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
` ____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
`
`1
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Ubisoft EX1006 Page 1
`
`
`
`____________
`
`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 (Ch
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
