`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`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
` ____________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,510,466
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104 .......................................................................................................... 1
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................... 1
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) and Relief
`B.
`Requested ............................................................................................. 1
`1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................. 2
`2. Claim Construction ........................................................................ 2
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘466 PATENT ............................................................. 9
`A. Description of the ‘466 Patent ................................................................. 9
`B. Prosecution History of the ‘466 Patent .................................................. 10
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .............................................................. 12
`A. Sonderegger in view of Hughes, Franklin, NAL White Paper Renders
`Claims 1-2, 7-8, 15-17, 22-23, 30, and 35-36 Obvious under §103(a)
` ............................................................................................................ 12
`V. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ......................... 62
`A. Real Party-In-Interest and Related Matters ........................................... 62
`B. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 62
`C. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .......................................... 63
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 63
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners request Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-2, 7-8, 15-17,
`
`22-23, 30, and 35-36 of U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466 (“‘466 Patent”). EX1001.
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify that the ‘466 Patent is available for IPR and that no
`
`Petitioner is barred or estopped. Specifically, Petitioners state: (1) they are not the
`
`owner of the ‘466 Patent; (2) have not filed a civil action challenging the validity
`
`of any claim of the ‘466 Patent; (3) this Petition is timely filed less than one year
`
`after it was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ‘466 Patent; and
`
`(4) this Petition is filed more than nine months after the ‘466 Patent issued.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`In view of the prior art, evidence, and discussion of claim limitations, claims
`
`1-2, 7-8, 15-17, 22-23, 30, and 35-36 of the ‘466 Patent (“the Challenged claims”)
`
`are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1). This review is
`
`governed by pre-AIA §§102 and 103.
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ‘466 Patent
`
`Claims 1-2, 7-8, 15-17, 22-23, 30, 35-36: Obvious over Sonderegger [EX1002] in
`
`view of Hughes [EX1003], Franklin [EX1004], and the NAL White Paper
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`[EX1005] under §103(a)
`
`
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`1.
`A person of ordinary skill in the field of computer networking at the time of
`
`the alleged invention, December 14, 1998, (“POSITA”) would have had 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. EX1006, Declaration of Dr. Vijay K.
`
`Madisetti (“Madisetti Decl.”) at ¶¶25-27.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`2.
`A claim subject to IPR receives the “broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b).
`
`Unless otherwise noted below, Petitioners propose, for purposes of this proceeding
`
`only, that the claim terms of the ‘466 Patent are presumed to take on their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning that the term would have to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`The claim construction analysis is not, and should not be viewed as a concession
`
`by Petitioners as to the proper scope of any claim term in litigation. These
`
`assumptions are not a waiver of any argument in any litigation that claim terms in
`
`the ‘466 Patent are indefinite or otherwise invalid or unpatentable.
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`a.
`
`“means for installing a plurality of application programs at a
`server” (Claim 15)
`
`“computer readable program code means for installing a
`plurality of application programs at the server” (Claim 16)
`
`The stated function is “installing a plurality of application programs at a
`
`server.” The disclosed structure for performing the installing function is described
`
`beginning at 12:26 with reference to block 232 of Fig. 4 (describing the
`
`installation/configuration process). In turn, the configuration/installation step at
`
`block 232 is further detailed in Fig. 5 and described at 13:1-23. Accordingly, the
`
`corresponding structure for the installing function is server (Claim 15) or
`
`code/software (Claim 16) programmed to execute the steps depicted in Fig. 5 and
`
`described at 13:1-23, and equivalents thereof. EX1001 at 13:1-23, Fig. 5; also id.
`
`at 12:26-30, Fig. 4 (block 232). Namely, the server (Claim 15) or code/software
`
`(Claim 16) is programmed to: 1) accept definitions of the application that describe
`
`the location and description of the application (block 250); 2) accept definitions of
`
`users and groups that will access the system and the specific application (block
`
`252); 3) accept control specifications defining which users and groups are
`
`authorized to access the new or updated application (block 256); 4) obtain license
`
`policy information from an administrator or through an import file (block 254);
`
`and 5) update a database to maintain the input definitions and specifications for the
`
`new or updated application in a format accessible to the server (block 258). Id.
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`b.
`
`“means for receiving at the server a login request from a user
`at the client” (Claim 15)
`
`“computer readable program code means for receiving at the
`server a login request from a user at the client” (Claim 16)
`
`The stated function is “receiving at the server a login request from a user at
`
`the client.” The disclosed structure is a server (Claim 15) or code/software (Claim
`
`16) programmed to receive a request to initiate a user desktop interface from a user
`
`console. EX1001 at 13:24-50, 4:27-29, Fig. 6 (block 260).
`
`c.
`
`“means for establishing a user desktop interface at the client
`associated with the user responsive to the login request from
`the user, the desktop interface including a plurality of display
`regions associated with a set of the plurality of application
`programs installed at the server for which the user is
`authorized” (Claim 15)
`
`“computer readable program code means for establishing a
`user desktop interface at the client associated with the user
`responsive to the login request from the user, the desktop
`interface including a plurality of display regions associated
`with a set of the plurality of application programs installed at
`the server for which the user is authorized” (Claim 16)
`
`The stated function is “establishing a user desktop interface at the client
`
`associated with the user responsive to the login request from the user, the desktop
`
`interface including a plurality of display regions associated with a set of the
`
`plurality of application programs installed at the server for which the user is
`
`authorized.” The disclosed structure is a server and/or client (Claim 15) or
`
`code/software (Claim 16) programmed to perform steps 264, 268 and 270 depicted
`
`in Fig. 6 and described at 13:38-14:4. EX1001 at 13:38-14:23, Fig. 6. Namely, the
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`server system and/or client (Claim 15) or code/software (Claim 16) is programmed
`
`to: 1) check the user’s credentials to see if the user is authorized to bring up the
`
`user desktop interface application (block 264); 2) process a license request to
`
`determine if a license is available for the desktop application (block 268); and 3)
`
`display the desktop framework 226 suited for the particular user and hardware
`
`device being utilized by the user, determine what other applications the user is
`
`authorized to access, and put an icon for the authorized applications on the user’s
`
`desktop display (block 270). Id.
`
`d.
`
`“means for receiving at the server a selection of one of the
`plurality of application programs from the user desktop
`interface” (Claim 15)
`
`“computer readable program code means for receiving at the
`server a selection of one of the plurality of application
`programs from the user desktop interface” (Claim 16)
`
`The stated function is “receiving at the server a selection of one of the
`
`plurality of application programs from the user desktop interface.” The disclosed
`
`structure is a server (Claim 15) or code/software (Claim 16) programmed to
`
`receive a request to initiate execution of an instance of a managed application from
`
`a user. EX1001 at 15:21-25, Fig. 7 (block 280).
`
`e.
`
`“means for providing an instance of the selected one of the
`plurality of application programs to the client for execution
`responsive to the selection” (Claim 15)
`
`“computer readable program code means for providing an
`instance of the selected one of the plurality of application
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`programs to the client for execution responsive to the
`selection” (Claim 16)
`
`The stated function is “providing an instance of the selected one of the
`
`plurality of application programs to the client for execution responsive to the
`
`selection.” The disclosed structure is a client station (Claim 15) or code/software
`
`(Claim 16) programmed with an application launcher that allows an instance of the
`
`selected application program to be executed, where the application launcher either
`
`obtains “the application program’s executable code from the server on-demand
`
`(i.e., when execution is requested by a user)” or the application launcher contains
`
`“all the executable code comprising the application program itself before execution
`
`is requested.” EX1001 at 15:56-16:12.
`
`f.
`
`“means for maintaining application management information
`for the plurality of applications at the server” (Claim 17)
`
`“computer readable program code means for maintaining
`application management information for the plurality of
`applications at the server” (Claim 30)
`
`The stated function is “maintaining application management information for
`
`the plurality of applications at the server.” The disclosed structure is an integrated
`
`or external storage device (Claim 17) or code/software (Claim 30) for maintaining
`
`a database of application management information and equivalents thereof.
`
`EX1001 at 7:50-65 (“As shown in FIG. 2, the server system 22 of the present
`
`invention includes client management server 204 and access to a storage device for
`
`maintaining an application management database 208.”).
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`g.
`
`“means for including a plurality of display regions associated
`with a set of the plurality of application programs for which
`the user
`is authorized responsive
`to
`the application
`management information” (Claim 17)
`
`“computer readable program code means for including a
`plurality of display regions associated with a set of the
`plurality of application programs for which the user is
`authorized responsive
`to
`the application management
`information” (Claim 30)
`
`The stated function is “including a plurality of display regions associated
`
`with a set of the plurality of application programs for which the user is authorized
`
`responsive to the application management information.” The disclosed structure is
`
`a server and/or client device (Claim 17) or code/software (Claim 30) programmed
`
`to determine the applications the user is authorized to access based on application
`
`management information for the plurality of applications maintained at the server
`
`system, and to include an associated plurality of icons for the authorized
`
`applications on the user’s desktop display. EX1001 at 14:53-64, 13:62-14:23, Fig.
`
`6 (block 270).
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`h.
`
`“means for configuring the user desktop interface responsive
`to an identifier of the user associated with the login request so
`as to provide associated information for the user desktop
`interface” (Claim 22)
`
`“computer readable program code means for configuring the
`user desktop interface responsive to an identifier of the user
`associated with the login request so as to provide associated
`information for the user desktop interface” (Claim 35)
`
`The stated function is “configuring the user desktop interface responsive to
`
`an identifier of the user associated with the login request so as to provide
`
`associated information for the user desktop interface.” The disclosed structure is a
`
`server and/or client device (Claim 22) or code/software (Claim 35) programmed to
`
`configure the user desktop interface responsive to an identifier of the user
`
`associated with the login request so as to provide associated information for the
`
`user desktop interface. EX1001 at 14:63-15:4, 13:62-14:23, Fig. 6 (block 270).
`
`i.
`
`“means for providing the user desktop interface and the
`associated information for the user desktop interface to the
`client for display” (Claim 22)
`
`“computer readable program code means for providing the
`user desktop interface and the associated information for the
`user desktop interface to the client for display” (Claim 35)
`
`The stated function is “providing the user desktop interface and the
`
`associated information for the user desktop interface to the client for display.” The
`
`disclosed structure is a client station (Claim 22) or code/software (Claim 35) for
`
`presenting the user desktop interface and associated information for the user
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`desktop interface to the client in a form appropriate for display. EX1001 at 14:63-
`
`15:10.
`
`j.
`
`“means for configuring the user desktop interface not to
`include display regions associated with any of the plurality of
`application programs installed at the server for which the user
`is not authorized” (Claim 23)
`
`“computer readable program code means for configuring the
`user desktop
`interface not
`to
`include display regions
`associated with any of the plurality of application programs
`installed at the server for which the user is not authorized”
`(Claim 36)
`
`The stated function is “configuring the user desktop interface not to include
`
`display regions associated with any of the plurality of application programs
`
`installed at the server for which the user is not authorized.” The disclosed structure
`
`is a server system and/or client device (Claim 23) or code/software (Claim 36)
`
`programmed to determine the applications the user is authorized to access, and to
`
`only include icons for the authorized applications on the user’s desktop display
`
`(i.e., to not include any icons on the user’s display for application programs for
`
`which the user is not authorized). EX1001 at 15:11-20, 13:62-14:23, Fig. 6 (block
`
`270).
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘466 PATENT
`A. Description of the ‘466 Patent
`
`The ‘466 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application 09/211,528 on
`
`December 14, 1998 (EX1001). On its face, the ‘466 Patent is directed to methods
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`and systems for centralized management of application programs on a network,
`
`including application preferences, application access, and network client machine
`
`preferences. EX1001 at 3:40-43, 4:39-65, 7:22-48. In particular, a user desktop
`
`interface with a plurality of display regions, such as icons, is established at a client
`
`device responsive to a login request from a user. Id. at 3:55-60, 4:22-38. A server
`
`maintains application programs that are provided on-demand to a client for
`
`execution, responsive to a request from an authorized user, such as selecting an
`
`icon, independent of the device used to access the server. Id. at 4:3-9, 4:22-65,
`
`8:57-9:3.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘466 Patent
`
`B.
`The ‘466 Patent was filed on December 14, 1998 with 23 claims. See
`
`EX1007, ‘466 FH at As-Filed Claims.
`
`On March 28, 2001, the Examiner noted that the Applicant withdrew claims
`
`15-20 and 22 during a telephone conversation and rejected the claims 1-14, 21, 23
`
`under §103 as unpatentable over Oh et al. (US6189501) in view of Bladow et al.
`
`(US6115040). Id. at 3/28/01 Office Action, pp.2-10. In a response dated June 4,
`
`2001, Applicants added claims 24-49 and argued that the prior art of record did not
`
`teach the claimed “receiving at the server a selection of one of the plurality of
`
`application programs from the user desktop” or “an instance of the selected one
`
`of the plurality of application programs [is provided] to the client for execution
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`responsive to the selection.” Id. at 6/4/2001 Amendment, pp.9-10 (emphasis
`
`original). Applicants further argued that the prior art “describes an environment in
`
`which server resources accessed by an authorized user are executed at the server
`
`with the results returned to the client” and therefore does not disclose or suggest
`
`“providing an instance of such server resources to the client for execution by the
`
`client.” Id. at p. 10.
`
`On August 13, 2001, the Examiner rejected claims 1-14, 21, and 23-49
`
`under §103 as being unpatentable over Rose (US5708709) in view of Win et al.
`
`(US6182142). Id. at 8/13/01 Office Action, pp. 2-6. On January 7, 2002,
`
`Applicants argued that the prior art failed to teach “establishing a user desktop
`
`interface at the client associated with the user” where the user associated desktop
`
`displays regions associated with “a plurality of application programs at the server
`
`for which the user is authorized.” Id. at 1/7/02 Response. Applicants further stated
`
`that the alleged invention provided for “an instance of the application program is
`
`requested through the desktop but executes locally at the client as a separate
`
`application from the browser interface.” Id. at p. 2.
`
`The Examiner issued a final Office Action on February 22, 2002, rejecting
`
`claims 1-14, 21, and 23-49. Id. at 2/22/02 Office Action. The Applicant filed a
`
`response on March 25, 2002, reiterating prior patentability arguments. Id. at
`
`3/25/02 Response After Final.
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`The Examiner issued an Advisory Action on April 4, 2002, indicating the
`
`request for reconsideration did not place the claims in condition for allowance. Id.
`
`at 4/4/02 Advisory Action p.2. Applicant filed Notice of Appeal on April 18, 2002.
`
`Id. at 4/18/02 Notice of Appeal.
`
`On May 16, 2002, Applicants filed an Appeal Brief. Id. at 5/16/02
`
`Appellants’ Brief. The Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on August 12,
`
`2002. Id. at 8/12/02 Notice of Allowance.
`
`IV. THERE
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`The following prior art references disclose each limitation of the Challenged
`
`Claims. As such, the Challenged Claims are unpatentable. Included below are
`
`exemplary citations to the prior art references.
`
`A.
`
`Sonderegger in view of Hughes, Franklin, NAL White Paper
`Renders Claims 1-2, 7-8, 15-17, 22-23, 30, and 35-36 Obvious under
`§103(a)
`
`Sonderegger was filed July 7, 1995, issued November 25, 1997, and is
`
`therefore prior art under at least §102(b). Hughes was published and publicly
`
`available in 1996 (See EX1008, Declaration of Scott Bennett, Ph.D. (“Bennett
`
`Decl.”) at p. 11, ¶34), and is therefore prior art under at least §102(b). Franklin
`
`was filed November 13, 1997, issued August 15, 2000, and is therefore prior art
`
`under at least §102(e). The NAL White Paper is dated May 1997 on its face, and
`
`appears in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine as being publicly available
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`online via the web address http://www.novell.com/managewise/NAL/nalwp.html
`
`at least as early as June 6, 1997 (EX1005; see also EX1009, Declaration of Mark
`
`Lang at 1), and is therefore prior art under at least §102(b).1
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Petitioners note that panels of the Board have previously held a printout of the
`
`Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine to be “facially [] authentic and is
`
`authenticated
`
`further by accessing
`
`the website.”
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00465, SDI
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. Bose Corp., Paper 40 at 13 – 16; see, e.g., IPR2015-01460,
`
`Crestron Electronics, Inc. v. Intuitive Building Controls, Inc., Paper 14, at 12
`
`(finding that Internet Archive printout constitutes printed publication under
`
`§102(b)) and IPR2015-01460, EX1002 (Internet Archive Affidavit explaining how
`
`date of an archived web page can be determined from the URL printed on each
`
`archived web page). The Board in SDI Technologies noted that the Internet
`
`Archive’s standard affidavits do not materially add anything to the record to
`
`establish authenticity. IPR2013-00465, Paper 40 at 15; see also IPR2016-001187,
`
`Rubicon Communications, LP v. Lego A/S, Paper 38 at 12-13 (granting institution
`
`and noting that Wayback Machine printouts bearing logo of Internet Archive and a
`
`URL indicating Internet Archive as the source were sufficient to make threshold
`
`showing regarding authenticity of the printouts).
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`The field of endeavor of the ‘466 Patent is “network management in general
`
`and in particular [] application program management on a computer network.”
`
`EX1001 at 1:21-21. Sonderegger, Hughes, Franklin, and the NAL White Paper
`
`each similarly relate to the field of management of application programs in a
`
`computer network and are in the same field of endeavor as the ‘466 Patent. See,
`
`e.g., EX1002, Sonderegger at 1:6-10, Abstract; EX1003, Hughes at pp.66-69;
`
`EX1004, Franklin at 1:13-17, Abstract; EX1005, NAL White Paper at pp.1-3;
`
`EX1001 at 1:21-23; EX1006, Madisetti Decl. at ¶39. Sonderegger, Hughes,
`
`Franklin, and the NAL White Paper are each also reasonably pertinent to problems
`
`faced by the inventors of the ‘466. Namely, Sonderegger, Hughes, Franklin, the
`
`NAL White Paper, and the ‘466 Patent each address the problem of providing an
`
`application launcher program for providing access to application programs for
`
`which a user is authorized. EX1002, Sonderegger at 3:24-48; EX1003, Hughes at
`
`pp.66-69; EX1004, Franklin at 2:16-27; EX1005, NAL White Paper at pp.1-3;
`
`EX1001 at 4:39-50; EX1006, Madisetti Decl. at ¶39. Franklin and the ‘466 Patent
`
`are each classified in U.S. Cl. 709/229 and 709/223. Hughes, the NAL White
`
`Paper, and the ‘466 Patent address the problem of controlling access for mobile
`
`users. EX1003, Hughes at pp. 600-609; EX1005, NAL White Paper at pp.1-3;
`
`EX1001 at 3:9-26, 3:55-4:9. For all the above reasons, Sonderegger, Hughes,
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Franklin, and the NAL White Paper are analogous art to each other and to the ‘466
`
`Patent. EX1006, Madisetti Decl. at ¶39.
`
`Additionally, Sonderegger, Hughes, Franklin, and the NAL White Paper all
`
`describe Novell’s NetWare software, NetWare Directory Services, application
`
`launcher, and application management NWAdmin utilities. Compare, e.g., EX1002,
`
`Sonderegger at 2:64-67, 3:24-48, 4:56-58, 5:13-22 with EX1003, Hughes at pp. 4-
`
`6, 12-17, 44-49, 66-69 and EX1004, Franklin at 2:10-41 and EX1005, NAL White
`
`Paper at pp. 1-3; see also EX1006, Madisetti Decl. at ¶¶40, 42, 45, 47, 54. Adding
`
`elements from Hughes, Franklin, or the NAL White Paper, each of which describes
`
`the same underlying systems, to Sonderegger does not introduce additional
`
`complexity or unpredictability. EX1006, Madisetti Decl. at ¶54. Further, the
`
`similarities in the structure, function, and purpose of the underlying disclosed
`
`systems make it easy, and intuitive, for an ordinary skilled artisan to successfully
`
`combine aspects of these references with each other. Id.
`
`Claim 1. A method for management of application programs on a network
`including a server and a client comprising the steps of:
`
`
`
`See Preamble of Claim 15.
`
`[1(a)] installing a plurality of application programs at the server;
`
`
`
`See Element 15(a).
`
`[1(b)] receiving at the server a login request from a user at the client;
`
`See Element 15(b).
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`[1(c)] establishing a user desktop interface at the client associated with the user
`responsive to the login request from the user, the desktop interface including a
`plurality of display regions associated with a set of the plurality of application
`programs installed at the server for which the user is authorized;
`
`See Element 15(c).
`
`[1(d)] receiving at the server a selection of one of the plurality of application
`programs from the user desktop interface; and
`
`
`
`See Element 15(d).
`
`[1(e)] providing an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application
`programs to the client for execution responsive to the selection.
`
`See Element 15(e).
`
`Claim 2. A method according to claim 1 further comprising the steps of:
`
`[2(a)] maintaining application management information for the plurality of
`applications at the server; and
`
`See Element 17(a).
`
`[2(b)] wherein the establishing step includes the step of including a plurality of
`display regions associated with a set of the plurality of application programs for
`which the user is authorized responsive to the application management
`information.
`
`See Element 17(b).
`
`Claim 7. A method according to claim 1 wherein the establishing a user desktop
`step includes the steps of:
`
`[7(a)] configuring the user desktop interface responsive to an identifier of the
`user associated with the login request so as to provide associated information for
`the user desktop interface; and
`
`See Element 22(a).
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`[7(b)] providing the user desktop interface and the associated information for the
`user desktop interface to the client for display.
`
`See Element 22(b).
`
`Claim 8. A method according to claim 7 wherein the configuring the user
`desktop step includes the step of configuring the user desktop interface not to
`include display regions associated with any of the plurality of application
`programs installed at the server for which the user is not authorized.
`
`See Claim 23.
`
`Claim 15. An application program management system for managing
`application programs on a network including a server and a client comprising:
`
`Sonderegger teaches a method for managing application programs, such as
`
`word processors and spreadsheets, in a computer network including servers 14 and
`
`user stations 16 (i.e., clients):
`
`“The present invention provides a method and apparatus for centrally
`managing applications programs in a computer network. One aspect of the
`present invention provides a modified database schema. The database
`schema defines what type of resources can be represented in the database.
`The database provides network administrators with an efficient and effective
`way to determine what resources are available on the network, to provide
`fault-tolerance by making resources available even in a server on the
`network becomes unavailable, and to control the access of particular
`network users or groups of users to particular network resources.
`
`The resources represented in the modified database include application
`programs such as word processors and spreadsheets, that reside on the
`network. The modifications to the schema provided by the present invention
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`support the creations, deletion, and alteration of application objects in the
`database.”
`
`EX1002, Sonderegger at 2:47-64.
`
`“One of the many networks suited for use with the present invention is
`indicated generally at 10 in FIG. 1. In one embodiment, the network 10
`includes Novell NetWare® software, version 4.x (NetWare is a registered
`trademark of Novell, Inc.). The illustrated network 10 includes several
`connected local networks 12. Each local network 12 includes a file server
`14 and one or more user stations 16. …. Although a particular network 10
`is shown, the present invention is also useful in a variety of other networks
`which are known to one of skill in the art.”
`
`Id. at 4:54-65.
`
`Id. at Fig. 1; see also id. at 5:3-6, Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`[15(a)] means for installing a plurality of application programs at the server;
`
`The ‘466 Patent discloses that “installing” an application program on a
`
`server includes, for example, “setting up the users and software to be managed,” to
`
`make the application program “recognized and available to users at clients served
`
`by the server.” EX1001 at 12:26-30, Fig. 4 (block 232), 17:40-51; see also id. at
`
`18:7-25.
`
`Similarly, Sonderegger performs the same function by configuring the users
`
`and application programs to be managed by a server 14 through a set of application
`
`management routines 48, thereby making application programs available to
`
`appropriate users or groups:
`
` “The present invention supplements the previously available administrator
`tools 42 by providing application management routines 48 for creating,
`deleting, and modifying application objects 49 and/or desktop attributes on
`user, group, and container objects 51 in the database 38. The addition of
`application objects 49 to the database 38 and other features of the present
`invention make application programs 23 available
`to network
`administrators and users in a previously unknown, uniform, convenient, and
`efficient manner.”
`
`EX1002, Sonderegger at 7:11-20; see also id. at 4:66-5:6, 11:3-21, Figs. 1-2.
`
`Furthermore, Sonderegger discloses the structure for performing this
`
`function – i.e., server or code programmed to: 1) accept definitions of an
`
`application describing the location and description of the application; 2) accept
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`definitions of users and groups that will access the system and specific application;
`
`3) accept control specifications defining which users and groups are authorized to
`
`access the new or updated application; 4) obtain license policy information from an
`
`administrator or through an import file; and 5) update a database to maintain the
`
`input definitions and specification for the new or updated application in a format
`
`accessible to the server. Specifically, Sonderegger discloses a server 14
`
`programmed, through application management routines, to allow an administrator
`
`to create a new application object 49 and define the associated attributes for the
`
`object, such as defining and adding a “file path” attribute that provides the location
`
`of the application and a “blurb” attribute that is a short description of the
`
`application (i.e., the server is programmed to accept definitions of the application
`
`that describe the location and description of the application (structural step 1)).
`
`“To create an application object 49, one embodiment of the step 80 first
`creates a local copy of the context by calling NWDSDuplicateContext().
`NWDSSetContext() is then called to set the DCK_NAME_CONTEXT in the
`local copy of the context equal to the name of the container object in the
`database 38 that will contain the new application object 49. … Mandatory
`attributes of the new application object 49 are initialized by calling
`NWDSPutAttrName() and NWDSPutAttrVal() for each attribute. Then
`NWDSAddObject() is invoked with the context and current mandatory
`attribute values as parameters to create the object 49 in the database 40.
`The new application object 49's icon data is stored in a file by calling
`NWDSOpenStream(), _lwrite(), and close().”
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Id. at 11:3-18; see also id. at 7:66-8:35, Fig. 4.
`
`“The step 100 defines and adds a "file path" attribute having a case ignore
`string attribute syntax and having
`the Single-Valued
`flag. In one
`embodiment the
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
