`environment. Therefore, the presence of an “operating system” in Logan, in
`
`particular, is implicitly, if not expressly, present. In the event that these limitations
`
`are not implicit in the Logan, it would have been obvious to use the software of
`
`both on a computer having an operating system for the reasons stated above.
`
`C. Wolfe and Ehlmann
`32.
`
`It is my opinion that it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to combine the software described in Wolfe with the
`
`evaluation mode functionality described by Ehlmann. I have reviewed and
`
`considered the entire Wolfe and Ehlmann references and provide exemplary
`
`citations below regarding my analysis.
`
`33. Wolfe and Ehlmann both describe systems relating to protecting
`
`software generally and, more specifically, to ensuring that software is only used by
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 19
`
`
`
`authorized users. Ex. 1002, Wolfe at Abstract, 2:53-68; Ex. 1004, Ehlmann at p. 9-
`
`13.
`
`34. The system in Wolfe, for example, discloses a registration process by
`
`which a user is asked to enter a software serial number and a configuration code
`
`that are then provided to a central computer. Ex. 1002, Wolfe at 4:40-48, 5:16-21.
`
`The configuration code is based on the configuration of the user’s computer.
`
`Wolfe at 5:1-10, Fig. 2. The central computer generates a permission code based
`
`on the configuration code that is provided to and entered by the user in the
`
`software. Wolfe at 7:24-41. One way of generating the permission code is through
`
`adding the hard disk size to the RAM size and multiplying the resulting number by
`
`the percent of free space (i.e., Permission Code = (Hard Disk size + RAM size) *
`
`% Free Space). Wolfe at 7:35-38. If the permission code matches that generated
`
`locally, the user is permitted to use the software. Wolfe at 5:38-51.
`
`35. Ehlmann is also concerned with unauthorized use of software and
`
`provides a “customer validation procedure” through which a user obtains a
`
`validation password from a software vendor. Ex. 1003, Ehlmann at 10-14. Similar
`
`to Wolfe, the user is permitted to use the software only if the validation password
`
`provided by the vendor matches with a password generated by the software locally
`
`“based on the same computation” used by the vendor. Ehlmann at 12, 14. The
`
`validation password of Ehlmann is computed based on a twelve-digit number that
`
`20
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 20
`
`
`
`includes a software product number that is unique to each piece of software.
`
`Ehlmann at 10, 12-14. Ehlmann also describes that a user may continue to use the
`
`software for a limited time before a validation password will be required for further
`
`use. Ehlmann at 10, 13-14.
`
`36. By the time of the purported invention of the ‘216 Patent, therefore, it
`
`was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that a software serial number
`
`could be used in the calculation of a password or registration number. Ex. 1004,
`
`Ehlmann at 10-14. It was also clearly known that allowing a user to use software
`
`for a limited time prior to purchasing or registering would be beneficial. These
`
`concepts are expressly described by Ehlmann. Ehlmann at 10, 13-14.
`
`37. Upon reading the disclosure of Ehlmann, therefore, a skilled artisan
`
`would have recognized that modifying the program of Wolfe to allow limited use
`
`prior to entry of the permission code, as described in Ehlmann, would be desirable.
`
`Similarly, one of skill in the art would have recognized that Wolfe could also
`
`easily be modified to use the software serial number, which is already sent to the
`
`central computer in Wolfe (Wolfe at 4:40-48, 5:11-25), to generate the permission
`
`code instead of either the RAM size or hard disk size.
`
`38. This combination is nothing more than adding and substituting features
`
`from Ehlmann to the software of Wolfe. One of ordinary skill would have
`
`achieved this modification by merely programming the central computer in Wolfe
`
`21
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1006 Page 21
`
`
`
`to use the software serial number in calculating the permission code, as is done in
`
`Ehlmann. This is a simple substitution of one variable in calculating the permission
`
`code in Wolfe with a variable used in Ehlmann for a similar computation. Indeed,
`
`this is little more than a design choice as to what variables are used in the
`
`calculation. For example, typical computers in 1992 had around 20 to 200 mb hard
`
`disk sizes and around 300 kb to 2 mb RAM. See, for example, Appendix C. As a
`
`result, the Wolfe permission code generating algorithm, using these numbers as
`
`inputs and an input of 75 % of free space would generate a permission code of (20
`
`+ 300) * 75 = 24000. Substituting the Ehlmann unique product ID (i.e., 030226)
`
`for one of the inputs, such as hard disk size, the resulting permission code would
`
`be (030226 + 300) * 75 = 2289450. Use of Ehlmann’s product number provides
`
`for an additional level of uniqueness of the resulting permission code and produces
`
`a permission code that would be hard for a user to guess without knowing the
`
`specific formula used to generate that code.
`
`39.
`
`It would have been equally easy to accomplish allowing a limited
`
`number of uses of the software in Wolfe until a passwo
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
