UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,882,057 to Little et al.
`
`IPR Case No.: 2016-01012
`
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 1-16, 18-29, AND 31-43 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,882,057)
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`List of Exhibits ......................................................................................................... iii
`
`Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................................ vi
`
`Real Party-In-Interest – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................ vi
`Related Matters 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................................... vi
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .......................... vii
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ..................................... viii
`
`I.
`
`Standing Requirements Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ......................................... 1
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................... 1
`B.
`Challenged Claims – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) .................................... 1
`C.
`Grounds of Challenge – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ............................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`III. Overview of the ’057 Patent ............................................................................ 2
`
`IV. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) .................................... 3
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .............................................. 4
`
`VI. Unpatentability Grounds .................................................................................. 4
`
`A. Ground 1 - Claims 1-16, 18-29 and 31-43 are Obvious in View
`of Loomans, Stahl, and the General Knowledge of a PHOSITA ......... 5
`1.
`Reasons to combine Loomans with Stahl ................................... 5
`2.
`Independent Claims 1, 18 and 31 ................................................ 9
`a.
`Claims 2, 19 and 32 ........................................................35
`b.
`Claims 3 and 33 ..............................................................38
`c.
`Claims 4, 20 and 34 ........................................................40
`d.
`Claims 5, 21 and 35 ........................................................42
`e.
`Claims 6, 22 and 36 ........................................................45
`f.
`Claims 7, 23 and 37 ........................................................47
`g.
`Claims 8, 24 and 38 ........................................................50
`h.
`Claims 9, 25 and 39 ........................................................53
`i.
`Claims 10, 27 and 41 ......................................................57
`j.
`Claims 11, 26, 28, 40 and 42 ..........................................59
`k.
`Claims 12, 29 and 43 ......................................................63
`l.
`Claim 13 ..........................................................................64
`m.
`Claim 14 ..........................................................................65
`n.
`Claim 15 ..........................................................................67
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`o.
`
`Claim 16 ..........................................................................69
`
`VII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................71
`
`VIII. Fee Statement .................................................................................................71
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................72
`
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .......................................73
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`Feb. 1, 2011
`n/a
`
`’057 Patent
`Greenspun Decl.
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`Jan. 18, 2011
`
`Greenspun CV
`
`’057 Patent File
`History
`Loomans
`
`Jun. 2000
`
`Stahl
`
`1992
`
`Kott
`
`2003
`
`Anselma
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,882,057
`Expert Declaration of Dr.
`Philip Greenspun
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Philip
`Greenspun
`U.S. Patent No. 7,882,057 File
`History
`U.S. Patent No. 7,873,503 to
`Loomans et al.
`A. Stahl, R. Bergmann, S.
`Schmitt, A Customization
`Approach for Structured
`Products in Electronic Shops,
`Electronic Commerce: The End
`of the Beginning, 13th
`International Bled Electronic
`Commerce Conference (June
`19-21, 2000)
`
`(available at ____________.)
`Alexander Kott, Gerald Agin,
`David Fawcett, Configuration
`Tree Solver: A Technology for
`Automated Design and
`Configuration, ASME Journal
`of Mechanical Design 114(1):
`187-195 (1992)
`L. Anselma, D. Magro, and P.
`Torasso, Automatically
`Decomposing Configuration
`Problems, AI*IA 2003:
`Advances in Artificial
`Intelligence, Lecture Notes in
`Computer Science, Volume
`2829, pp. 39-52 (2003)
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`2002
`
`Magro
`
`1984
`
`Bachant
`
`1982
`
`McDermott
`
`1991
`
`Kramer
`
`1998
`
`Yu
`
`Oct. 2, 2003
`
`Rising
`
`1990
`
`ICAD
`
`D. Magro and P. Torasso,
`Decomposing and Distributing
`Configuration Problems,
`Artificial Intelligence:
`Methodology, Systems, and
`Applications, Lecture Notes in
`Computer Science, Volume
`2443, pp. 81-90 (2002)
`Judith Bachant, John
`McDermott, R1 Revisited:
`Four Years in the Trenches, AI
`Magazine Volume 5, Number 3
`(1984)
`John McDermott, R1: A Rule-
`Based Configurer of Computer
`Systems, Artificial Intelligence
`(1982)
`Bryan M. Kramer, Knowledge-
`Based Configuration of
`Computer Systems Using
`Hierarchial Partial Choice,
`IEEE (1991)
`Bei Yu and Hans Jorgen
`Skovgaard, A Configuration
`Tool to Increase Product
`Competitiveness, IEEE
`Intelligent Systems, 34-41
`(July/August 1998)
`U.S. Patent Application
`Publication No. 2003/0187950
`to Rising
`Martin R. Wagner,
`Understanding the ICAD
`System, ICAD, Inc., 1990
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`April 2002
`
`Oracle
`
`1999
`
`CBR
`
`Sept. 1976
`
`Stallman
`
`Oracle Configurator
`Developer, User’s Guide,
`Release 11i for Windows
`95/98/2000 and Windows NT
`4.0
`Stefan Schulz, CBR-Works A
`State-of-the-Art Shell for Case-
`Based Application Building,
`TECINNO GmbH, 1999
`Richard M. Stallman and
`Gerald Jay Sussman, Forward
`Reasoning and Dependency-
`Directed Backtracking In a
`System for Computer-Aided
`Circuit Analysis, MIT
`Artificial Intelligence
`Laboratory, Memo No. 380,
`Sept. 1976
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`
`
`Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`
`Real Party-In-Interest – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner certifies that Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) is the real party-in-
`
`interest.
`
`Related Matters 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner identifies the following related judicial matter: Ford Motor
`
`Company v. Versata Software, Inc. F/K/A Trilogy Software, Inc., Trilogy
`
`Development Group, Inc., and Trilogy, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,882,057 (“the ’057 Patent”) is being asserted by Versata in this
`
`proceeding, along with seven additional patents. Versata’s counterclaim against
`
`Ford for infringement of the ’057 Patent was filed and served on October 28, 2015.
`
`In connection with this litigation, Versata Software, Inc. has stated that it holds all
`
`right, title, and interest in and to the ’057 Patent.1
`
`The ’057 Patent was also asserted in Versata Development Group, Inc.
`
`F/K/A Trilogy Development Group, Inc., Versata Software, Inc., F/K/A Trilogy
`
`Development Group, Inc., and Trilogy, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No.
`
`4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC.
`
` This case was dismissed without prejudice on
`
`
`1 The most recent assignment recorded with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`states that the assignee of the ’057 Patent is Trilogy Development Group, Inc.
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`December 3, 2015.
`
`Petitioner has filed a concurrent petition concerning the ’057 Patent
`
`(IPR2016-01013). Petitioner has also filed the following petitions against other
`
`Versata patents at issue in Case No. 2:15-cv-10628: IPR2016-01014 (concerning
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,825,651); IPR2016-01017 (concerning U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,405,308); IPR2016-01016 (concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,675,294); IPR2016-
`
`01015 (concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,200,582); and IPR2016-01019 (concerning
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,464,064). This Petition is not redundant to any previously or
`
`concurrently filed petitions.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner appoints John S. LeRoy (Reg. No. 48,158) of Brooks Kushman
`
`P.C. as lead counsel, and appoints Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770), Frank A.
`
`Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733), John P. Rondini (Reg. No. 64,949), Christopher C.
`
`Smith (Reg. No. 59,669) and Jonathan D. Nikkila (Reg. No. 74,694) of Brooks
`
`Kushman P.C. as back-up counsel. An appropriate Power of Attorney is filed
`
`concurrently herewith.
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made via
`
`hand-delivery to Brooks Kushman P.C., 1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor,
`
`Southfield, Michigan 48075.
`
` Petitioner consents to service by email at
`
`FPGP0129IPR1@brookskushman.com.
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`I.
`
`Standing Requirements Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’057 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`B. Challenged Claims – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-16, 18-29, and 31-43 of
`
`the ’057 Patent and requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)
`
`cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`C. Grounds of Challenge – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art for the grounds of unpatentability:
`
`(i)
`
`Loomans – U.S. Patent No. 7,873,503 to Loomans et al. (hereinafter
`
`“Loomans”) was filed on November 18, 2002, published on August 12, 2010 (as
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0204970), and issued on January 18,
`
`2011. Loomans qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). (Ex. 1005.)
`
`(ii) Stahl – A. Stahl, R. Bergmann, S. Schmitt, A Customization
`
`Approach for Structured Products in Electronic Shops, Electronic Commerce: The
`
`End of the Beginning, 13th International Bled Electronic Commerce Conference
`
`(June 19-21, 2000) (hereinafter “Stahl”). Stahl was published in the Proceedings
`
`of the 13th International Bled Electronic Commerce Conference in 2000 and
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b). (Ex. 1006.)
`
`Neither Loomans nor Stahl were of record during prosecution of the ‘057
`
`Patent.
`
`The grounds of unpatentability presented in this petition are as follows:
`
`GROUND BASIS
`
`REFERENCES
`
`CLAIMS
`
`1
`
`§ 103
`
`and
`Loomans, Stahl
`knowledge of a PHOSITA
`
`the
`
`general
`
`1-16, 18-29, and
`31-43
`
`
`
`The unpatentability grounds set forth in this Petition are confirmed and
`
`supported by the declaration of Dr. Philip Greenspun. (“Greenspun,” attached as
`
`Ex. 1002.)
`
`II.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Petitioner Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-16, 18-29, and 31-43 of U.S. Patent No. 7,882,057 (“the
`
`’057 Patent,” attached as Ex. 1001) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`III. Overview of the ’057 Patent
`
`The ’057 Patent is titled “Complex Configuration Processing Using
`
`Configuration Sub-Models” and is generally directed to a framework for
`
`addressing “the issue of configuration model and query complexity by breaking a
`
`configuration problem down into a set of smaller problems, solving them
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`individually and recombining the results into a single result.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract.)
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 4.)
`
`
`
`IV. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)
`
`A PHOSITA would have either: (1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, or similar technical field; or (2)
`
`equivalent experience in the design or implementation of configuration systems.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`(Ex. 1002 at ¶¶28-30.) The relevant field of art is product configuration software.
`
`(Id.)
`
`V. Claim Construction – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`“A claim in an unexpired patent . . . shall be given its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For purposes of this petition, Petitioner does not believe any
`
`terms in the challenged claims require construction beyond their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard for this proceeding.
`
`Although Petitioner has attempted to identify all claim construction issues
`
`relevant to this Petition and to construe terms consistent with prevailing
`
`jurisprudence, Petitioner respectfully requests the opportunity to present additional
`
`claim construction positions in the event that the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard required for this Petition is modified and further attention to claim
`
`construction is required in this proceeding.
`
`VI. Unpatentability Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that the Challenged Claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103. For the reasons explained in detail below, the Petitioner has established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the following grounds of unpatentability. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`A. Ground 1 - Claims 1-16, 18-29 and 31-43 are Obvious in
`View of Loomans, Stahl, and the General Knowledge of a
`PHOSITA
`
`As provided below and supported by the accompanying declaration of Dr.
`
`Greenspun (Ex. 1002), claims 1-16, 18-29 and 31-43 are unpatentable as being
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Loomans (Ex. 1005), Stahl (Ex. 1006), and the
`
`general knowledge of a PHOSITA. As set forth above, Loomans is prior art under
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and Stahl is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)
`
`and (b).
`
`Method claim 1 of the ‘057 Patent closely mirrors the system/computer
`
`storage medium claims 18 and 31. Indeed, the claims are nearly identical besides
`
`that their preambles contain slightly different language -- claim 1 adds a limitation
`
`for performing with a computer system, and claim 18 adds processor/storage
`
`medium limitations. Thus, for efficiency, claims 1, 18 and 31 are analyzed together
`
`below.
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to combine Loomans with Stahl
`
`A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to combine the teachings from
`
`Loomans with the teachings from Stahl. (Ex. 1002 at ¶139.) Both Loomans and
`
`Stahl describe configuration systems that are based on the concept of eliminating
`
`configuration complexity by dividing a configuration problem into simpler sub-
`
`problems. Indeed, Loomans expressly describes partitioning a top-entity parent
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`model into sub-configurable sub-models so that the sub-models can be configured
`
`and validated. (Ex. 1005 at 1:57-65; Id.)
`
`Similarly, Stahl discloses dividing configuration queries into sub-problems,
`
`which can then be solved via sub-solutions, and the sub-solutions can then be
`
`combined to create a final answer to the query. (Ex. 1006 at 4-5.) Thus, both
`
`Loomans and Stahl describe using decomposition to evaluate rules in a
`
`configuration system. (Ex. 1002 at ¶140.) Both Loomans and Stahl use the
`
`configuration of a personal computer as an example. At the time of the alleged
`
`invention, a software engineer interested in building a high-performance
`
`configuration system, e.g., one that can respond in real-time to customers trying to
`
`order products on a web site, would have had good reason to draw guidance from
`
`the configuration approaches described in Loomans as well as Stahl. (Id.) A
`
`configuration system with the rule-evaluation mechanism of Loomans (checking a
`
`configuration table or a sub-configuration table) would likely run faster. A
`
`configuration system with the rule-evaluation mechanism of Stahl would work
`
`better in situations where the vendor did not expect to be able to find an exact
`
`match for a customer’s requirements. (Id.)
`
`Although both Loomans and Stahl are addressing a common problem in the
`
`prior art, the emphasis of Loomans and Stahl are somewhat different. (Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶141.) Loomans provides more details about how to ensure that answers to
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`configuration queries are processed in a roughly constant amount of time. (Id.)
`
`This is based on the fact that any set of values from a customer-specified
`
`configuration can be looked up in the configuration and sub-configuration tables of
`
`Loomans in a roughly constant amount of time. (Ex. 1005 at 4:26-29, 11:39-46.)
`
`Stahl provides more details about how to deal with situations in which the
`
`customer’s requirements are over-specified to the point that no configuration can
`
`satisfy every requirement. (“the most suitable component that is available within
`
`the component case-base,” (Ex. 1006 [Stahl] at 6); “If it is impossible to determine
`
`a weak part whose adaption could perhaps improve the product, the complete
`
`configuration process is succeeded and the final product can be presented to the
`
`customer,” (Id. at 7), making it clear that the system produces the best result that it
`
`can). (Ex. 1002 at ¶141.) Taken together, these references comfortably render
`
`obvious the subject matter of the challenged claims. (Id.) Thus, to the extent that
`
`Stahl does not expressly disclose dividing configuration models into sub-models to
`
`process sub-problems, or equivalents thereof, it would have been obvious to a
`
`PHOSITA to use the rule database system described in Loomans with the rule
`
`evaluation system described in Stahl. (Ex. 1002 at ¶141; Id.)
`
`First, using the case-based reasoning of Stahl, at least for some of the sub-
`
`models, would improve the functionality of the configuration system described in
`
`Loomans. (Ex. 1002 at ¶143.) As noted above, Loomans gives quick and certain
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`answers but, unless an invalid configuration has been expected by the developers
`
`and placed into an “exception table,” it is difficult to give the user a full
`
`explanation as to why a configuration is invalid. (Ex. 1005 [Loomans] at 11:39-46;
`
`Id.) The case-based reasoning of Stahl would help in situations where Loomans
`
`was applied to products in which it was unlikely that all of a customer’s
`
`preferences could be satisfied simultaneously, e.g., the customer wants a car with
`
`sport functionality that also seats 8. (Ex. 1002 at ¶143; Id.)
`
`Second, for similar reasons, a PHOSITA would have concluded that it was
`
`obvious to try using the rule evaluation system of Stahl with at least some of the
`
`sub-models of Loomans. (Ex. 1002 at ¶144.) During the rule-preparation process
`
`of Loomans it might have been discovered that the exception table was growing to
`
`an extremely large size. (Id.) Recall that in Loomans, if a configuration is found in
`
`a configuration table it is valid; if not found in the configuration table it is not
`
`valid. (Ex. 1005 at 4:26-29, 11:39-46; Id.) A customer whose requested
`
`configuration comes back as “invalid” cannot get any explanation of the problem
`
`unless the requested configuration was anticipated by the programmers and
`
`maintainers of the system and recorded in the exception table. (Id.) Customers
`
`calling up to ask “Why can’t I place an order?” would have motivated a PHOSITA
`
`to use the more flexible rule evaluation system of Stahl at least in whichever sub-
`
`model was proving difficult to satisfy. (Ex. 1002 at ¶143.)
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`Finally, because the sub-models in Loomans are designed for use in
`
`configuring sub-configurable options, and Stahl teaches that the described sub-
`
`problems represent configuration problems for parts (e.g., sub-configurable
`
`options), using the rule evaluation system of Stahl to evaluate one or more of the
`
`sub-models taught in Loomans would have yielded a predictable solution to
`
`configuring the overall product taught in Loomans with increased efficiency than
`
`previous configuration methods. (Ex. 1002 at ¶144.) A person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have known that modifying the teachings of Loomans
`
`configuration to use Stahl’s method of rule evaluation on at least some sub-models
`
`would have been a simple software modification; and a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been capable and knowledgeable to make such a
`
`software change. (Id.)
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 18 and 31
`
`[1.0] A method for using
`
`[18.0] A computer system
`
`[31.0] A computer storage
`
`a computer system,
`
`to implement an inference
`
`medium comprising data
`
`wherein the computer
`
`procedure for responding
`
`embedded therein to
`
`system includes computer
`
`to one or more
`
`cause a computer system
`
`assisted configuration
`
`configuration queries
`
`to respond to one or more
`
`technology to respond to
`
`using configuration sub-
`
`configuration queries
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`one or more configuration
`
`models, the system
`
`using configuration sub-
`
`queries using
`
`comprising:
`
`models, wherein the data
`
`configuration sub-models,
`
`comprises processor
`
`the method comprising:
`
`executable code for:
`
`Loomans in view of Stahl disclose elements [1.0], [18.0] and [31.0]. (Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶¶73-80, 223-233 and 280-289.)
`
`Indeed, Loomans discloses configuring a parent configuration model by
`
`configuring, and validating, child sub-models created by partitioning the parent
`
`configuration model.
`
`In one method, the entity is configured via a parent model and
`
`each sub-configurable component is configured via one of a
`
`number of sub-models. Initially a selection to configure a particular
`
`sub-configurable component of the entity is received, and a sub-model
`
`for the selected component is identified. One or more values for one
`
`or more features of the selected component are received (e.g., from
`
`the parent model or via the sub-model) and form a configuration for
`
`the component, which is then validated based on the associated
`
`sub-model and the received values. Configuration of the entity is
`
`also validated based on the parent model and the validated
`
`configuration for the selected component. Feedbacks may be provided
`
`for each configuration of the parent model and sub-models. The data
`
`for the parent model and sub-models may be localized or globalized.
`
`(Ex. 1005 at Abstract, emphasis added.)
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`The invention provides techniques to configure complicated
`
`entities using sub-configuration, which effectively partitions the
`
`configuration of a complicated top-level entity into a set of
`
`configurations of smaller sub-level entities (i.e., components of the
`
`top-level entity) in combination with a configuration of a
`
`"simplified"
`
`top-level entity. The
`
`top-level entity may be
`
`represented by and configured via a parent model, and each sub-
`
`configurable component may be represented by and configured via a
`
`child sub-model.
`
`(Id. at 1:57-65, emphasis added; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶73, 227, 283.)
`
`
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA would have understood that the teachings of configuring a sub-
`
`model or validating a sub-model described in Loomans corresponds to the “query”
`
`nomenclature of the ‘057 Patent. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶74, 230, 286.) Loomans furthers
`
`discloses that the sub-models are queried: “The required information may be
`
`provided from the parent level, queried and entered at the sub-level via the
`
`child sub-model, and/or provided via some other mechanisms.” (Ex.1005 at 4:64-
`
`67, emphasis added; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶75, 228, 284.)
`
`Loomans also describes a system, which is capable of implementing the
`
`disclosed configuration technology: “FIG. 8 is a simplified diagram of an
`
`embodiment of a configuration system 800 that may be capable of implementing
`
`various aspects and embodiments of the invention.” (Ex. 1005 at 16:26-28.)
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`(Ex. 1005 at Fig. 8; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶76, 224.)
`
`
`
`Loomans further describes an example in Figure 9 of a computer used as
`
`host computer 810 or the client computers 820 from Figure 8: “FIG. 9 is a block
`
`diagram of an embodiment of a computer system 900 that may be used to
`
`implement host server 810 or client computers 820.” (Ex. 1005 at 17:42-44.) As
`
`annotated below, the exemplary computer includes a processor (depicted in yellow
`
`in Figure 9 below), a data storage subsystem (depicted in blue in Figure 9 below),
`
`and a memory subsystem (depicted in orange in Figure 9 below).
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`
`(Ex. 1005 at Fig. 9 (annotated); Ex. 1002 at ¶¶77, 225, 281.)
`
`Loomans further discloses that memory subsystem of the computer “may
`
`include a RAM 932 and a ROM 934 used to store codes and data that implement
`
`various aspects of the invention.” (Ex. 1005 at 17:51-53.) Loomans also discloses
`
`that the data storage subsystem “provides non-volatile storage for program codes
`
`and data” (Id. at 17:56-57; Ex. 1002 at ¶282.)
`
`Stahl teaches dividing a configuration query into sub-problems (i.e., sub-
`
`queries), which are then solved and combined back together to form the overall
`
`solution of the configuration problem (i.e., the original configuration query):
`
`Query. The starting point of the configuration process is the
`
`query represented by an
`
`incomplete
`
`instantiation of
`
`the
`
`compositional structure. When looking at the example query shown
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`in Fig. 3, we can interpret the root note as our actual problem, i.e.,
`
`we are searching a PC with a set of special properties. . . Thus, we
`
`can interpret the different leaf nodes of the query as sub-problems
`
`that must be solved to solve the overall problem, i.e., the
`
`configuration of the required PC. If we have found suitable sub-
`
`solutions, i.e. suitable components, for every part-query, we have to
`
`combine these sub-solutions to a final solution for the overall
`
`configuration problem.
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 4-5, emphasis added; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶78, 229, 285.)
`
`A PHOSITA would have understood that the sub-problems described in
`
`Stahl represent a form of sub-query, which Stahl teaches are solved with “suitable
`
`sub-solutions” (i.e., answers) by determining the suitable parts for a particular
`
`“part-query”. (Ex. 1006 at 5; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶79, 231, 287.) A PHOSITA would
`
`have further appreciated that the models and sub-models described in Loomans
`
`could have been used to process the solutions and sub-solutions to the Query and
`
`sub-problems in Stahl. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶79, 232, 288.) Such models (and the rules
`
`contained therein) are commonly used during the resolving stage of a configuration
`
`problem in a configuration system. (Ex. 1002 at ¶79.)
`
`Thus, Loomans in view of Stahl disclose the subject matter in elements
`
`[1.0], [18.0] and [31.0] of the ‘057 Patent.
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`[18.1] a processor; and a storage medium having data encoded therein, the data
`
`comprising processor executable code for:
`
`Loomans in view of Stahl disclose limitation [18.1] directed to a processor;
`
`and a storage medium having data encoded therein, the data comprising processor
`
`executable code for. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶234-236.)
`
`In Figure 9, Loomans discloses an exemplar computer used to implement the
`
`described configuration process. As annotated below, the exemplar computer
`
`includes a processor (depicted in yellow in Figure 9 below), a data storage
`
`subsystem (depicted in blue in Figure 9 below), and a memory subsystem (depicted
`
`in orange in Figure 9 below). (Ex. 1005 at 17:42-50.)
`
`(Ex. 1005 at Fig. 9 (annotated); Ex. 1002 at ¶234.)
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`Loomans further discloses that memory subsystem “may include a RAM
`
`932 and a ROM 934 used to store codes and data that implement various aspects of
`
`the invention.” (Ex. 1005 at 17:51-53.) Loomans also discloses that the data
`
`storage subsystem “provides non-volatile storage for program codes and data” (Id.
`
`at 17:56-57; Ex. 1002 at ¶235.)
`
`Thus, Loomans in view of Stahl disclose the subject matter in element [18.1]
`
`of the ‘057 Patent.
`
`[1.1]
`
`[18.2 and 31.1]
`
`receiving one or more configuration
`
`receiving one or more
`
`queries representing
`
`configuration queries representing
`
` [sic]
`
` a
`
`
`
`
`one or more
`
`
`questions involving parts and part
`
`questions involving parts and part
`
`relationships in a configuration of a
`
`relationships in a configuration of a
`
`configurable product;
`
`configurable product;
`
`Loomans in view of Stahl disclose elements [1.1], [18.2] and [31.1] . (Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶¶81-90, 237-238, 290-291.)
`
`Stahl discloses that the “[t]he starting point of the configuration process
`
`is the query represented by an incomplete instantiation of the compositional
`
`structure.” (Ex. 1006 at 4.) Stahl discloses Figure 3 (below) as an example query
`
`16
`
`

`
`with a “root note as our actual problem.” (Id.)
`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`(Id. at Figure 3.)
`
`
`
`Referring to Figure 3, Stahl describes the actual problem, i.e. the query, as a
`
`search for “a PC with a set of special properties.” (Id. at 4.) Stahl then goes on to
`
`discuss that it “is necessary to select appropriate components that fulfill the
`
`properties of the respective part-queries.” (Id.) A PHOSITA would have
`
`understood that Stahl’s discussion of “part-queries” in the context of configuring a
`
`PC would constitute the “one or more questions involving parts and part
`
`relationships in a configuration of a configurable product” of this claim limitation.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at ¶84). Indeed, such “part-queries” would be necessary to determine if
`
`certain selected components are compatible with other selected components – i.e.,
`
`whether a proposed configuration is buildable. (Id.)
`
`Loomans further discloses that the configuration process includes validating
`
`the configuration: “In a typical conventional implementation, once the choices for
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01012
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR1
`
`all options have been selected, the resultant configuration may be validated.”
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 4:13-16; Ex. 1002 at ¶88.) A PHOSITA would have understood that
`
`the configuring a sub-model or validating a sub-model described in Loomans
`
`corresponds to the “query” nomenclature of the ‘057 Patent. (Ex. 1002 at ¶89.)
`
`Indeed, the processing and validation of the model and sub-models in Loomans
`
`would include processing one or more queries associated with those sub-models.
`
`(Id.)
`
`Thus, Loomans in view of Stahl discloses the subject matter in elements
`
`[1.1], [18.2] and [31.1] of the ‘057 Patent.
`
`[1.2] [a] and performing with the
`
`[18.3 and 31.2]