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.: 2016-01013
`
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 17, 30, AND 44-46 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,882,057)
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`List of Exhibits .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .............................................................. v
`
`Real Party-In-Interest – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................. v
`Related Matters 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................... v
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ........................... vi
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ...................................... vii
`
`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 .................................................................................. 6
`
`A. Ground 1 - Claims 17, 30, and 44-46 are obvious in view of
`Loomans, Stahl, and the general knowledge of a PHOSITA ............... 6
`1.
`Reasons to combine Loomans with Stahl ................................... 6
`2.
`Claims 17, 30, and 44 ...............................................................11
`3.
`Claim 45 ....................................................................................41
`4.
`Claim 46 ....................................................................................68
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................71
`
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .......................................72
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1101 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)
`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)
`
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1108
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`Feb. 1, 2011
`
`’057 Patent
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`Greenspun Decl.
`
`Greenspun CV
`
`’057 Patent File
`History
`
`Jan. 18, 2011 Loomans
`
`Jun. 2000
`
`Stahl
`
`1992
`
`Kott
`
`2003
`
`Anselma
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`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
`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
`
`1109
`
`1110
`
`1111
`
`1112
`
`1113
`
`1114
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`1117
`
`2002
`
`Magro
`
`1984
`
`Bachant
`
`1982
`
`McDermott
`
`1991
`
`Kramer
`
`1998
`
`Yu
`
`Oct. 2, 2003
`
`Rising
`
`1990
`
`ICAD
`
`April 2002
`
`Oracle
`
`1999
`
`CBR
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`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
`
`
`
`Sept. 1976
`
`Stallman
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1118
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`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.
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC.
`
` This case was dismissed without prejudice on
`
`December 3, 2015.
`
`Petitioner has filed a concurrent petition concerning the ’057 Patent
`
`(IPR2016-01012). 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
`
`vi
`
`concurrently herewith.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`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
`
`FPGP0129IPR2@brookskushman.com.
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`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 17, 30, and 44-46 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. 1105.)
`
`(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: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b). (Ex. 1106.)
`
`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
`CHALLENGED
`
`Loomans, Stahl
`
`and
`
`the
`
`general
`
`1
`
`§ 103
`
`17, 30, and 44-46
`
`knowledge of a PHOSITA
`
`
`
`The unpatentability grounds set forth in this Petition are confirmed and
`
`supported by the declaration of Dr. Philip Greenspun. (“Greenspun,” attached as
`
`Ex. 1102.)
`
`II.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Petitioner Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review of claims 17, 30, and 44-46 of U.S. Patent No. 7,882,057 (“the ’057
`
`Patent,” attached as Ex. 1101) 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: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`individually and recombining the results into a single result.” (See Ex. 1101 at
`
`Abstract.)
`
`(Ex. 1101 [‘057 Patent] 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.
`
`(Ex. 1102 ¶¶28-30.) The relevant field of art is product configuration software.
`
`(Id.)
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`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). 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6 permits an element in a claim for a
`
`combination to be expressed as a means for performing a specified function
`
`without the recital of structure in support thereof, but with the provision that “such
`
`claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6.2
`
`Moreover, “the corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶6 claim for a computer-
`
`implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification.” Aristocrat
`
`Techs. Austl. Party. Ltd. vs. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005)).
`
`The following
`
`terms—from challenged claims 45 and 46—require
`
`construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6:
`
`• means for receiving one or more configuration queries. . . (claim 45,
`
`limitation [45.1]);
`
`
`2 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
`
`Because the ’057 Patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012, Petitioner
`
`refers to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112 in this Petition.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`• means for dividing one or more configuration queries . . (claim 45,
`
`limitation [45.2]);
`
`• means for processing each sub-query. . . (claim 45, limitation [45.3]);
`
`• means for generating a response to the one or more configuration
`
`queries . . (claim 45, limitation [45.6]);
`
`• means for providing the response . . (claim 45, limitation [45.7]); and
`
`• means for dividing a consolidated configuration. . . (claim 46, limitation
`
`[46.0]).
`
`Analysis of these means-plus-function limitations—including identification
`
`of the corresponding structure(s) set forth in the ’057 Patent’s specification—is
`
`included below in connection with the obviousness analysis of claims.
`
`For purposes of this petition, Petitioner does not believe any other terms
`
`require construction beyond their plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction 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.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`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).
`
`A. Ground 1 - Claims 17, 30, and 44-46 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, claims 17, 30, and 44-46 are unpatentable as being obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over Loomans (Ex. 1105), Stahl (Ex. 1106), 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 17 of the ’057 Patent closely mirrors system/computer storage
`
`medium claims 30 and 44. Indeed, the claims are nearly identical except their
`
`preambles contain slightly different language, claim 17 adds a limitation for
`
`performing with a computer system, claim 30 adds processor and storage medium
`
`limitations, and claim 44 includes a slightly distinct ordering of the elements.
`
`Thus, for efficiency, claims 17, 30 and 44 are analyzed together below.
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to combine Loomans with Stahl
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`
`combine the teachings from Loomans with the teachings from Stahl. Both
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`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 model into sub-configurable sub-models so that the sub-models can
`
`be configured and validated. (Ex. 1105 at 1:57-65.) (Ex. 1102 at ¶139.)
`
`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. 1106 at 4-5.) Thus, both
`
`Loomans and Stahl describe using decomposition to evaluate rules in a
`
`configuration system. 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. 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 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. (Ex.
`
`1102 at ¶140.)
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`Although both Loomans and Stahl are addressing a common problem in the
`
`prior art, the emphasis of Loomans and Stahl are somewhat different. Loomans
`
`provides more details about how to ensure that answers to configuration queries
`
`are processed in a roughly constant amount of time. 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. 1105 [Loomans] 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. 1106 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). Taken together, these references
`
`comfortably render obvious the subject matter of the challenged claims. 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 person having ordinary skill in the art to use the rule database system
`
`described in Loomans with the rule evaluation system described in Stahl. (Ex.
`
`1102 at ¶141.)
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`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. As noted above, Loomans gives quick and certain 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. 1105 at 11:39-46.) 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. 1102 at
`
`¶142.)
`
`Second, for similar reasons, a person having ordinary skill in the art 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. During the rule-preparation
`
`process of Loomans it might have been discovered that the exception table was
`
`growing to an extremely large size. Recall that in the configuration system
`
`described 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. 1105 at 4:26-29,
`
`11:39-46,). 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
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`exception table. 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. 1102 at
`
`¶143.)
`
`Further, 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 (i.e., 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. A PHOSITA 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. (Ex. 1102 at ¶144.)
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`2.
`
`Claims 17, 30, and 44
`
`[17.0] A method for using
`
`[30.0] A computer system
`
`[44.0] 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
`
`one or more configuration
`
`models, the system
`
`using configuration sub-
`
`queries using
`
`comprising:
`
`models, wherein the data
`
`configuration sub-models,
`
`comprises code for:
`
`the method comprising:
`
`Loomans in view of Stahl disclose elements [17.0], [30.0] and [44.0]. (Ex.
`
`1102 at ¶¶73-81, 145-154, 175-178.)
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`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. 1105 at Abstract, emphasis added.)
`
`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. 1102 at ¶¶74, 149.)
`
`
`
`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. 1102 at ¶74.) 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-
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`model, and/or provided via some other mechanisms.” (Ex.1105 at 4:64-67,
`
`emphasis added; Ex. 1102 at ¶¶75, 150.)
`
`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. 1105 at 16:26-28, Fig. 8; Ex. 1102 at ¶¶76, 146.)
`
`
`
`Loomans further describes an example in Figure 9 of a computer used as
`
`host computer (810) or the client computers from Figure 8. (Ex. 1105 at 17:42-44.)
`
`As annotated below, the exemplar computer includes a processor (depicted in
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`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. 1105 at Fig. 9 (annotated); Ex. 1102 at ¶¶77, 147, 176.)
`
`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. 1105 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. 1102 at ¶177.)
`
`Stahl discloses 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)
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`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
`
`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. 1106 at 4-5, emphasis added; Ex. 1102 at ¶¶78, 151.)
`
`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. 1106 at 5; Ex. 1102 at ¶¶79, 152.) A PHOSITA would have
`
`further appreciated that the models and sub-models described in Loomans could
`
`have been used to process solutions and sub-solutions to the Query and sub-
`
`problems in Stahl. (Ex. 1102 at ¶¶79, 152.) Such models (and the rules contained
`
`therein) are commonly used during the resolving stage of a configuration problem
`
`in a configuration system. (Ex. 1102 at ¶¶79, 152.)
`
`Thus, Loomans in view of Stahl disclose the subject matter in elements
`
`[1.0], [18.0] and [31.0] of the ‘057 Patent.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`[30.1] a processor; and a storage medium having data encoded therein, the data
`
`comprising processor executable code for:
`
`Loomans in view of Stahl disclose limitation [30.1] directed to a processor;
`
`and a storage medium having data encoded therein, the data comprising processor
`
`executable code for. (Ex. 1102 at ¶¶150-158.)
`
`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. 1105 at 17:42-50.)
`
`(Ex. 1105 at Fig. 9 (annotated); Ex. 1102 at ¶155.)
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`As discussed above, Loomans 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. 1105 at
`
`16:26-28; Ex. 1102 at ¶155.) Loomans then describes a computer that can be used
`
`in the disclosed configuration system:
`
`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. System 900 includes a bus 908 that interconnects
`
`major subsystems such as one or more processors 910, a memory
`
`subsystem 912, a data storage subsystem 914, an input device
`
`interface 916, an output device interface 918, and a network interface
`
`920. Processor(s) 910 perform many of the processing functions
`
`for system 900 and communicate with a number of peripheral
`
`devices via bus 908.
`
`(Ex. 1105 [Loomans] at 17:42-50, emphasis added; Ex. 1102 at ¶155.) Loomans
`
`further discloses “[a] computer program product for performing sub-configuration
`
`of components of an entity, comprising a computer-usable storage medium having
`
`embodied therein computer-readable program codes executable by a processor.
`
`(Ex. 1105 at 18:35-39, emphasis added; Ex. 1102 at ¶155.) Thus, Loomans discloses a
`
`processor for performing sub-configuration. (Ex. 1102 at ¶155.)
`
`Loomans further discloses that the memory subsystem “may include a RAM
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2016-01013
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0129IPR2
`
`932 and a ROM 934 used to store codes and data that implement various aspects of
`
`the invention.” (Ex. 1105 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. 1102 at ¶156.)
`
`Thus, Loomans in view of Stahl disclose the subject matter in element [30.1]
`
`of the ‘057 Patent.
`
`[17.1] dividing a
`
`[30.2] dividing a
`
`[44.1] dividing a
`
`consolidated
`
`consolidated
`
`consolidated
`
`configuration model into
`
`configuration model into
`
`configuration model into
`
`multiple configuration
`
`multiple configuration
`
`multiple configuration
`
`sub-models;
`
`sub-models;
`
`sub-models;
`
`
`
`Loomans in view of Stahl disclose elements [17.1], [30.2] and [44.1]. (Ex.
`
`1102 at ¶¶82-83, 159-160, 179-180.)
`
`Loomans discloses dividing a consolidated parent model into multiple child
`
`sub-models.
`
`The invention provides techniques to configure complicated entities
`
`using sub-configuration, which provides numerous benefits. Sub-
`
`configuration effectively partitions the overall configuration of a
`
`complicated top-level entity (e.g., computer system 100) into a set
`
`of configurations of sma