Filed on behalf of Petitioner
`By: Richard F. Giunta
`
`Elisabeth H. Hunt
`
`Randy J. Pritzker
`
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`Tel: (617) 646-8000
`
`Fax: (617) 646-8646
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`RPX Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent No. 7,356,482
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`CLAIMS 1, 7-21, 27-41, AND 47-59 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,356,482
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................... 2
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest ................................................................................ 2
`
`B. Related Matters ............................................................................................ 3
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information ................................................................ 3
`
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID .................................................................................. 4
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ........... 4
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................... 6
`
`B. Technology Overview ................................................................................. 6
`
`C. The ‘482 Patent ............................................................................................ 8
`
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ........................................................................... 9
`
`A. “application” ................................................................................................ 9
`
`B. “layer” ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`C. “change management layer for automatically detecting changes that
`affect an application” ................................................................................. 10
`
`D. “intelligent agent” ...................................................................................... 10
`
`E. “means for automatically modifying the first and second layers in
`response to the intelligent agents in order to automatically change
`the functionality and user interface elements of the application
`based on the changes detected by the intelligent agents.” ......................... 11
`
`F. “triggering event” ...................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`G. “view” ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`H. “query” ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`I. “means for dynamically generating a particular application based
`on the first and second layers each time a client computer connects
`to the server computer” ............................................................................. 13
`
`VII. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ............... 14
`
`VIII. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1, 7-21, 27-41, AND 47-59 ................. 14
`
`A. Ground 1: Popp Anticipates Claims 1, 7-13, 18-21, 27-33, 38-41,
`47-52 and 57-59 ......................................................................................... 16
`
`B. Ground 2: Kovacevic Anticipates Claims 1, 8, 10, 19-21, 28, 30,
`39-41, 47, 49, 58 and 59 ............................................................................ 31
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1, 7-12, 19-21, 27-32, 39-41, 47-51, 58 and 59
`Would Have Been Obvious over Balderrama in View of Java
`Complete .................................................................................................... 41
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 13-17, 33-37, and 52-56 Would Have Been
`Obvious over Popp in View of Anand ...................................................... 57
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 60
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
`No. 3:13-cv-00628 .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Aty. Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
`355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 11
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC,
`CBM2014-00168, Paper No. 9 at 11 (PTAB 2014) ........................................ 3, 10
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 11
`
`Williamson v. Citrix,
`No. 2013-1130, slip op. at 16 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 16, 2015) ....................................... 11
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ........................................................................................ 5, 42, 58
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................................... 4, 6, 31, 42
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................. 11, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................... ..4
`
`
`
`iv
`
`iv
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`RPX Corporation (“RPX”) requests inter partes review of claims 1, 7-21, 27-
`
`41, and 47-59 of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482 (“the ‘482 patent”) (Ex. 1001) pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 311. The claimed subject matter of the ‘482 patent was well known
`
`before its filing date. See, e.g., Declaration of Mark Crovella, Ph.D., Ex. 1002
`
`(“Crovella”), ¶¶ 12-17.
`
`While the specification of the ‘482 patent is directed to a system for managing
`
`information affected by regulatory changes, the claims are much more broadly
`
`directed to systems and methods for dynamically generating an application using a
`
`classic and well-known multi-layered architecture. This multi-layered architecture
`
`(often referred to as a model-view-controller or MVC architecture) dates back to the
`
`1970s and was developed to facilitate the design of software applications in a way
`
`that leverages the commonality among user interface (UI) elements and other aspects
`
`of many software applications.
`
`The MVC architecture separates application software into distinct
`
`compartmentalized portions in a way that facilitates code sharing and reuse across
`
`applications. A first layer includes application-specific code and data unique to a
`
`particular application. A second layer contains generic UI elements (e.g., buttons,
`
`input fields, etc.) that can be shared across multiple applications so that generic UI
`
`elements need not be coded separately for every application. A third layer integrates
`
`1
`
`

`
`the first and second layers to create the UI and functionality of the application.
`
`Finally, a fourth layer detects changes that impact the application (e.g., the first or
`
`second layer) and updates the application accordingly.
`
`Applications commonly developed for mobile operating systems illustrate a
`
`well-known modern use of this multi-layered architecture. Application developers
`
`writing applications (“apps”) for mobile products often need not code UI elements
`
`from scratch, but can leverage generic UI elements (e.g., elements to detect swipes,
`
`clicks, etc.) that can be shared with other applications. This is an example of the
`
`code sharing benefit that the decades-old MVC architecture provides.
`
`The claims of the ‘482 patent add nothing patentable to the well-known MVC
`
`architecture. They recite conventional features of a client-server system, employ
`
`Java in a conventional way to deliver the application’s UI to a client computer, and
`
`recite the use of a conventional relational database.
`
`Multiple independent grounds are provided below based upon prior art
`
`references that employ the well-known multi-layered software architecture in
`
`applications that meet all of the limitations in the claims of the ‘482 patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`RPX is the sole real party-in-interest in this proceeding. RPX has not
`
`communicated with any client about its intent to contest the validity of this patent, or
`
`2
`
`

`
`the preparation or filing of this petition. RPX has complete, unilateral control of all
`
`aspects of this proceeding and is also solely responsible for all costs and expenses
`
`associated with this proceeding.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`A decision in this proceeding could affect or be affected by the following case
`
`pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and involving
`
`the ‘482 patent: Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce.com, Inc., No. 3:13-
`
`cv-00628. Institution of covered business method patent review of the ‘482 patent
`
`was also denied in Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC, No.
`
`CBM2014-00168.
`
`A separate petition for inter partes review of claims 2-6, 22-26, and 42-46 of
`
`the ‘482 patent is being filed concurrently, as well as a petition for inter partes
`
`review of patent 8,484,111 which claims priority to the ‘482 patent. Petitioner
`
`requests that all three petitions be reviewed by the same panel.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Richard F. Giunta (Registration No. 36,149)
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Elisabeth H. Hunt (Registration No. 67,336)
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Randy J. Pritzker (Registration No. 35,986)
`
`Service Information
`
`E-mail: RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com , EHunt-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`3
`
`

`
`Post and hand delivery: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`
` 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02210-2206
`
`Telephone: 617-646-8000 Facsimile: 617-646-8646
`
`Counsel for RPX consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID
`
`Fees are submitted herewith. If any additional fees are due at any time during
`
`the inter partes review proceedings, the undersigned authorizes the Office to charge
`
`such fees to Deposit Account No. 23/2825.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`RPX certifies, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), that the ’482 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that RPX is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review as to the ’482 patent claims identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`RPX requests cancellation of claims 1, 7-21, 27-41, and 47-59 of the ‘482
`
`patent. The table below indicates the references, claims, and basis for each Ground.
`
`
`
`1
`
`REFERENCE(S)
`
`CLAIMS
`
`BASIS
`
`Popp (Ex. 1004)
`
`1, 7-13, 18-21, 27-33,
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`2 Kovacevic (Ex. 1005)
`
`1, 8, 10, 19-21, 28, 30,
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`38-41, 47-52, 57-59
`
`39-41, 47, 49, 58, 59
`
`4
`
`

`
`3 Balderrama (Ex. 1006) and Java
`
`1, 7-12, 19-21, 27-32,
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Complete (Ex. 1007)
`
`39-41, 47-51, 58, 59
`
`4
`
`Popp and Anand (Ex. 1009)
`
`13-17, 33-37, 52-56
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`The Grounds are not redundant for three reasons. First, the Grounds address
`
`different sets of claims (see table above). Grounds 1 and 4 relying on Popp together
`
`address all of claims 1, 7-21, 27-41, and 47-59, while Ground 2 relying on Kovacevic
`
`does not address claims 7, 9, 11-18, 27, 29, 31-38, 48, and 50-57, and Ground 3
`
`relying on Balderrama does not address claims 13-18, 33-38, and 52-57.
`
`Second, while each of the three primary references (Popp, Kovacevic, and
`
`Balderrama) describes generation of an application and its UI using the multi-layered
`
`architecture claimed in the ‘482 patent, the references describe different systems.
`
`Popp generates Web page UIs for database applications, Kovacevic creates software
`
`applications for tutoring over the Web, and Balderrama provides automated
`
`interactive order-entry systems for sales outlets. The references apply the basic
`
`multi-layered design approach to different fields and use different specific application
`
`components. It is unclear what limitations the Patent Owner may argue are not met
`
`for any of the references, but any purportedly “missing” limitations are likely to
`
`differ for different references/Grounds.
`
`Third, Popp (Grounds 1 and 4), Balderrama (Ground 3), and Anand (Ground 4)
`
`are prior art under § 102(e) and/or § 102(a) and could potentially be antedated. It is
`
`5
`
`

`
`uncertain at this stage whether Patent Owner may be able to swear behind Popp,
`
`Balderrama and/or Anand. Ground 2 relying on Kovacevic, which is § 102(b) prior
`
`art, should not be found redundant in view of any of the Popp or Balderrama Grounds
`
`for this additional reason.
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The ‘482 patent is directed to computer software application development, and
`
`in particular claims a multi-layered architecture for generating an application and/or
`
`its UI. (Ex. 1001 at 32:9-36:33.) A person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`timeframe of the December 1998 priority date of the ‘482 patent (“POSA”) would
`
`have had at least a B.S. in Computer Science or the equivalent, along with at least
`
`two years of computer programming experience in developing applications for client-
`
`server systems. (Crovella ¶ 10.)
`
`B.
`
`Technology Overview
`
`Different software applications often have some components and functionality
`
`that differ, but others (e.g., those in the UI) that are similar. For example, any
`
`software application with a UI that enables a user to interact with the application via
`
`a keyboard and mouse must have components that enable the application to process
`
`and interpret user input via those devices.
`
`More than 25 years ago, the model-view-controller (MVC) architecture was
`
`developed to facilitate the design of software applications in a way that leverages the
`
`6
`
`

`
`commonality among UIs and other aspects of software applications. (Crovella ¶ 13;
`
`see also Ex. 1010.) MVC separates the pieces of software that create an application
`
`into distinct compartmentalized portions, in a way that facilitates code sharing and
`
`reuse across applications. (Ex. 1010 at p. 2, ¶ 3; Crovella ¶ 13.) A “model” layer of
`
`code is application-specific, i.e., unique to a particular application. (Ex. 1010 at p. 3,
`
`¶ 3; Crovella ¶ 13.) A “view” layer contains generic UI elements (e.g., buttons, input
`
`fields, etc.) that can be shared across applications. (Ex. 1010 at p. 3, ¶ 4; Crovella ¶
`
`13.) Thus, generic UI elements need not be coded separately for every application,
`
`and the same model can be implemented with multiple different views to create
`
`different presentation styles for the same application. (Ex. 1010 at p. 2, ¶ 4; p. 3, ¶ 2;
`
`Crovella ¶ 13.) A “controller” layer integrates a model and a view to create a
`
`specific UI presentation (view) of a particular application (model). (Ex. 1010 at p. 3,
`
`¶ 5; Crovella ¶ 13.) Finally, another layer monitors for changes affecting the
`
`application (such as user input that changes the application’s data), and those changes
`
`result in a change notification that causes modification of the model and/or view.
`
`(Ex. 1010 at p. 4, paras. 2-4; Crovella ¶ 15.)
`
`The MVC framework was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(POSA) by the ‘482 patent’s priority date, and although not explicitly called out, is
`
`used in all three primary references. (Crovella ¶ 17.) As demonstrated below, the
`
`7
`
`

`
`independent claims of the ‘482 patent are largely indistinguishable from the classic
`
`MVC architecture. (Crovella ¶ 17.)
`
`C.
`
`The ‘482 Patent
`
`The ‘482 patent is purportedly directed to “the integrated management of
`
`information affected by regulatory changes, such as changes in environmental, health
`
`and safety laws, and non-regulatory changes.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:6-9). Indeed, large
`
`portions of the specification describe embodiments related to applications dealing
`
`with environmental, health, and safety regulations. (Id. at Abstract; cols. 1-11, 22-
`
`29.) However, the patent’s claims are much broader.
`
`The ‘482 patent claims are directed to systems and methods for dynamically
`
`generating an application and/or the application’s UI. (Id. at 33:34; 33:56; 34:54;
`
`35:4.) Claim 1, for example, recites a system for providing a dynamically generated
`
`application and includes four layers (first through third layers, plus a change
`
`management layer) which correspond directly to the four layers of the classic MVC
`
`architecture discussed above. (Crovella ¶ 20.) The other limitations merely recite
`
`conventional features of a client-server system. (Crovella ¶ 19.) No limitations tie
`
`the claims to any particular field of use, and no mention is made of environmental,
`
`health, or safety regulations.
`
`The ‘482 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 6,341,287 (“the ‘287
`
`patent”). The parent ‘287 patent issued with a single claim that is much narrower
`
`8
`
`

`
`than the ‘482 patent’s claims and is tied to issues of regulatory compliance as
`
`described in the specification. (Ex. 1013 at 32:9-34:8.) The ‘482 patent
`
`(continuation) was then filed with much broader claims having no mention of
`
`regulatory aspects. After multiple rejections, the ‘482 patent’s claims were allowed
`
`based on the “change management layer” added by amendment. (Ex. 1014 at 2.)
`
`None of the references relied upon in this Petition were of record during prosecution
`
`of the ‘482 patent, and each of the Grounds presented below meets the change
`
`management layer as well as all other limitations of the claims.
`
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`Each claim term should be given its broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”)
`
`consistent with the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Some terms are defined in
`
`the specification, as discussed below, and the meaning applied in this Petition is the
`
`explicit definition. The BRI for terms not defined in the specification is the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning consistent with the specification, and those are the meanings
`
`applied in this petition. The interpretations of certain terms applied in this petition
`
`are addressed below before discussing the Grounds.
`
`A.
`
`“application”
`
`The claims all require generation of an “application,” which is not defined in
`
`the specification. The plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with the specification,
`
`9
`
`

`
`of “application” to a POSA in 1998 is “a program executable by a computer to do
`
`something useful other than maintaining the computer itself.” (Crovella ¶ 21.)
`
`B.
`
`“layer”
`
`All claims require a number of “layers,” a term not defined in the specification.
`
`In another proceeding involving the ‘482 patent, Patent Owner asserted that a “layer”
`
`is “one or more functionally or logically related software components.”
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC, CBM2014-00168, Paper
`
`No. 9 at 11 (PTAB 2014). This is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning and
`
`the specification (Crovella ¶ 22), and Petitioner adopts that interpretation herein.
`
`C.
`
`“change management layer for automatically detecting
`changes that affect an application”
`
` “Change management layer” (independent claims 1 and 41) had no established
`
`meaning to a POSA in the December 1998 timeframe, and is not defined in the
`
`specification. (Crovella ¶ 23; 16:17-46.)1 “Change management” would have been
`
`understood by a POSA to be a mere label for the layer that performs the function
`
`recited in the claim, and thus the BRI for “change management layer for
`
`automatically detecting changes that affect an application” is “a layer for
`
`automatically detecting changes that affect an application.” (Crovella ¶ 23.)
`
`D.
`
`“intelligent agent”
`
`“Intelligent agent” (claims 8, 9, 18, 28, 29, 38, 47, 48, and 57) is defined in the
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all citations in Section VI are to Ex. 1001.
`
`10
`
`

`
`‘482 patent in two different places as follows:
`
`“An ‘intelligent agent’ is a specialized program that makes decisions
`and performs tasks based on predefined rules and objectives.” (20:1-3.)
`
`“An ‘intelligent agent’ is a specialized program that resides on a
`network, or at a server as an applet, and can make decisions and
`perform tasks based on pre-defined rules.” (10:42-45.)
`
`The presence of two different definitions for the same term raises an issue as to
`
`definiteness. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1340-45 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (holding claims indefinite where two different definitions for the same
`
`term were given in prosecution). As shown below, the cited art meets both
`
`definitions.
`
`E.
`
`“means for automatically modifying the first and second
`layers in response to the intelligent agents in order to
`automatically change the functionality and user interface
`elements of the application based on the changes detected by
`the intelligent agents.”
`
`Use of “means for” raises a presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies, and
`
`that presumption is not rebutted by recitation of structure to perform the claimed
`
`function. Williamson v. Citrix, No. 2013-1130, slip op. at 16 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 16,
`
`2015). The claimed function (claims 9 and 48) – is not explicitly mentioned in the
`
`specification, and the specification does not clearly link any structure to this function.
`
`(Crovella ¶ 50.) This raises a serious question of whether the claim is indefinite.
`
`Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`11
`
`

`
`(“[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the
`
`specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the
`
`function recited in the claim.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted). In addition,
`
`while a “server/client system” is generically described (29:34-49), there is no
`
`algorithm disclosed for programming this general-purpose hardware to perform the
`
`recited function. (Crovella ¶ 50.) This also raises a serious question of
`
`indefiniteness. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Aty. Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328,
`
`1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Given that a server/client system is the only structure
`
`disclosed that performs the recited function, and no algorithm is disclosed for
`
`performing the recited function, for purposes of this Petition the claimed means is
`
`interpreted as covering “a server/client system that automatically modifies the first
`
`and second layers in response to the intelligent agents in order to automatically
`
`change the functionality and user interface elements of the application based on the
`
`changes detected by the intelligent agents.”
`
`F.
`
`“triggering event”
`
`“Triggering event” (claims 12, 32, and 51) is defined in the ‘482 patent as
`
`follows: “A ‘trigger event’ is an action performed by a user of the system that
`
`initiates another action or set of actions.” (30: 35-36.)
`
`12
`
`

`
`G.
`
`“view”
`
`“View” (claims 14, 34, and 53) is defined in the ‘482 patent as follows: “A
`
`‘view’ is an alternative representation of data in a table and may appear as one or
`
`more columns and/or one or more rows. The data attributes can change according to
`
`the format in which a view is presented. A view may be an overlay of a table
`
`structure but does not replace the table. A view is often referred to as a logical file.”
`
`(29:60-65.)
`
`H.
`
`“query”
`
`“Query” (claims 14, 34, and 53) is defined in the ‘482 patent as follows: “A
`
`‘query’ is a request to select, format and process/analyze one or more rows of data in
`
`a table and can operate on one or more tables. A query must specify (1) where the
`
`requested data are stored, (2) what are the common elements, if any, of the tables
`
`and/or views to be searched, (3) what data item(s) (usually, one or more columns) the
`
`user wishes to select, and (4) what criteria are applied to a data item. A query
`
`provides reporting Capability and processing/data analysis capability, using
`
`spreadsheets and other tools.” (30:19-27.)
`
`I.
`
`“means for dynamically generating a particular application
`based on the first and second layers each time a client
`computer connects to the server computer”
`
`The presumption raised by “means for” is not rebutted by recitation of any
`
`structure, so this term must be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. (§ VI.E supra)
`
`The claimed function (claim 41) is not explicitly mentioned in the specification,
`
`13
`
`

`
`which does not clearly link any structure with this function, nor disclose any
`
`particular programming or algorithm to perform the recited function. (Crovella ¶ 86.)
`
`Thus, serious issues of indefiniteness are raised. (§ VI.E supra.) Given that a
`
`server/client system is the only structure disclosed that performs the recited function,
`
`and that no algorithm is disclosed to perform it, for purposes of this Petition the
`
`claimed means is interpreted as covering “a server/client system that dynamically
`
`generates a particular application based on the first and second layers each time a
`
`client computer connects to the server computer.”
`
`VII. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`This Petition and the supporting evidence (including Dr. Crovella’s
`
`declaration) demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`All the claims are anticipated and/or obvious over the prior art relied upon in this
`
`Petition, as explained in detail by Dr. Crovella (Ex. 1002), a Professor of Computer
`
`Science at Boston University.
`
`VIII. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1, 7-21, 27-41, AND 47-59
`
`The ‘482 patent includes independent claims 1, 21, and 41. The independent
`
`claims are similar in many respects. Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below. The
`
`letters in brackets preceding the claim elements (e.g., [A]) are used throughout this
`
`Petition as shorthand references for those elements:
`
`14
`
`

`
`1. A system for providing a dynamically generated application having
`one or more functions and one or more user interface elements,
`comprising:
`[A] a server computer;
`[B] one or more client computers connected to the server computer
`over a computer network;
`[C] a first layer associated with the server computer containing
`information about the unique aspects of a particular application;
`[D1] a second layer associated with the server computer containing
`information about the user interface and functions common to a
`variety of applications, [D2] a particular application being
`generated based on the data in both the first and second layers;
`[E] a third layer associated with the server computer that retrieves
`the data in the first and second layers in order to generate the
`functionality and user interface elements of the application; and
`[F] a change management layer for automatically detecting changes
`that affect an application,
`[G1] each client computer further comprising a browser application
`being executed by each client computer, [G2] wherein a user
`interface and functionality for the particular application is
`distributed to the browser application and dynamically generated
`when the client computer connects to the server computer.
`
`Elements A, B, G1, and G2 recite a basic client-server computer system, the
`
`recited features of which were well known. (Crovella ¶ 19.) Elements C, D1, D2, E,
`
`and F recite four layers that map to the well-known components of the basic MVC
`
`15
`
`

`
`architecture described in § V.B above. (Crovella ¶ 20.) Three primary references
`
`relied upon herein disclose different types of systems that generate different types of
`
`applications, but each uses the claimed architecture incorporating the four layers, and
`
`does so in a server/client system claimed. (§§ VIII.A-C infra.).
`
`A. Ground 1: Popp Anticipates Claims 1, 7-13, 18-21, 27-33, 38-
`41, 47-52 and 57-59
`Popp (Ex. 1004)2 is a patent with a filing date of September 22, 1995, and is
`
`prior art to the ‘482 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Popp discloses a client-server
`
`system for generating Web pages that provide a dynamic UI for a database
`
`application that can respond to user input. (3:61-65; 8:24-26; Crovella ¶¶ 29-35.)
`
`A Web page is an “application” as claimed in the ‘482 patent, because it is a
`
`program executable by a computer to do something useful other than maintaining the
`
`computer itself, e.g., displaying information to a user, eliciting and receiving input
`
`from the user, etc. (Crovella ¶ 31; see § VI.A supra). The ‘482 patent specification
`
`does not discuss what it means to distribute and dynamically generate a UI and
`
`functionality “when the client connects to the server,” as recited in claim 1. The only
`
`distribution/generation embodiment described in the specification involves
`
`downloading Java code to a client machine that runs the Java code via a browser.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 14:51-67; Crovella ¶ 43.) To be consistent with the specification, the
`
`BRI of the claim limitation must cover this embodiment. Popp discloses the same
`
`2 Unless otherwise indicated, all citations in Section VIII.A are to Ex. 1004.
`
`16
`
`

`
`distribution/generation mechanism. (Crovella ¶ 43.) Popp’s Web page can include a
`
`Java applet that, when downloaded and processed by a Java-enabled browser (claims
`
`7, 27), dynamically generates and presents the UI and functionality to the user.
`
`(Crovella ¶ 44.) Thus, Popp’s UI and functionality are distributed to the client
`
`computer’s browser and dynamically generated when the client connects to the
`
`server, as recited in claim 1 of the ‘482 patent. (Crovella ¶¶ 41-43.)
`
`Popp’s system separates application-specific data from application-generic
`
`presentation (e.g., UI) components, as in the traditional MVC framework described in
`
`§ V.B supra. (Crovella ¶ 29.) It does so by defining the UI presentation of the web
`
`page via an object tree built from shared components, and by utilizing intermediary
`
`objects (called context objects) that link and push application-specific data from a
`
`database 224 into the Web page presentation (e.g., the Web page UI components in
`
`the object tree). (21:24-35; Crovella ¶ 29) The database containing application-
`
`specific data corresponds to the “first layer” claimed in the ‘482 patent, and the Web
`
`page objects that are application-generic and shared across multiple applications
`
`correspond to the “second layer.” (Crovella ¶¶ 36-37.) The Web page objects 216
`
`correspond to HTML elements that define a web page and include component sub-
`
`trees representing UI portions (e.g., text boxes, check boxes, radio buttons) that can
`
`be shared across Web pages, and thus contain information about the UI and functions
`
`common to a variety of applications. (Crovella ¶ 37.)
`
`17
`
`

`
`Popp uses a scriptedControl object 602 to generate and manage a Web page.
`
`(18:62-65; 19:1-12; Crovella ¶ 39.) The scriptedControl object 602 retrieves
`
`application-specific data from the database (first layer) and combines it wit