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 2-6, 22-26, AND 42-46 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 ............................................................................................ 7
`
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ........................................................................... 9
`
`A. “application” ................................................................................................ 9
`
`B. “layer” .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`C. “change management layer for automatically detecting changes that
`affect an application” ................................................................................. 10
`
`D. “means for distributing one or more JAVA applets to the client
`computer” .................................................................................................. 10
`
`E. “database” .................................................................................................. 11
`
`F. “means for dynamically generating a particular application based
`on the first and second layers each time a client computer connects
`to the server computer” ............................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`VII. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ............... 13
`
`VIII. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 2-6, 22-26, AND 42-46 ....................... 13
`
`A. Ground 1: Popp Anticipates Claims 2, 22, and 42 ................................... 15
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 2, 22, and 42 Would Have Been Obvious over
`Balderrama in View of Java Complete ...................................................... 25
`
`C. Grounds 3 and 4: Claims 3-6, 23-26, and 43-46 Would Have Been
`Obvious over Popp in view of Codd (Ground 3), and over
`Balderrama and Java Complete in view of Codd (Ground 4) ................... 37
`
`i. Ground 3: Claims 3-6, 23-26, and 43-46 Would Have Been
`Obvious over Popp in view of Codd ................................................... 39
`ii. Ground 4: Claims 3-6, 23-26, and 43-46 Would Have Been
`Obvious over Balderrama and Java Complete in view of Codd ......... 44
`D. Ground 5: Claims 3-6, 23-26, and 43-46 Would Have Been
`Obvious over Kovacevic in view of Codd ................................................ 48
`
`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 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 11
`
`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 (PTAB 2014) ................................................. 3, 10
`
`Williamson v. Citrix,
`No. 2013-1130 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 16, 2015) ............................................................. 10
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .............................................................................................. 5, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................................. 5, 25, 37, 48
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) .................................................................................... 4, 5, 15, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................................4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................. 10, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`RPX Corporation (“RPX”) requests inter partes review of claims 2-6, 22-26,
`
`and 42-46 of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482 (“the ‘482 patent”) (Ex. 1101) 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 E. Crovella, Ph.D., Ex. 1102
`
`(“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 1, 7-21, 27-41, and 47-59
`
`of the ‘482 patent is being filed concurrently, as well as a petition for inter partes
`
`review of related 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 2-6, 22-26, and 42-46 of the ‘482 patent.
`
`The table below indicates the references, applicable claims, and basis for each
`
`Ground.
`
`REFERENCE(S)
`
`CLAIMS
`
`BASIS
`
`2, 22, 42
`
`2, 22, 42
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`1
`
`Popp (Ex. 1104)
`
`2 Balderrama (Ex. 1106) and Java
`
`4
`
`

`
`Complete (Ex. 1107)
`
`3
`
`Popp and Codd (Ex. 1108)
`
`3-6, 23-26, 43-46
`
`4 Balderrama, Java Complete, and Codd 3-6, 23-26, 43-46
`
`5 Kovacevic (Ex. 1105) and Codd
`
`3-6, 23-26, 43-46
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`The Grounds are not redundant for at least two reasons. First, while each of
`
`the three primary references (Popp, Balderrama, and Kovacevic) 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, Balderrama provides automated interactive order-entry
`
`systems for sales outlets, and Kovacevic creates software applications for tutoring
`
`over the Web. 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.
`
`Second, Popp (Grounds 1 and 3) and Balderrama (Grounds 2 and 4) are prior
`
`art under § 102(e) and/or § 102(a) and could potentially be antedated. It is uncertain
`
`at this stage whether Patent Owner may be able to swear behind Popp and/or
`
`Balderrama. Ground 5 relying on Kovacevic and Codd, which are § 102(b) prior art,
`
`should not be found redundant in view of any of the Popp or Balderrama Grounds for
`
`this additional reason.
`
`5
`
`

`
`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. 1101 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
`
`commonality among UIs and other aspects of software applications. (Crovella ¶ 13;
`
`see also Ex. 1110.) 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. 1110 at p. 2, ¶ 3; Crovella ¶ 13.) A “model” layer of
`
`6
`
`

`
`code is application-specific, i.e., unique to a particular application. (Ex. 1110 at p. 3,
`
`¶ 3; Crovella ¶ 13.) A “view” layer contains generic user interface elements (e.g.,
`
`buttons, input fields, etc.) that can be shared across applications. (Ex. 1110 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. 1110 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. 1110 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. 1110 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
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`
`and safety laws, and non-regulatory changes.” (Ex. 1101 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
`
`than the ‘482 patent’s claims and is tied to issues of regulatory compliance as
`
`described in the specification. (Ex. 1113 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. 1114 at 2.)
`
`8
`
`

`
`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 a term not
`
`defined in the specification. The plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with the
`
`specification, 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.”
`
`9
`
`

`
`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.
`
`“means for distributing one or more JAVA applets to the
`client computer”
`
`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 – “distributing one or more JAVA applets to the client
`
`computer” (claims 2 and 42) – is not explicitly mentioned in the specification, and
`
`the specification does not clearly link any structure to this function. (Crovella ¶ 45.)
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all citations in Section VI are to Ex. 1101.
`
`10
`
`

`
`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) (“[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 ¶ 45.) 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
`
`distributes one or more JAVA applets to the client computer.”
`
`E.
`
`“database”
`
`“Database” (claims 3, 5, 6, 23, 25, 26, 43, 45, and 46) is defined in the ‘482
`
`patent as follows: “A ‘database’ is a collection or group of objects that holds various
`
`related information items. This information is divided into tables, views, columns
`
`and rows, and an object is identified by its name and/or icon in a database.” (29:50-
`
`54.) “Table,” “view,” “column,” and “row” are in turn defined in the ‘482 patent as
`
`follows:
`
`11
`
`

`
`“A ‘table’ is a structure that holds data in a database, often as one or
`more two-dimensional structures divided into rows and columns. An
`example of a table is a spreadsheet. A table is often referred to as a
`physical file.” (29:55-58.)
`“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.”
`(29:59-64.)
`“A ‘column’ is one or more vertically oriented parts of a (two-
`dimensional) Table and
`is
`identified by specifying specific
`information in a table. Each column will have one data type
`(character, decimal, hexadecimal, integer, alpha-numeric, etc.). A
`row-column intersection is often referred to as a field.” (30:7-12.)
`“A ‘row’ is one or more vertical parts of a Table and consists of a
`selected sequence of values drawn from one or more columns – one
`value for each column. Row entries are actual data in a table. A row
`is often referred to as a record.” (30:15-18.)
`
`F.
`
`“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.D supra)
`
`The claimed function (independent claim 41) is not explicitly mentioned in the
`
`specification, which does not clearly link any structure with this function, nor
`
`12
`
`

`
`disclose any particular programming or algorithm to perform the recited function.
`
`(Crovella ¶ 86.) Thus, serious issues of indefiniteness are raised. (§ VI.D 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. 1102), a Professor of Computer
`
`Science at Boston University.
`
`VIII. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 2-6, 22-26, AND 42-46
`
`The ‘482 patent includes independent claims 1, 21, and 41, from which the
`
`claims challenged in this Petition depend. 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:
`
`13
`
`

`
`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
`
`14
`
`

`
`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 as claimed. (§§ VIII.A-D infra.).
`
`A. Ground 1: Popp Anticipates Claims 2, 22, and 42
`Popp (Ex. 1104)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 user interface 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. 1101 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. 1104.
`
`15
`
`

`
`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
`
`(claims 2, 22, 42). (Crovella ¶ 44.) Thus, Popp’s user interface 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 user interface portions (e.g., text boxes, check boxes, radio buttons)
`
`16
`
`

`
`that can be shared across Web pages, and thus contain information about the user
`
`interface and functions common to a variety of applications. (Crovella ¶ 37.)
`
`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 with the
`
`object tree (second layer) in order to generate the functionality and user interface
`
`elements of the Web page (application). (FIG. 6B; Crovella ¶¶ 38-39; ) Popp’s
`
`scriptedControl object 602 corresponds to the controller component in the MVC
`
`architecture and to the “third layer” in the ‘482 patent claims. (18:62-65; 19:1-12;
`
`Crovella ¶ 39.) ScriptedControl object 602 owns script 604, which includes logic to
`
`fetch an employee’s name from the data source (first layer) and load it into the
`
`‘name’ property of an employee object (retrieved from the second layer) in order to
`
`generate functionality and elements of a user interface that displays and allows
`
`updates to employee data. (FIG. 6A; 18:65-67; 19:29-38; 22:37-42.)
`
`ScriptedControl object 602 is part of application 214 executing on (associated with)
`
`the server computer. (FIG. 2; 8:49-55.)
`
`Popp discloses an inputControl object 664 that is responsible for responding to
`
`user input received via the Web page UI. (22:28-48; Crovella ¶ 40.) It automatically
`
`detects, for example, user input that modifies a field in a Web page form. (22:37-42;
`
`Crovella ¶ 40.) Modification of a field in a Web page form is a change that affects
`
`17
`
`

`
`the application (the Web page) as claimed, so Popp’s inputControl object 664
`
`corresponds to the “change management layer” claimed in the ‘482 patent. (Crovella
`
`¶ 40.) In response to a change detected by inputControl object 664, Popp’s server
`
`application 214 modifies the Web page objects (second layer) by storing the user
`
`input in a context object, and updates the database (first layer) with the changed data.
`
`(22:28-62; Crovella ¶ 49.)
`
`The analysis