Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 9
`Entered: April 18, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owners.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, J. JOHN LEE, and JESSICA C. KAISER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`
`Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–21 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,069,293 B2, issued on June 27, 2006 (Ex. 1001, “the ’293
`
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.1
`
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a preliminary response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires
`
`demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to at least one challenged claim, we deny Petitioner’s request and do
`
`not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim.
`
`
`
`A. The ʼ293 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`The ʼ293 patent relates to centralized control of software distribution
`
`for a computer network managed by a network management server. Ex.
`
`1001, 4:14–16. Figure 1 of the ’293 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`1 Petitioner states Uniloc USA, Inc. is the exclusive licensee of the
`challenged patent. Pet. 1. Although the Preliminary Response initially
`identifies only Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. as the patent owner (Prelim. Resp.
`1), its Mandatory Notice identifies both Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc
`Luxembourg S.A. as Patent Owner in this case. Paper 7, 1.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a computer network according to an embodiment of the
`
`invention. Id. at 6:60–63. In particular, network management server 20 is
`
`connected to on-demand servers 22 and 22’ which are in turn connected to
`
`client stations 24 and 24’ and 26 and 26’ respectively. Id. at 6:63–7:9. The
`
`’293 patent describes a method of distributing software from the network
`
`management server to the on-demand servers. Id. at 17:20–18:36.
`
`B.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 12, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
`
`challenged claims, and is reproduced below:
`
`1. A method for distribution of application programs to a
`target on-demand server on a network comprising the following
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`
`executed on a centralized network management server coupled
`to the network:
`providing an application program to be distributed to the
`network management server;
`specifying a source directory and a target directory for
`distribution of the application program;
`preparing a file packet associated with the application
`program and including a segment configured to initiate
`registration operations for the application program at the target
`on-demand server; and
`distributing the file packet to the target on-demand server
`to make the application program available for use by a user at a
`client.
`
`Id. at 21:22–36.
`
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner identifies a number of related lawsuits involving the ʼ293
`
`patent filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Pet. 1–3. Patent Owner
`
`identified only some of those lawsuits as related matters. Paper 7, 2.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under
`
`that standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioner offers constructions of a number of claim terms in its
`
`Petition. Pet. 13–19. Patent Owner responds that “the parties’ present
`
`disputes make it unnecessary to construe the terms Petitioner proposes.”
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`Prelim. Resp. 15. Nevertheless, Patent Owner disputes several of
`
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Id. at 16–23. For purposes of this
`
`decision, we need not construe any terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci.
`
`& Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those
`
`terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`
`
`
`E. References
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`1. “Collins” (U.S. Patent No. 5,845,090; issued Dec. 1, 1998)
`(Ex. 1003);
`
`2. “On-Demand Handbook” (Workspace On-Demand Handbook,
`IBM International Technical Support Organization (December
`1997)) (Ex. 1004);
`
`3. “Gupta” (U.S. Patent No. 6,446,109 B2; issued Sept. 3, 2002)
`(Ex. 1005); and
`
`4. “Hesse” (U.S. Patent No. 5,950,010; issued Sept. 7, 1999)
`(Ex. 1006).
`
`F. Grounds Asserted
`
`
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–21 of the ʼ293
`
`patent on the following grounds:
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Collins and On-Demand
`Handbook
`
`Gupta and Hesse
`
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1–21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15–
`18, 20, and 21
`
`Petitioner relies also on expert testimony from Leonard Laub
`
`(Ex. 1002, “Laub Decl.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Level of Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the alleged invention of the ’293 patent would have possessed “a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science and at least
`
`three years of experience working with client-server computer systems and
`
`distributed storage computer systems.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 (Laub
`
`Decl.) ¶ 20). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill. See
`
`generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the
`
`level of skill in the art.
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness Over Collins and On-Demand Handbook
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–21 would have been obvious over
`
`Collins and On-Demand Handbook. Pet. 20–52. For the reasons that
`
`follow, we are persuaded, based on this record, that Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Collins and On-Demand Handbook
`
`Collins is titled “System for Software Distribution in a Digital
`
`Computer Network” and issued on December 1, 1998. Ex. 1003, at [45],
`
`[54]. Collins relates to a “process of distributing software and data in a
`
`digital computer network by combining the software and data, together with
`
`programs and data known as methods, into single entities referred to as
`
`Packages, and then by using specific techniques to transmit Packages from
`
`one computer to another.” Id. at [57]. Figure 2 of Collins is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a block diagram of the functional components of Collins’
`
`invention. In Figure 2, there are “four generic digital computing
`
`environments”—Native Package, Network Management Server, Remote
`
`Network Management Server (sometimes referred to as a Hop Server), and
`
`Target System—which support three basic functions: Package Definition,
`
`Package Transfer, and Package Installation and Back-Out. Id. at 4:33–65.
`
`Collins describes that a Target System can receive its transfers through a
`
`Hop Server. In such case, the Hop Server receives the Software Package
`
`from the Network Management Server through the Hop Server’s Package
`
`Transfer Agent (21), and the Hop Server then transmits Packages to one or
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`more Target Systems on the Hop Server’s Outbound Package Queue (18).
`
`Id. at 5:50–63.
`
`The On-Demand Handbook is an IBM publication to help one “install,
`
`configure and administer a WorkSpace On-Demand environment,” which
`
`was an IBM software product. Ex. 1004, xv. The On-Demand Handbook
`
`describes its process of Remote Initial Program Load (RIPL), which “is the
`
`process of loading an operating system onto a workstation from a location
`
`that is remote to the workstation.” Id. at 19. The On-Demand Handbook
`
`also describes the process of adding application software to make it available
`
`to end-users using WorkSpace On-Demand. Id. at 108–118.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis of Petitioner’s Challenge
`
`Independent claims 1, 12, and 17 all recite “preparing a file packet
`
`associated with the application program and including a segment configured
`
`to initiate registration operations for the application program at the target on-
`
`demand server” (the “file packet” limitation). Ex. 1001, 21:31–34 (claim 1),
`
`22:26–30 (claim 12, reciting means for the same), 23:4–8 (claim 17, reciting
`
`computer readable program code means that prepares the same). Petitioner
`
`relies on Collins as teaching this limitation. Pet. 32–35, 37, 40.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner contends Collins’ Hop Servers teach the recited
`
`“target on-demand server.” Id. at 24–26.2 Petitioner further contends
`
`
`2 Petitioner also contends that the functionality of “on-demand servers” was
`well known and cites the On-Demand Handbook in support. Pet. 26–27.
`Petitioner further contends that to the extent Collins’ Hop Servers do not
`teach on-demand servers, a person of ordinary skill “would have been
`motivated to incorporate the on-demand server of On-Demand Handbook
`into the network management scheme and Hop Servers of Collins to
`configure the Hop Servers to deliver applications as needed responsive to
`user requests as requests are received.” Id. at 27. For purposes of this
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`Collins’ Packages, “which contain some software and data which depends
`
`on the configuration of the Target digital computer,” teach the recited “file
`
`packet.” Id. at 32 (quoting Ex. 1003, at [57]) (citing Ex. 1003, 6:42–45).
`
`For the portion of the limitation that recites “including a segment
`
`configured to initiate registration operations for the application program at
`
`the target on-demand server,” Petitioner contends Collins’ Distribution
`
`Software Package contains methods that unpack data from the Software
`
`Package and install it on a Distribution Target and can also include
`
`“backout” methods, “pre-install” methods, and “post-install” methods. Pet.
`
`33 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:9–12, 6:26–32). Regarding Collins’ Hop Server,
`
`Petitioner contends:
`
`[w]hen the Hop Server receives the Package, the Hop Server’s
`Transfer Daemon reviews the criteria values of the client
`device, removes optional data files and methods which are
`inappropriate for that criteria value and sends the modified
`package to the Target client device. Therefore, at least one
`segment of the Software Package is configured to initiate
`operations that process information about the Target, such as
`criteria values, and based on that make the appropriate
`application available to the Target device.
`
`Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:29–38) (internal citations and quotation
`
`marks omitted). Petitioner also contends Collins’ Hop Servers “receive
`
`Software Packages from the Network Management Server through the Hop
`
`Server’s Package Transfer Agent. The Package Transfer Agent, also known
`
`as the ‘Transfer Daemon’ first determines the package type and then ‘act[s]
`
`
`decision, we find it unnecessary to consider Petitioner’s contentions
`regarding the on-demand servers of the On-Demand Handbook because for
`the reasons discussed below, we find Petitioner has failed to meet its burden
`to show Collins teaches the “file packet” limitation for which Petitioner does
`not rely on the On-Demand Handbook.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`accordingly’ by in some cases installing files on the Hop Server. The
`
`Transfer Daemon then forwards the Package to the next Target device.” Id.
`
`at 35 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:54–55, 6:58–64, 7:16–23, Fig. 2) (internal citations
`
`omitted).
`
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has not shown Collins teaches
`
`the “file packet” limitation. Prelim. Resp. 31–34. Specifically, Patent
`
`Owner contends that even if Collins’ Package is installed on the Hop Server,
`
`such installation is insufficient to show “a segment configured to initiate
`
`registration operations for the application program at the target on-demand
`
`server” because the ’293 patent differentiates install operations from
`
`registration operations. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:20–21, 4:25, 17:49,
`
`21:42). Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner cannot rely on
`
`functionality of Collins’ Transfer Daemon because it is within the Target
`
`System rather than the Hop Server. Id. at 32–34 (citing Ex. 1003, 6:51–
`
`7:29, Figs. 2, 4).
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and find they
`
`do not sufficiently show that Collins teaches “preparing a file packet
`
`associated with the application program and including a segment configured
`
`to initiate registration operations for the application program at the target on-
`
`demand server” as recited in the challenged claims. In particular, Petitioner
`
`has not sufficiently shown that Collins’ Package includes “a segment
`
`configured to initiate registration operations for the application program at
`
`the target on-demand server.”
`
`Specifically, Petitioner points to “installation methods,” “pre-install
`
`methods,” “post-install methods,” and “back-out methods” which can be
`
`contained within Collins’ Package. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:9–12, 6:26–
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`32). Petitioner acknowledges, however, that these methods execute on a
`
`target computer (i.e., the recited “client”) (id. at 33, 35–36), and does not
`
`sufficiently explain how such methods teach “a segment configured to
`
`initiate registration operations for the application program at the target on-
`
`demand server [i.e., a Hop Server].”
`
`Petitioner also relies on Collins’ disclosure that a user can specify
`
`attributes of a package, including the target for transfer, and that Packages
`
`can be built to be distributed to target computers with a certain profile. Id. at
`
`34 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:3–8, 5:33–34, 7:53–55). The cited portions of
`
`Collins, however, relate to Collins’ Package Tool (8) and Transfer Tool (11),
`
`which as shown in Figure 2 (reproduced above) reside in the Native Package
`
`Environment and Network Management Server, not in the Remote
`
`Distribution Sever (e.g., Hop Server). Ex. 1003, Fig. 2, 5:1–8, 22–34; see
`
`also id. at 7:50–58 (marking Packages “as authorized for transfer to specific
`
`profiles” at “creation-time”). Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how
`
`Collins teaches these operations being performed at the target on-demand
`
`server (i.e., Hop Server), as required by the claims.
`
`Petitioner also relies on Collins’ disclosure of “criteria values,” and
`
`states that “[w]hen the Hop Server receives the Package, the Hop Server’s
`
`Transfer Daemon reviews the criteria values of the client device, ‘removes
`
`optional data files and methods which are inappropriate for that criteria
`
`value’ and sends the ‘modified package’ to the Target client device.” Pet.
`
`34–35 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:22–38). Thus, Petitioner contends “at least one
`
`segment of the Software Package is configured to initiate operations that
`
`process information about the Target, such as criteria values, and based on
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`that make the appropriate application available to the Target device.” Id. at
`
`35.
`
`We find that this contention also falls short because the cited portion
`
`of Collins does not disclose that the Transfer Daemon is the “Hop Server’s
`
`Transfer Daemon” as Petitioner contends. The portion of Collins on which
`
`Petitioner relies (Ex. 1003, 8:22–38) describes that a target can report
`
`criteria values when requesting a Package. Collins further discloses the
`
`“Transfer Daemon” removes “optional data files and methods which are
`
`inappropriate” for those criteria values from the Package, such that “the
`
`modified package (64) received by the Target contains only appropriate data
`
`files and methods.” Id. Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why this
`
`portion of Collins teaches that the Transfer Daemon resides in the Hop
`
`Server, instead of, for example, the Network Management Server. In
`
`particular, we note that Petitioner acknowledges “when the Network
`
`Management Server of Collins constructs a Software Package, it constructs
`
`the Software Package in accordance with the ‘configuration of the Target
`
`digital computer,’ and only transfers ‘that part of the Package which is
`
`appropriate for each Target digital computer’s configuration.’” Pet. 33
`
`(quoting Ex. 1003 at [57]). Petitioner’s contention is consistent with the
`
`Network Management Server, rather than the Hop Server, modifying the
`
`Package based on criteria values.
`
`Finally, Petitioner contends Collins’ Hop Servers “receive Software
`
`Packages from the Network Management Server through the Hop Server’s
`
`Package Transfer Agent, which “determines the package type,” “‘act[s]
`
`accordingly’ by in some cases installing files on the Hop Server,” and
`
`“forwards the Package to the next Target device.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1003,
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`Fig. 2, 5:54–55, 6:58–64, 7:16–23). We are not persuaded the cited portion
`
`of column 6 of Collins supports Petitioner’s contention because this
`
`disclosure relates to the Transfer Daemon of the Target System and not the
`
`Hop Server. Ex. 1003, Figs. 2, 4, 6:51–64. Specifically, as Patent Owner
`
`points out (Prelim. Resp. 32–34), in describing Figure 4, Collins refers to
`
`Package Transfer Agent 21 and Remote Package Manager 23 in Figure 2 as
`
`the Transfer Daemon, and Transfer Agent 21 and Remote Package Manager
`
`23 in Figure 2 both reside in the Target System, not the Remote Distribution
`
`Server (e.g., Hop Server). Ex. 1003, 6:51–56, Fig. 2.
`
`The remaining cited portions of Collins teach that the Hop Server
`
`receives a Package through its Package Transfer Agent and places it in its
`
`Outbound Package Queue (Ex. 1003, 5:54–55), and that the Hop Server can
`
`forward the Package “unmodified” to the next Target or, if the Hop Server
`
`itself is a target, place “a modified copy of the Package on its Inbound
`
`Package Queue for subsequent processing as if it were newly arrived” (id. at
`
`7:16–23). We find that the ’293 patent distinguishes between installation
`
`and registration. E.g., Ex. 1001, 4:18–22 (“install and register the
`
`application program on the on-demand server”), 4:25 (“install and register
`
`the program”), 18:31–33 (“[A]n administrator both sends a new application
`
`package to all supported on-demand servers and installs the program and
`
`configures (registers) it to be available for use.”). Petitioner contends that
`
`Collins’ Hop Server (i.e., target on-demand server) receives Software
`
`Packages from the Network Management Server, installs files on the Hop
`
`Server, and forwards them to the target device (i.e., client). Pet. 35.
`
`Particularly, in light of the ’293 patent distinguishing between installation
`
`and registration, however, Petitioner does not persuasively explain how
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`either the Hop Server simply forwarding the Package to the Target or
`
`placing a copy of the Package on its own Inbound Package Queue teaches a
`
`segment of the Package “configured to initiate registration operations for the
`
`application program at the target on-demand server.”
`
`Although not cited by Petitioner, we have also reviewed the relevant
`
`portions of the Laub Declaration, and find that they do not provide further
`
`support for Petitioner’s contentions. Mr. Laub states only that a “person of
`
`ordinary skill would find it inherent in Collins that the file packet includes a
`
`segment configured to initiate registration operations for the application
`
`program at the target on-demand server, in the form of the installation
`
`methods disclosed in Collins,” without further explanation. Ex. 1002 (Laub
`
`Decl.) ¶ 50. In addition, the portions of Collins cited by Mr. Laub, which
`
`are also cited by Petitioner (Pet. 33), discuss various “methods,” which can
`
`be contained within Collins’ Package (Ex. 1002 (Laub Decl.) ¶ 50 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003, 3:9–12, 6:26–32)), and we find those portions of Collins do not
`
`teach the “file packet” limitation for the reasons discussed above.
`
`In sum, Petitioner has not persuasively explained, or provided
`
`sufficient evidence to show, that Collins teaches “preparing a file packet
`
`associated with the application program and including a segment configured
`
`to initiate registration operations for the application program at the target on-
`
`demand server,” as recited in the challenged claims.3 Petitioner does not
`
`rely on On-Demand Handbook as teaching this limitation. See Pet. 32–35.
`
`
`3 Because we find Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this challenge for the reasons discussed above, we do not reach
`Patent Owner’s other arguments as to this challenge.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`
`For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1–21 would have
`
`been obvious over Collins and On-Demand Handbook.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness Over Gupta and Hesse
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15–18, 20, and 21
`
`would have been obvious over Gupta and Hesse. Pet. 53–70. For the
`
`reasons that follow, we are persuaded, based on this record, that Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Gupta and Hesse
`
`Gupta is titled “Application Computing Environment” and issued on
`
`September 3, 2002. Ex. 1005, at [45], [54]. Gupta relates to a “computing
`
`environment that offers a level of decentralization wherein application server
`
`code resident on a remote application server can be distributed to a local
`
`server,” which “becomes a local application server for a client.” Id. at [57].
`
`Figure 3 of Gupta is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`Figure 3 of Gupta depicts a four-tier application architecture that includes a
`
`webtop server tier. Id. at 8:16–18.4 “A client in client tier 302
`
`communicates its requests to webtop server 308 in webtop server tier 320.
`
`Webtop server 308 can support multiple clients.” Id. at 8:43–45.
`
`“Application server 310 manages requests for application logic and is
`
`responsible for database transaction handling with database server 312 that
`
`is in database tier 318.” Id. at 8:31–33.
`
`Figure 7 of Gupta is reproduced below.
`
`
`4 Gupta’s webtop server is also referred to as a local application server. Id.
`at 8:6–9.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`
`Figure 7 of Gupta depicts a process flow for a client acquiring application
`
`software. Id. at 14:26–56.
`
`Hesse is titled “System and Method for Customized Application
`
`Package Building and Installation,” and issued on September 7, 1999. Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`1006, at [45], [54]. Hesse relates to a “system for building and installing
`
`custom application packages in a distributed computing environment that
`
`includes a server computer and a client computer coupled through a
`
`network.” Id. at [57].
`
`2.
`
`Analysis of Petitioner’s Challenge
`
`As discussed above, independent claims 1, 12, and 17 all recite
`
`“preparing a file packet associated with the application program and
`
`including a segment configured to initiate registration operations for the
`
`application program at the target on-demand server” (the “file packet
`
`limitation”). Ex. 1001, 21:31–34 (claim 1), 22:26–30 (claim 12, reciting
`
`means for the same), 23:4–8 (claim 17, reciting computer readable program
`
`code means that prepares the same). Petitioner relies on Gupta5 as teaching
`
`this limitation. Pet. 59–61, 63–64, 66. Specifically, Petitioner contends
`
`Gupta’s local application server or webtop server teaches the recited “target
`
`on-demand server.” Id. at 56–57. Petitioner further contends Gupta’s
`
`packaging of “parameters” teaches “preparing a file packet associated with
`
`the application program.” Id. at 59 (citing Ex. 1005, at [57], 2:44–56).
`
`For the portion of the limitation reciting “including a segment
`
`configured to initiate registration operations for the application program at
`
`
`5 In the alternative, Petitioner relies on Hesse only for the recited “file packet
`associated with the application program,” and contends Hesse teaches
`“building application packages to be used and transferred within a
`distributed computer network.” Pet. 59. Petitioner contends a person of
`ordinary skill “would have been motivated to incorporate the application
`packet building protocol of Hesse into the network management scheme and
`application transfer protocol of Gupta to provide more flexibility and
`functionality as part of the application transfer protocol.” Id. at 60. We
`need not address these contentions because they do not cure the deficiencies
`discussed below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`the target on-demand server,” Petitioner relies on (1) Gupta’s verification of
`
`“applets” using digital signatures, and (2) Gupta’s log in service. Id. at 60–
`
`61 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:13–20, 9:4–10, 10:43–11:19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 66).
`
`Regarding “digital signatures,” Petitioner contends Gupta’s client receives a
`
`public key along with the applet to verify the digital signature and, therefore,
`
`the applet. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 4:13–20; Ex. 1002 ¶ 66). Petitioner also
`
`contends Gupta’s webtop server (i.e., “target on-demand server”) becomes
`
`the “applet-host,” and that once the applet is running on the client device, the
`
`applet can “communicate back to the webtop server ‘as the host of that
`
`applet thereby satisfying the sandbox security paradigm.’” Id. at 61 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005, 9:4–10). Petitioner’s expert testifies, “Gupta discloses including a
`
`segment configured to initiate registration operations for the application
`
`program at the target on-demand server.” Ex. 1002 (Laub Decl.) ¶ 66 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005, 4:13–20, 11:3–8, 15:26–29). Petitioner’s expert further testifies,
`
`“Gupta secures the registration of an application program by accompanying
`
`the distribution with a digital signature generated with known public key-
`
`private key techniques.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 4:17–20).
`
`Regarding Gupta’s log in service, Petitioner contends “the client
`
`devices in Gupta must ‘log in’ to verify the client device’s credentials and
`
`the local application servers provide the client devices with a ‘cookie’ to
`
`‘track the client session.’” Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:43–52, 10:65–11:19).
`
`Petitioner further contends the “login service of the webtop/local application
`
`server maintains login information about the client.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`10:53–64).
`
`Patent Owner argues Petitioner “fails to provide a cognizable theory”
`
`for how the cited references teach the “file packet” limitation. Prelim. Resp.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`43. In particular, Patent Owner contends that transmission of “parameters”
`
`and other data to and from the client as well as operations performed at the
`
`client do not teach a “file packet” “configured to initiate registration
`
`operations for the application program at the target on-demand server.” Id.
`
`at 44. Patent Owner further argues Petitioner’s contentions regarding
`
`Gupta’s applet include only “arbitrary and unexplained citations to unrelated
`
`disclosures of disparate and incompatible systems” and, thus, fail to meet
`
`Petitioner’s threshold burden as to this limitation. Id. at 45.
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and find they
`
`do not sufficiently show that Gupta, alone or in combination with Hesse,
`
`teaches “preparing a file packet associated with the application program and
`
`including a segment configured to initiate registration operations for the
`
`application program at the target on-demand server” as recited in the
`
`challenged claims. As discussed above, Petitioner argues Gupta’s local
`
`application or webtop server teaches the recited “target on-demand server.”
`
`Petitioner also contends Gupta’s parameters teach the recited “file packet.”
`
`Petitioner has not sufficiently shown, however, that Gupta’s parameters
`
`include “a segment configured to initiate registration operations for the
`
`application program at the target on-demand server.” As Patent Owner
`
`points out (Prelim. Resp. 44), when addressing the recited “segment
`
`configured to initiate registration operations for the application program at
`
`the target on-demand server,” Petitioner does not mention Gupta’s
`
`parameters (i.e., the alleged “file packet”). See Pet. 60–61.
`
`In addition, we find Petitioner’s arguments regarding Gupta’s applets
`
`and log in service do not sufficiently show Gupta teaches the recited
`
`“segment configured to initiate registration operations for the application
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`program at the target on-demand server.” See id. Regarding the applet, the
`
`only actions Petitioner alleges occur at Gupta’s local application or webtop
`
`server are generation of a “public key” and receiving communications from
`
`the applet after the applet is running on the client device. Id. Petitioner does
`
`not explain how these actions relate to a “segment configured to initiate
`
`registration operations for the application program at the target on-demand
`
`server.” Petitioner’s expert’s testimony on this point is likewise without
`
`sufficient explanation. See Ex. 1002 (Laub Decl.) ¶ 66.
`
`Regarding the log in service, Petitioner contends the local
`
`application/webtop server “maintains login information about the client.”
`
`Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:43–11:19). Again, Petitioner does not explain
`
`how maintaining such information teaches a “segment [of the file packet]
`
`configured to initiate registration operations for the application program at
`
`the target on-demand server.” See id. Although Petitioner’s expert cites a
`
`portion of Gupta related to the log in service, his testimony is conclusory.
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 66 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:3–8, without explanation).
`
`In sum, Petitioner has not persuasively explained, or provided
`
`sufficient evidence to show, that Gupta teaches “preparing a file packet
`
`associated with the application program and including a segment configured
`
`to initiate registration operations for the application program at the target on-
`
`demand server,” as recited in the challenged claims. 6 Other than generally
`
`teaching “preparing a file packet associated with the application program,”
`
`Petitioner does not rely on Hesse as teaching this limitation. See Pet. 59–61.
`
`
`6 Because we find Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this challenge for the reasons discussed above, we do not reach
`Patent Owner’s other arguments as to this challenge.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293 B2
`
`
`For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 13,
`
`15–18, 20, and 21 would have been obvious over Gupta and Hesse.
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY
`
`
`
`We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its challenges to claims 1–21 of the ’293 patent.
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`ORDERED that the Pet