`
`Ex. 1008
`
`EX. 1008
`
`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`
`(“Day Declaration”)
`(“Day Declaration”)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Regarding
`Patent № 6,510,466
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF
`THOMAS A. DAY
`
`
`
`
`
`BITDEFENDER INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA INC. and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG SA,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1.
`
`I am Thomas A. Day, principal of Day & Company LLC, a software development
`
`and consulting firm. I am a forensic software examiner, intellectual property analyst, and
`
`professional software developer with thirty-nine years’ experience in the computer industry. In
`
`my capacity as an intellectual property analyst, I have served as an expert and given testimony in
`
`matters including software and other technology patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and licensing.
`
`In my capacity as a forensic software examiner, I have served as an expert and given testimony
`
`in matters including digital forensics and electronic evidence preservation, recovery, and
`
`spoliation.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by outside counsel for Petitioner in this matter, Bitdefender,
`
`10
`
`Inc. (Petitioner or Bitdefender), to form an opinion on issues of claim construction and prior art
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`concerning Inter Partes Review for United States Patent № 6,510,466 to Cox, et al. (the ’466
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Patent) with a priority date of December 14, 1998 and a publication date of January 21, 2003. A
`
`copy of my curriculum vitae is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A. I have agreed to be
`
`bound by any confidentiality or protective order on file and of record in the above-entitled
`
`matter, and to return or destroy as requested all documents submitted for my review, and to keep
`
`all opinions and conclusions confidential without disclosure other than to the parties and the
`
`Court in the above-referenced Review.
`
`3.
`
`With respect to this Declaration, I have been asked by counsel for Petitioner
`
`whether certain United States patents constitute invalidating prior art for ’466 Patent Claims 1, 2,
`
`7–9, 15–17, 22–24, 30, and 35–37 under 35 USC § 102, Novelty; and 35 USC § 103,
`
`Obviousness; with particular deference to KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)
`
`(KSR). I am being compensated in this matter at a rate of US$350.00 per hour, with
`
`compensation not dependent on outcome.
`
`4.
`
`In preparation for this Declaration I have reviewed the ’466 Patent, along with
`
`additional patents referenced infra; the prosecution history for the ’466 Patent; in Uniloc v.
`
`Bitdefender, Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex. Litigation), the complaint filed by Uniloc
`
`against Bitdefender (E.D. Tex. Complaint); proposed claim constructions in the E.D. Tex.
`
`Litigation; and a declaration by Leonard Laub relative to IPR № 2017-00184, Unified Patents v.
`
`Uniloc. I have also reviewed the user manuals for Bitdefender Total Security 2016, Bitdefender
`
`Antivirus for Mac, and Bitdefender Mobile Security.1 Exs. 1018, 1019, 1020. These products are
`
`client-resident applications (where “client” refers to an end-user’s computer), designed to be
`
`
`1 With particular attention to Bitdefender Total Security 2016 User Manual § 15.2, “How Do I Remove
`Bitdefender?” at 74 – 75; Bitdefender Antivirus for Mac User Manual § 1.3, “Removing Bitdefender Antivirus for
`Mac” at 8; and Bitdefender Mobile Security User Manual § 2, “Getting Started” at 2.
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`executed an indefinite number of times once installed at the client. I have reviewed additional
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`documents and exhibits as cited elsewhere herein.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`5.
`
`I understand that a claim is obvious if the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claim 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 (POSA). Obviousness takes into account 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, if
`
`they exist, secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Secondary considerations must have a
`
`sufficient nexus (link) to the claimed invention, as opposed to other factors such as prior art
`
`features.
`
`6.
`
`My understanding is that any relevant differences between the subject matter of a
`
`claim and the prior art are to be analyzed from the standpoint of a POSA at the time of the
`
`invention. My opinions below regarding a POSA refer to the time of the invention, even if stated
`
`in the present tense or otherwise not explicitly linked to the time of the invention.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that the obviousness of a claim must be determined prospectively,
`
`and not using hindsight.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that in judging the obviousness of a claim, I must consider the claim
`
`as a whole, and not merely one or more parts of the claim.
`
`9.
`
`My understanding is that a POSA faced with a problem can use his or her
`
`experience and also look to any available prior art in order to solve the problem.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`10.
`
`I understand that proving obviousness requires a clear articulation or statement of
`
`one or more reasons that the subject matter of a claim would have been obvious. Such a reason
`
`can originate from multiple sources, including:
`
`a. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`b. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
`
`c. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the
`
`same way;
`
`d. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`e. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success (“obvious to try”);
`
`f. 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
`
`g. 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.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that a reason for modifying or combining references may originate
`
`from explicit statements in the prior art, from the knowledge of a POSA, or from the nature of
`
`any problem known in the field at the time, even if different from the particular problem
`
`addressed by the inventor(s).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`12. My understanding is that a POSA generally would not have had a reason to make
`
`a modification that would have rendered the prior art inoperable or otherwise unsuitable for its
`
`intended purpose.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that an element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a
`
`means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or
`
`acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure,
`
`material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed that a general-purpose computer, by itself, may be sufficient
`
`as corresponding structure for general computing functions such as storing, which can be
`
`achieved by any general-purpose computer without special programming.
`
`15.
`
`I have also been informed that, for other functions, when the disclosed structure is
`
`a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed structure is not the general-
`
`purpose computer, but rather the now special-purpose computer programmed to perform the
`
`disclosed algorithm. In the description below, wherever I refer to certain code as structure
`
`corresponding to a given function, it is understood that I am referring to a processor or computer
`
`configured according to that code, and/or a computer-program product storing the code, as
`
`applicable.
`
`16.
`
`I have further been informed that a structure corresponds to a function only if the
`
`specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function.
`
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`17.
`
`I considered a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’466 Patent to have held a Bachelor of Science or higher degree in electrical
`
`engineering or computer science, and at least three years of experience with client-server
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`architecture. Additional education may compensate for less experience and vice-versa. The
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`relevant field of the ’466 Patent is computing, and particularly client-server computing. This art
`
`is predictable.
`
`The Problems and The State of the Art in 1998
`
`18.
`
`From 1990 to 1996 I was under contract to Southern California Edison Company
`
`and to other clients to solve, among other things, the problem faced by their technology
`
`departments of managing the mix of applications on the organization’s many, heterogenous
`
`workstations. I was responsible for designing, architecting, and implementing application
`
`management systems governing more than ten thousand workstations, and thus have personal as
`
`well as theoretical experience with the problem, the state of the art, the skills of a person with
`
`experience in the art, and the inevitable limitations that constrained possible solutions at the time.
`
`19.
`
`The growth of the Internet, and of networking generally, during the mid to late
`
`1990s led to a number of significant changes in computing. For example, ubiquitous availability
`
`of network connectivity and increasing connection speeds led a number of vendors, including
`
`Oracle, Sun Microsystems, IBM, and others, to promote thin clients and/or network computers.
`
`Such client computers had limited local storage space in the form of a relatively limited disk
`
`drive or no disk drive at all. Limiting local storage would save manufacturing costs and allow
`
`computing to be standardized on the server side in enterprise environments. The machines could
`
`compensate for limited local storage space by downloading resources on-demand, when needed.
`
`20.
`
`In 1995, Sun Microsystems released Java, a group of technologies intended to
`
`facilitate cross-platform software development. Sun’s slogan for Java was “Write Once, Run
`
`Anywhere.” With Java, any application compiled to run within the Java Virtual Machine (JVM)
`
`operating environment would run on any machine so-equipped, regardless of underlying
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`operating system, thus facilitating the deployment of software in heterogeneous networks. Such
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`an application, in the case where the host JVM was running on a client workstation, was
`
`commonly called an applet. A Java applet could be launched from a webpage displayed by a
`
`Web browser, and, after launching, could appear within the browser window or within a separate
`
`window. The applet was normally executed within a task separate from that of the browser itself.
`
`21.
`
`By 1998, online distribution of software, including Java applets, was well known.
`
`Associating applications to users rather than merely to client machines was also known. In
`
`addition, the individual elements of the challenged claims were known, and within the level of
`
`skill of a POSA at the time. See, e.g., Ex. 1009 (Kasso), Ex. 1010 (Raduchel), and Ex. 1013
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`(IBM On-Demand Handbook).
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Opinions Regarding Each of the Grounds
`
`22.
`
`Having reviewed the above-referenced materials, and having considered the
`
`mechanisms that I and other persons having skill in the art would likely have employed to the
`
`claimed ends, my opinions are as follows.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 15, and 16 Are Obvious over Kasso in View of Raduchel
`
`23.
`
`Kasso in view of Raduchel describe [A method] (Claim 1)/[an application
`
`program management system] (Claim 15)/[a computer program product] (Claim 16) for
`
`management of application programs on a network including a server and a client. The host
`
`(network computer) 200 of Kasso corresponds to the claimed client, while at least the HTTP
`
`server 208 of Kasso corresponds to the claimed server. Ex. 1009 (Kasso) 4:46–5:7, 5:60–62. The
`
`described Java applets implement programs such as an electronic mail program. Id. 6:3–4, 6:10–
`
`12. “Application program” is defined by the ’466 Patent as “code associated with underlying
`
`program functions.” Ex. 1001 (’466) 14:24–26. The Java applets described by Kasso include
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`code associated with underlying program functions, and constitute application programs as
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`recited in the ’466 claims.
`
`24.
`
`Kasso in view of Raduchel describe the computer program product having
`
`computer-readable program code means embodied in said medium (Claim 16). Kasso describes
`
`code (instructions) stored on a computer-readable storage medium at 4:34–38. A POSA would
`
`have understood that Kasso’s description of computer-readable media applies to the subsequent
`
`description of system functionality.
`
`25.
`
`Kasso in view of Raduchel describe [means for] (Claim 15)/[computer readable
`
`program code means for] (Claim 16) installing a plurality of application programs at the server
`
`(Claims 1, 15, 16). For this limitation, I have considered the specification structure(s)
`
`corresponding to the recited function (installing a plurality of application programs at the server)
`
`to include a programmed processor, computer-readable medium, and/or network drive accessible
`
`to the server. Ex. 1001 (’466) 12:1–24, 20:60–21:9, 3:39–54, 4:24–27. Kasso describes installing
`
`a plurality of Java applets, which include code associated with underlying program functions and
`
`which are thus application programs, at HTTP server 208. Ex. 1009 (Kasso) 4:62–5:4. Kasso
`
`states that server 208 has a mass storage device (Id. 4:62–65), and/or is associated with a mass
`
`storage device 212 (Id. 6:60–65). Mass storage device 212 is shown in Fig. 2 as storing a
`
`plurality of applications (apps). A POSA would have deemed the mass storage device 212 of
`
`Kasso to include network drives accessible to server 208. In addition, a POSA would have
`
`deemed the arrangement formed by the HTTP server 208 of Kasso and the attached or associated
`
`mass storage device 212 to constitute or to be part of a particular server. Furthermore, even if
`
`mass storage device 212 were deemed to not be part of a server, since HTTP server 208 does
`
`deliver application programs to requesting clients (Ex. 1009 (Kasso) 6:1–7), HTTP server 208
`
`does store the application programs by whatever means in order to effectuate the delivery.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`Additionally, a POSA would have understood that Kasso’s description of the delivery of an
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`exemplary, single MailView application to a host applies to other applications installed at the
`
`server, and thus describes the delivery of multiple applications installed at HTTP server 208. See
`
`Ex. 1009 (Kasso) Fig. 5, multiple application icons 404, 406.
`
`26.
`
`Kasso in view of Raduchel render obvious [means for] (Claim 15)/[computer
`
`readable program code means for] (Claim 16) receiving at the server a login request from a user
`
`at the client (Claims 1, 15, 16). I have considered the specification structure corresponding to the
`
`stated function to include code configured to receive at the server from the client user credentials
`
`including user identification and password. Kasso describes receiving at a Network Information
`
`Server (NIS) 230 a request to verify the validity of a username and password entered by a user
`
`on a host computer (client) 200. Ex. 1009 (Kasso), 5:34–40. In the exemplary embodiments
`
`described by Kasso, the NIS server 230, which receives login requests from clients, is distinct
`
`from the HTTP server 208, which delivers applications to clients. Nevertheless, it would have
`
`been obvious to implement the authentication functionality described for the NIS server 230 on
`
`the HTTP server 208 of Kasso, so that the HTTP server 208 would have received authentication
`
`requests. Such an approach would have been particularly suitable for smaller networks.
`
`Alternatively, it would have been obvious to receive authentication requests at HTTP server 208,
`
`which would then offload the authentication functionality to NIS server 230. Such an approach
`
`would have been suitable for larger networks. Each approach is treated below in turn.
`
`27.
`
`A POSA would have had at least three reasons for incorporating authentication
`
`functionality on a delivery server such as the HTTP server 208 of Kasso. First, Kasso explicitly
`
`suggests the possibility of implementing his invention on a single computer system 100,
`
`described with reference to Fig. 1. Ex. 1009 (Kasso) 4:1–43. Specifically, Kasso states that
`
`“Execution of the sequences of instructions contained in memory 104 causes processor 102 to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`perform the process steps that will be described hereafter.” Id. 4:36–38. The process steps
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`described hereafter include both the authentication and installation/delivery functions described
`
`by Kasso.
`
`28.
`
`Second, a POSA would have known that implementing two functions such as
`
`authentication and delivery on the same server, as opposed to separate dedicated servers, would
`
`have saved costs and potentially simplified the system architecture. A single-machine
`
`implementation would have been particularly desirable on a system of limited scale, which
`
`would not have required the additional processing power of a dedicated authentication server.
`
`29.
`
`Third, implementing authentication and delivery functionality on the same server,
`
`as opposed to distinct servers, involves the simple substitution of one known element for another
`
`(a server implementing two functions for two servers implementing the functions separately) to
`
`obtain predictable results, applying a known technique (authentication) to a known device
`
`(delivery server) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, and choosing from a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions (single server and multi-server implementations for
`
`authentication and application delivery), with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`30.
`
`Such a single-machine implementation would have involved a change in the
`
`entities involved in intercommunication, but would not have fundamentally altered the
`
`functioning of the authentication or delivery functionalities.
`
`31.
`
`Additionally, a POSA would have had at least three reasons for receiving login
`
`requests at a delivery server such as the HTTP server 208 of Kasso, rather than directly at an
`
`authentication server such as the NIS server 230 of Kasso.
`
`32.
`
`First, a POSA would have had a reason to use such an arrangement to simplify
`
`communications on the client side, by having all client requests (including login and application
`
`selection) be directed to a single server (HTTP server 208).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`33.
`
`Second, a POSA would have had a reason to direct all client communications
`
`(including login and application selection) to a single server to enhance security by minimizing
`
`the number of servers directly exposed to external communications.
`
`34.
`
`Third, receiving login requests and application selections at the same server and
`
`then forwarding the login requests onward, as distinct from directly receiving login requests at
`
`one server and application selections at a different server, involves choosing from a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions (direct v. indirect communication with a server), with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`35.
`
`Such a login-forwarding implementation would have involved a change in the
`
`entities involved in intercommunication, but would not have fundamentally altered the
`
`functioning of the system’s authentication or delivery functionalities.
`
`36.
`
`Kasso in view of Raduchel describe [means for] (Claim 15)/[computer readable
`
`program code means for] (Claim 16) 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 (Claims 1, 15, 16). I have considered the structures
`
`corresponding to the stated function to include: a Java-enabled Web browser or desktop that
`
`provides an operating environment for network-client applications (Ex. 1001 (’466) 11:52–55),
`
`an application launcher implemented as a Java applet downloaded to the client and executed to
`
`establish a user desktop interface (Id. Fig. 3 at 226, Fig. 6 at 270, 12:37–45), and/or code
`
`implementing each display region as an icon (Id. 14:55–58).
`
`37.
`
`First, the Selector application (Selector) and/or the JavaOS described by Kasso
`
`provide a desktop that provides an operating environment for network-client applications. Ex.
`
`1009 (Kasso) 5:23–53, 5:60–62.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`38.
`
`Second, the Selector application described by Kasso is an application launcher,
`
`and in particular a launcher implemented as a Java applet, downloaded to the host (client) 200.
`
`Id. 5:45–53, 5:60–62. Selector is launched responsive to the login request from the user. Id.
`
`5:41–49.
`
`39.
`
`Selector establishes a user desktop interface, shown at 402 in Kasso’s Fig. 5, that
`
`includes a plurality of display regions (icons 404, 406) associated with a set of the application
`
`programs installed at the server for which the user is authorized. Id. 5:63-6:4. Kasso states that
`
`the user can run the represented applications after logging in, and thus that the represented
`
`applications are applications for which the user is authorized. Id. 6:4–12. Kasso also states that
`
`the application icon pane 410 remains visible at all times. Id. 6:9–10.
`
`40.
`
`To the extent that Claims 1, 15, and 16 are deemed to require that the user desktop
`
`interface be configured according to an individualized list of applications for which the user is
`
`authorized (rather than simply configured to display applications for which the user is
`
`authorized), it would have been obvious to modify the system of Kasso to incorporate
`
`Raduchel’s teachings on user-selective application access to arrive at a user desktop interface so
`
`configured.
`
`41.
`
`Raduchel describes a system in which an authentication manager authenticates a
`
`user, and returns a token that identifies the services that the user may use. Ex. 1010 (Raduchel)
`
`5:20–27. This token may contain a profile of a user’s access rights, and when the token is
`
`returned to the local computer, it would be included in all further requests from the local
`
`computer. Id. 5:28–30. The token includes a profile, and not merely a Boolean (yes/no) flag. A
`
`browser then displays icons indicating each of these services, and the user may select the icons,
`
`causing applets to be downloaded to the browser and run. Ex. 1010 (Raduchel) 3:38–44. Fig. 5
`
`depicts a browser screen 300 with three icons. The icons are representative of the services that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`the user may use, as indicated in a token received from the authentication manager. Id. 5:47–51.
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Fig. 6 depicts the browser screen 300 with four icons. This display is generated when an
`
`authentication token returned to the local computer indicates that the user can utilize all the
`
`available services on the local computer. Id. 6:12–14, 6:23–24.
`
`42.
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Raduchel’s teachings on user-selective
`
`application access with Kasso’s teachings on providing a user desktop interface, to arrive at a
`
`user desktop interface that does not merely display applications for which the user is authorized
`
`(among others), but is configured according to a list of applications (indicated by Raduchel’s
`
`token) for which the user is authorized. A POSA would have had a reason to combine the
`
`identified teachings of Kasso and Raduchel in order to provide a user with indications of the
`
`services that the user is able to utilize, by providing indications and display icons representing
`
`the services available to that user. Ex. 1010 (Raduchel) 2:18–22. Such a modification would
`
`have simplified the user display and reduced error messages caused by user interactions with
`
`unavailable applications, thus increasing system usability.
`
`43.
`
`Kasso and Raduchel are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are
`
`both in the same field of endeavor as the ’466 Patent, and because they are reasonably pertinent
`
`to problems faced by the ’466 inventors. Kasso relates to computer systems, and more
`
`particularly to managing properties of computer program applications. Ex. 1009 (Kasso). 1:8–9.
`
`Raduchel relates to data processing systems, and more particularly, to network–based
`
`authentication of a computer user. Ex. 1009 (Raduchel) 1:13–15. More specifically, both Kasso
`
`and Raduchel describe systems in which authenticated users in a client-server environment
`
`access applications, and are reasonably pertinent to problems related to authentication and/or
`
`application delivery and management in a client-server environment.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`44.
`
`Kasso in view of Raduchel describe [means for] (Claim 15)/[computer readable
`
`program code means for] (Claim 16) receiving at the server a selection of one of the plurality of
`
`application programs from the user desktop interface (Claims 1, 15, 16). I have considered the
`
`structure corresponding to the stated function to include code configured to receive a Hyper-Text
`
`Transfer Protocol (HTTP) client request for a Universal Resource Locator (URL) that points to
`
`the location of an applet to be executed. Ex. 1001 (’466) 9:42–43, 9:52–57.
`
`45.
`
`According to Kasso, when a user clicks the mailbox icon 406, Selector loads the
`
`HTML page associated with the icon and which contains the MailView Java applet. Ex. 1009
`
`(Kasso) 6:4–7. Thus, in response to a user clicking on the mailbox icon 406, the HTTP server
`
`208 receives a request to access the HTML page associated with the MailView application icon.
`
`The request constitutes a selection of the MailView application. The request is an HTTP request
`
`for a URL that points to the location of the MailView applet to be executed. Id. 6:1–3, 5:2–4.
`
`46.
`
`Kasso in view of Raduchel describes [means for] (Claim 15)/[computer readable
`
`program code means for] (Claim 16) providing an instance of the selected one of the plurality of
`
`application programs to the client for execution responsive to the selection (Claims 1, 15, 16). I
`
`have considered the structure corresponding to the stated function to include code configured to
`
`transmit an applet to the client in response to processing an HTTP client request for a URL that
`
`points to the location of the applet. Ex. 1001 (’466) 9:42–43, 9:52–57.
`
`47.
`
`As described by Kasso, when a user clicks the mailbox icon 406, Selector loads
`
`the HTML page associated with the icon and which contains the MailView Java applet. Ex. 1009
`
`(Kasso) 6:4–7. Thus, the HTTP server 208 provides an instance of the selected application, i.e.
`
`an instance of the MailView Java applet, to the host. The applet loads itself into RAM of the
`
`host, and then executes and runs on the user’s host. Id. 6:9–12. Thus, the MailView Java applet is
`
`provided to the host for execution responsive to the selection.
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`48.
`
`I understand that the ’466 Patent Applicant distinguished the Rose reference
`
`during prosecution by disclaiming the distribution of client-resident programs, which may be
`
`repeatedly executed at the client without reinstantiation. Ex. 1002 (File History), Appeal Brief,
`
`page 8. Patent Owner now appears to allege that a system that distributes client-resident
`
`programs infringes the ’466 Patent claims. (Ex. 1003, E.D. Tex. Complaint).
`
`49.
`
`To the extent that, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s apparent infringement
`
`arguments, Claims 1, 15, and 16 are deemed limited to the distribution of transient programs, as
`
`distinguished from client-resident programs, Kasso in view of Raduchel describe such a
`
`limitation. In particular, Java applets such as the MailView applet described by Kasso are
`
`transient programs, rather than client-resident programs. Such programs are ordinarily
`
`downloaded every time they are to be executed. Thus, under either interpretation of the Claims,
`
`Kasso in view of Raduchel describe providing an instance of a selected application program to
`
`the client for execution responsive to the selection.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 7, 22, and 35 Are Obvious over Kasso in View of Raduchel
`
`50.
`
`Kasso in view of Raduchel describe: a method according to Claim 1 wherein the
`
`establishing a user desktop interface step includes the steps of (Claim 7); and a [system
`
`according to Claim 15] (Claim 22)/[computer program product according to Claim 16] (Claim
`
`35) wherein the [means for establishing a user desktop interface includes] (Claim 22) [computer
`
`readable program code means for establishing a user desktop interface includes](Claim 35). The
`
`structures identified below for the two limitations of the claim are included in the structure for
`
`the limitation “means for configuring” from Claims 15 and 16.
`
`51.
`
`Kasso in view of Raduchel describe [computer readable program code] (Claim
`
`35)/[means for](Claims 22, 35) configuring the user desktop interface responsive to an identifier
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`

`

`Declaration of Thomas A. Day
`Bitdefender v. Uniloc
`
`of the user associated with the login request so as to provide associated information for the user
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`desktop interface. I have considered the structure corresponding to the function “configuring the
`
`user desktop interface responsive to an identifier of the user … to provide associated information
`
`for the user desktop interface” to include code configuring the user desktop interface to include
`
`preference characteristics unique (specific) to the user (Ex. 1001 (’466) 15:4–9, and/or ii. code
`
`that allows for the appropriate context (individual, group, defaul