`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`UBISOFT, INC. AND SQUARE ENIX, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owners.
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01290
`U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466
` ____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
`
`1
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 1
`
`
`
`I, Vijay K. Madisetti, hereby declare the following:
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION
`1. My name is Vijay Madisetti, and I am a Professor of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”) in
`
`Atlanta, GA.
`
`2.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Technology in electronics and Electrical
`
`Communications Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in
`
`1984. I received my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences
`
`(EECS) from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989. I am currently a
`
`tenured full Professor at Georgia Institute of Technology, and I have been on the
`
`faculty of Georgia Institute of Technology since 1989. I have authored or co-
`
`authored over 100 reference articles in the area of electrical engineering. I have
`
`also authored, co-authored, or edited several books in the areas of electrical
`
`engineering, signal processing, image and video processing, computer engineering,
`
`and embedded systems, including Modeling, Analysis, Simulation of Computer and
`
`Telecommunications Systems (1994), VLSI Digital Signal Processors (1995) and
`
`The Digital Signal Processing Handbook (First & Second Editions) (1998, 2012),
`
`and VHDL: Electronics Systems Design Methodologies (2000). Although I discuss
`
`my expert qualifications in more detail below, I also attach as [Appendix A] a
`
`recent and complete curriculum vitae, which details my educational and
`
`professional background and includes a listing of most of my publications.
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 2
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I have been active in the area of computer and information security
`
`and protection in the networked environment since late 1980s, starting with my
`
`work on “GAFFES: A Design of A Globally Distributed File System” (EECS
`
`Technical Report, UCB/CSD-87-361, June 1987) which described early work on
`
`security, authentication and replication in the network context. I have also
`
`published papers in the area of coding theory for secure storage, communications
`
`and noise immunity in the context of storage networks (See, e.g., “Constrained
`
`Multritrack RLL Codes for the Storage Channel”, IEEE Transactions on
`
`Magnetics, Vol. 31, Issue 3, 1995). I have also developed algorithms for detection
`
`of erroneous (or false) information that can be introduced and propagated into
`
`computer networks, and developed a preemptive algorithm called WOLF that has
`
`been efficient in limiting the propagation by rolling back the effects of incorrect
`
`messages within a network. (See WOLF: A Rollback Algorithm for Optimistic
`
`Distributed Simulation Systems, 1988).
`
`4.
`
`I have been involved in research and technology in the area of signal
`
`processing, event-driven programming, embedded systems, and distributed
`
`computer and information systems since the late 1980s, and my work in this area
`
`has focused on secure and efficient distribution of information over networks,
`
`synchronization of updates across a distributed network, and multiprocessing
`
`systems and tools.
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 3
`
`
`
`5.
`
`In 1987, at UC Berkeley, I worked on implementing a globally
`
`distributed file system, called GAFFES, to facilitate information sharing in a global
`
`network of workstations. GAFFES provided four services to handle naming,
`
`replication and caching, security and authentication, and file access primitives.
`
`GAFFES outlined features of access in terms of users and their roles, and in terms
`
`of beliefs and policies. Every file in GAFFES has at least one role, and the owner
`
`of a role determines the roles that may use that role to operations on software files.
`
`6.
`
`In the past twenty years, I have also authored several peer-reviewed
`
`papers in the areas of computer software and design, and these include:
`
`• V. Madisetti, et al, “Synchronization mechanisms for distributed
`event-driven computation”, ACM Transactions on Modeling and
`Computer Simulation, Vol 2, No. 1, January 1992
`• V. Madisetti, et al, “The Georgia tech Digital Signal Multiprocessor”,
`IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol 41, No. 7, July 1993
`• V. Madisetti et al, “Rapid Prototyping on the Georgia Tech Digital
`Signal Multiprocessor”, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol
`42, March 1994.
`• V. Madisetti et al, “Computer Simulation of Application-Specific
`Signal Processing Systems”, International Journal in Computer
`Simulation, Vol. 4, No. 4, Nov 1994
`• V. Madisetti, “Reengineering legacy embedded systems”, IEEE
`Design & Test of Computers, Vol 16, Vol 2, 1999
`• V. Madisetti et al, “Virtual Prototyping of Embedded Microcontroller-
`based DSP Systems”, IEEE Micro, Vol 15, Issue 5, 1995
`• V. Madisetti, et al, “Incorporating Cost Modeling in Embedded-
`System Design”, IEEE Design & Test of Computers, Vol 14, Issue 3,
`1997
`• V. Madisetti, et al, “Conceptual Prototyping of Scalable Embedded
`DSP Systems”, IEEE Design & Test of Computers, Vol 13, Issue 3,
`1996.
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 4
`
`
`
`• V. Madisetti, “Electronic System, Platform & Package Codesign,”
`IEEE Design & Test of Computers, Vol 23, Issue 3, June 2006.
`• V. Madisetti, et al, “A Dynamic Resource Management and
`Scheduling Environment for Embedded Multimedia and
`Communications Platforms”, IEEE Embedded Systems Letters, Vol 3,
`Issue 1, 2011.
`
`I have over 100 peer-reviewed publications issued from the early
`
`7.
`
`1980s to the present on topics related to computer engineering, signal processing,
`
`event-driven programming, and digital system design.
`
`8.
`
`I am a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineering (“IEEE”), which signifies the highest professional standing in my
`
`research and educational community.
`
`9.
`
`I have already been qualified as an expert in over a dozen trials, and
`
`two recent cases: Harkabi v. SanDisk Corp., No. 08-cv-8203 (S.D.N.Y.) and
`
`Yangaroo Inc. v. Destiny Media Techs. Inc., No. 09-cv-462 (E.D. Wisc.) the
`
`technology at issue was specific to the area of digital rights management of
`
`software products. I testified in both of these cases at trial (Harkabi v. SanDisk)
`
`and by deposition (Yangaroo v. Destiny).
`
`10.
`
`In sum, I have over 25 years of experience in research and
`
`development in the areas of signal processing, event-driven programming,
`
`computer engineering and electrical engineering as a professor, researcher and
`
`consultant.
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 5
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I have been retained by Petitioners and am submitting this declaration
`
`to offer my independent expert opinion concerning certain issues raised in the
`
`Petition for inter partes Review (“Petition”). My compensation is not based on the
`
`substance of the opinions rendered here. As part of my work in connection with
`
`this matter, I have studied U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466 (“the ‘466 patent”), including
`
`the respective written descriptions, figures and claims, in addition to the ‘466
`
`patent prosecution history. Moreover, I have reviewed the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ‘466 patent and I have also carefully considered the following
`
`references discussed in the Petition, in addition to all of the materials cited herein:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,692,129 to Sonderegger et al. (“Sonderegger”),
`entitled “Managing Application Programs in a Computer Network by
`Using a Database of Application Objects,” filed July 7, 1995 and
`issued November 25, 1997 [EX1002]
`
`Novell’s Guide to NetWare 4.1 Networks by Jeffrey F. Hughes and
`Blair W. Thomas (“Hughes”) published in 1996 by Novell Press, San
`Jose [EX1003]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,105,069 to Franklin et al. (“Franklin”), entitled
`“Licensing Controller Using Network Directory Services,” filed
`November 13, 1997 and issued August 15, 2000 [EX1004]
`
`•
`
`Novell Application Launcher 2.0 White Paper (“NAL White Paper”)
`dated May, 1997 and available via web archive internet address
`https://web-
`beta.archive.org/web/19970606035750/http://www.novell.com:80/ma
`nagewise/NAL/nalwp.html at least as early as June 6, 1997 [EX1005]
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 6
`
`
`
`12.
`
`I have been informed by counsel and understand that the first step in
`
`an unpatentability analysis involves construing the claims, as necessary, to
`
`determine their scope. And, second, the construed claim language is then
`
`compared to the disclosure of the prior art. In proceedings before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, I have been informed that the claims of an unexpired
`
`patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention. I have been informed that the ‘466 patent is unexpired.
`
`13.
`
`In comparing the claims of the ‘466 patent to the prior art, I have
`
`carefully considered the ‘466 patent and its prosecution history based upon my
`
`experience and knowledge in the relevant field. In my opinion, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claim terms of the ‘466 patent is generally
`
`consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of those terms, as one skilled
`
`in the relevant field would understand them at the time of the invention. For
`
`purposes of this proceeding, I have applied the claim constructions set forth in the
`
`claim construction section of the IPR Petition that this declaration accompanies
`
`when analyzing the prior art and the claims. For those terms that have not
`
`expressly been construed, I have applied the meaning of the claim terms of the
`
`‘466 patent that is generally consistent with the terms’ ordinary and customary
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 7
`
`
`
`meaning, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood them at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that there are two ways in which a
`
`prior art patent or printed publication can be used to invalidate a patent. First, the
`
`prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the claim. Second, the prior art can be shown
`
`to “render obvious” the claim. My understanding of the two legal standards is set
`
`forth below.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that, in general, for a patent claim to
`
`be invalid as “anticipated” by the prior art, each and every feature of the claim
`
`must be found, expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference or product
`
`arranged as in the claim. Claim limitations that are not expressly found in a prior
`
`art reference are inherent if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with,
`
`or includes, the claim limitations.
`
`16.
`
`I have also been informed by counsel that an inventor is not entitled to
`
`a patent if his or her invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the field of the invention at the time the invention was made. I understand
`
`that a patent claim is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`
`between the patent claim and the prior art are such that the claimed subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the claimed invention was made to
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 8
`
`
`
`Obviousness, as I understand it, is based on the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`the differences between the prior art and the claim, the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, and, to the extent that they exist and have an appropriate nexus to the claimed
`
`invention (as opposed to prior art features), secondary indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that whether there are any relevant differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention is to be analyzed from the view of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in this case
`
`December 14, 1998. As such, my opinions below as to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art are as of the time of the invention, even if not expressly stated as such; for
`
`example, even if stated in the present tense.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that for a reference to be proper for use in an
`
`obviousness ground of unpatentability, the reference must be “analogous art” to the
`
`claimed invention. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the
`
`field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. This does not
`
`require that the reference be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed
`
`invention, because I have been informed that when a work is available in one field
`
`of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
`
`either in the same field or a different one. Rather, a reference is analogous art to
`
`the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 9
`
`
`
`claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the
`
`same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In order for a reference to be
`
`“reasonably pertinent” to the problem, it must logically have commended itself to
`
`an inventor's attention in considering his problem. In determining whether a
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent, a relevant consideration is the problem faced by
`
`the inventor, as reflected either explicitly or implicitly, in the specification. I
`
`believe the references that my opinions in this proceeding are based upon are well
`
`within the range of references a person of ordinary skill in the art would consult to
`
`address the type of problems described in the ’466 Patent, as described further
`
`below.
`
`19.
`
`In analyzing the relevance of the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art, I have been informed that I must consider the impact, if
`
`any, of such differences on the obviousness or non-obviousness of the invention as
`
`a whole, not merely some portion of it. The person of ordinary skill faced with a
`
`problem is able to apply his or her experience and ability to solve the problem and
`
`also look to any available prior art to help solve the problem.
`
`20. An invention is obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art, facing
`
`the wide range of needs created by developments in the field, would have seen an
`
`obvious benefit to the solutions tried by the applicant. When there is a design need
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 10
`
`
`
`or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to try the
`
`known options. If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in
`
`the same way, using the technique would have been obvious.
`
`21.
`
`It is my understanding that a precise teaching in the prior art directed
`
`to the subject matter of the claimed invention is not needed and that one may take
`
`into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of the invention.
`
`For example, if the claimed invention combined elements known in the prior art
`
`and the combination yielded results that were predictable to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention, then this evidence would make it more
`
`likely that the claim was obvious. On the other hand, if the combination of known
`
`elements yielded unexpected or unpredictable results, or if the prior art teaches
`
`away from combining the known elements, then this evidence would make it more
`
`likely that the claim that successfully combined those elements was not obvious.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that hindsight must not be used when comparing the
`
`prior art to the invention for obviousness.
`
`23.
`
`It is my understanding that obviousness may also be shown by
`
`demonstrating that it would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 11
`
`
`
`piece of prior art to create the subject matter of the patent claim. Obviousness may
`
`be shown by showing that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
`
`more than one item of prior art. In determining whether a piece of prior art could
`
`have been combined with other prior art or combined with or modified in view of
`
`other information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, the
`
`following are examples of approaches and rationales that may be considered:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`
`Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`Applying a technique or approach that would have been "obvious to
`try" (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success);
`
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`invention.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the rationale for modifying a reference and/or
`
`combining references may come from sources such as explicit statements in the
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 12
`
`
`
`prior art, or the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, including any need or
`
`problem known in the field at the time, even if different from the specific need or
`
`problem addressed by the inventor of the patent claim.
`
`III. LEVEL OF A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`25.
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding the qualifications
`
`of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “skilled artisan”) with
`
`respect to the ‘466 Patent. I understand that the POSITA is a hypothetical person
`
`who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention, which
`
`I understand here to be sometime at or around the December 14, 1998 filing date of
`
`the ‘466 Patent. I understand that factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (a) the type of problems encountered
`
`in the art; (b) prior art solutions to those problems; (c) the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made; (d) the sophistication of the technology; and (e) the
`
`educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, the POSITA relevant to the ‘466 Patent would have at
`
`least an undergraduate degree, in computer science, computer engineering, or a
`
`related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience. In addition, a
`
`POSITA would have at least one to two years of experience in networking
`
`environments, including at least some experience with management of application
`
`programs in a network environment.
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 13
`
`
`
`27. As demonstrated by my experience above, I more than meet the
`
`definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, throughout the 1990s and
`
`2000s, I worked with numerous people of ordinary skill in the field in question.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘466 PATENT
`28. The ‘466 Patent generally relates to “centralized management of
`
`application programs on a network.” See ‘466 Patent at Title. Specifically, the
`
`‘466 Patent discloses a server providing “applications on-demand to a user logging
`
`in to a client supported by the server.” ‘466 Patent at Abstract. A user desktop
`
`interface is established responsive to a user’s login request. ‘466 Patent at 4:29-
`
`34. The user desktop interface includes “display regions, such as icons” associated
`
`with application program(s) installed at the server for which the user is authorized.
`
`‘466 Patent at 4:29-34, 14:55-58. Upon receiving a request, the server provides
`
`and instance of a selected application program to the client for execution. ‘466
`
`Patent at 4:34-38. This process is generally depicted in Figures 4 and 6 of the ‘466
`
`Patent:
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 14
`
`
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘466 PATENT FILE HISTORY
`29. The application leading to the ‘466 Patent was filed on December 14,
`
`
`
`1998 with 23 claims. The PTO initially rejected the pending claims as obvious
`
`over Oh in view of Bladow. March 28, 2001 Office Action. In response,
`
`Applicants argued that the references did not teach “receiving at the server a
`
`selection of one of the plurality of application programs from the user desktop” or
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 15
`
`
`
`providing “an instance ... for execution responsive to the selection.” June 4, 2001
`
`Response and Amendment. The PTO again rejected the claims as obvious, this
`
`time over Rose in view of Win. Aug. 13, 2001 Office Action. This time,
`
`Applicants argued that Rose nor Win taught “establishing a user desktop interface
`
`at the client associated with the user” or that the interface display regions
`
`associated with “a plurality of application programs at the server for which the user
`
`is authorized.” Jan. 7, 2002 Response. The PTO made its rejection final on Feb.
`
`22, 2002 and Applicants filed a response after final repeating their prior arguments.
`
`The PTO issued an Advisory Action on April 4, 2002, Applicants filed a Notice of
`
`Appeal on April 18, 2002 and an Appeal Brief on May 16, 2002. The Examiner
`
`issued a Notice of Allowance on August 12, 2002.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND ON THE STATE OF THE RELEVANT ART
`30.
`It was well-known in the early to mid-1990s to use “thin client”
`
`computing, where application programs stored on a server are downloaded and
`
`executed on client computers “on demand” after a determination of availability of
`
`authorization or valid licenses by the users. I describe a few exemplary
`
`disclosures of these commonly known methods and systems.
`
`31.
`
`In U.S. Patent No. 5,838,916, (the ‘916 patent, EX1013) filed on
`
`March 14, 1997, a continuation of Ser. No. 616,746, filed March 14, 1996, and
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 16
`
`
`
`issued on Nov 17, 1998, a system and method is disclosed for executing
`
`application programs from a thin client linked to a server.
`
`32. As described in Figure 1 of the ‘916 patent, the client desktop displays
`
`available applications from a server on the network. (See 8:8-30, for instance)
`
`
`
`33. The client computer 12 connects over a network 13a and 13b to a
`
`server 14, a server 15, a program interface 16, with application icons 16a, 16b, and
`
`16c. The server process creates “application information files” that contain
`
`information necessary for running the remote application on the client. For
`
`example, the application information file can include executable files (i.e., EXE
`
`files), initialization files (i.e., INI files), systems files (i.e., SYS files) and other
`
`information including configuration information (See 9:35-58, for instance).
`
`34. Figure 9 of the ‘916 patent describes a functional block diagram that
`
`allows a client to connect to an Internet server for executing applications
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 17
`
`
`
`therefrom. The client process step connects the client to the Web server process.
`
`The server process authenticates the client and determines the access privileges
`
`afforded to the client by examining a client ID signal and a client privilege signal
`
`that are transmitted by the client to the server. After these “licensing” or
`
`“validation” steps, the server passes back to the client “an HTML page that
`
`graphically depicts the available programs”. After executing the application on the
`
`client, the client can exit from the application and can select the next application
`
`program on the local machine for executing. (See col. 21 & 22).
`
`35. U.S. Patent No. 5,758,069, filed on March 15, 1996, titled “Electronic
`
`Licensing System” issued on May 26, 1998. EX1014. A central server sends a
`
`license and the application to an authorized requesting client. The client may be
`
`provided with a series of application programming interfaces (APIs) through which
`
`remote procedure calls (RPCs) may be made to connect to the licensing servers.
`
`As shown in Figures 8A-B the user can use a graphical interface with “icons” to
`
`select applications that are available to license.
`
`36.
`
`In Figure 1, the client 106 can request the sever 104 to provide several
`
`such services, including deciding if an application for a license is granted (See 3:40
`
`–4:23, 11:1-45). The indication of the availability of the application license or its
`
`rejection is shipped back to the client (See 12:40-49, 12:8-20).
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37. As described above, the use of thin clients to access permitted
`
`application upon login and user authorization by a server combined with selection
`
`of application programs and obtaining instances of the application programs from
`
`the server by the client or its variations and equivalents were well known in the art
`
`by the mid to late 1990s.
`
`VII. SONDEREGGER IN VIEW OF HUGHES, FRANKLIN, AND NAL
`WHITE PAPER
`38.
`
`I was asked to consider whether, at the time of the alleged invention,
`
`it would have been obvious to combine Sonderegger, Hughes, Franklin, and the
`
`NAL White Paper.
`
`39. As an initial matter, I note that the ‘466 Patent is directed to “network
`
`management in general and in particular to application program management on a
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 19
`
`
`
`computer network.” ‘466 Patent at 1:21-23. Sonderegger, Hughes, Franklin, and
`
`the NAL White Paper also relate to the field of management of application
`
`programs in a computer network and, therefore, are in the same field of endeavor.
`
`Not only that, but like the ‘466 Patent, Sonderegger, Hughes, Franklin and the
`
`NAL White Paper each address the problem of providing a uniform framework for
`
`providing users access to application programs to which a user is authorized, such
`
`as through an application launcher. Sonderegger at 3:24-48; Hughes at pp.66-69;
`
`Franklin at 2:16-27; NAL White Paper at pp.1-3; ‘466 Patent at 4:39-50. For at
`
`least these reasons, Sonderegger, Hughes, Franklin and the NAL White Paper are
`
`analogous to each other and to the ‘466 Patent.
`
`40. Sonderegger, assigned to Novell, Inc., discloses a method and
`
`apparatus for managing application programs in a computer network. EX1002,
`
`Sonderegger at Abstract. Sonderegger describes use of the disclosed invention in
`
`connection with Novell NetWare software version 4.x. Sonderegger at 4:56-58
`
`(“In one embodiment, the network 10 includes Novell NetWare® software, version
`
`4.x (NetWare is a registered trademark of Novell, Inc.).”); see also Fig. 1. In
`
`particular, Sonderegger discloses that applications are managed through the use of
`
`application objects maintained in a hierarchical directory services database, such as
`
`the Novell Netware Directory Services database (“NDS database”). Sonderegger
`
`at 1:5-10, 7:3-5, 5:13-22. Sonderegger further discloses providing “administrative
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 20
`
`
`
`routines for managing application objects [] through a ‘snap-in’ module that
`
`extends the familiar NWAdmin tool presently used on Novell NetWare®
`
`networks.” Sonderegger at 2:64-67. Each application object represents one
`
`application program, such as a word processor or spreadsheet program, and its
`
`execution environment. Sonderegger at 2:59-3:2. The disclosed administrative
`
`routines allow an administrator to create, delete, and modify application objects,
`
`including attributes of the application object, such as “the location of at least on
`
`executable code for the application in question, a brief name which textually
`
`identifies the application, an icon which graphically identifies the application, the
`
`location of the application’s working directory, the drive mappings and printer port
`
`captures needed by the application” in addition to “a brief textual description
`
`(‘blurb’) describing the application to potential new users” and “licensing
`
`information.” Sonderegger at 7:11-14, 3:2-15.
`
`41. Sonderegger further discloses a “desktop attribute” associated with
`
`user, group, and container objects maintained in the NDS database through which
`
`an administrator can assign a list of application objects that should be displayed on
`
`an associated user’s desktop when they log into the system. Sonderegger at 7:11-
`
`29, 11:53-12:23. In particular, Sonderegger discloses client software in the form of
`
`an application launcher that “when a user logs on” is programmed to perform a
`
`“get-icons step 142 to obtain from the directory services database 38 the icons of
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 21
`
`
`
`all applications 23 listed in the desktop attribute.” Sonderegger at 17:35-57; see
`
`also 16:59-17:4, Fig. 8. The icons of the associated application programs for
`
`which the user has been assigned rights are then displayed on the user’s desktop
`
`environment. Sonderegger at 18:4-6. The user can then, for example, double-click
`
`the icon to initiate execution of the application program. Sonderegger at 18:51-58.
`
`42. Hughes provides a detailed description of the Novell NetWare
`
`network operating system and specifically describes the design and implementation
`
`of Novell NetWare software version 4.1. EX1003, Hughes at Preface (“This book
`
`is written for all LAN administrators, system administrators, consultants, resellers,
`
`and any others who design, implement, and support NetWare 4.1 networks. Using
`
`this book you will learn basic to complex concepts and rules on all aspects of
`
`NetWare 4.1. Whether your interest lies solely in designing a NetWare 4.1 tree or
`
`in understanding the internal functions and components of NetWare Directory
`
`Services, you will find this book to be the definitive source.”), p. 4 (“NetWare is
`
`the worlds most popular network operating system. With NetWare 4.1, Novell has
`
`incorporated all the advantages of previous versions of NetWare and has added
`
`new features that build on the foundation to provide a distributed computing
`
`infrastructure.”). Hughes discloses many aspects of NetWare 4.1, but specifically
`
`discloses the “essential features” of the NetWare Directory Services, including
`
`how to design an NDS tree. Hughes at Preface (“Part I, The Basics of NetWare
`
`
`
`22
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 22
`
`
`
`4.1, details the essential features of the operating system and NetWare Directory
`
`Services, introduces NetWare 4.1 utilities, and provides readers a comprehensive
`
`look at NDS objects and how these objects are used to build the Directory tree. An
`
`understanding of NDS objects is a prerequisite to utilizing the full potential of
`
`NDS. … Part II, Designing Net Ware Directory Services, describes in great detail
`
`the steps required to design an NDS tree and covers design options for NDS trees,
`
`with many examples based on the fictitious ACME company case study.”).
`
`43. Hughes specifically discloses the purpose and properties of user
`
`and/or group objects and guides an administrator in creating and maintaining such
`
`objects in the NetWare Directory Services database. For exa mple, Hughes
`
`discloses:
`
` Hughes at p. 125.
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hughes at pp. 132-133; see generally pp. 98-146 (Chapter 3 “NetWare Directory
`
`Services Objects and Properties”), pp. 192-242 (Cha