`
`Ex. 1024
`EX. 1024
`
`Declaration of Leonard Laub submitted
`Declaration of Leonard Laub submitted
`
`in IPR 2017-00184, filed for US Patent
`in IPR 2017-00184, filed for US Patent
`
`No. 7,069,293
`No. 7,069,293
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`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 Owner
`
`IPR2017-00184
`Patent 7,069,293
`
`DECLARATION OF LEONARD LAUB
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184
`UNIFIED EX1002
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`Contents
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 2
`
`I.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................. 2
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF MY STUDY.......................................................................... 9
`
`V. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................. 9
`
`VI. KNOWLEDGE OF ONE SKILLED IN THE ART BY DECEMBER 1998 10
`
`VII.
`
`THE PROBLEM ALLEGEDLY SOLVED BY THE ʼ293 PATENT .......16
`
`VIII. PRIOR ART REFERENCES ......................................................................18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Collins Reference ..............................................................................18
`
`The IBM Reference ..................................................................................24
`
`The Gupta Reference ...............................................................................26
`
`The Hesse Reference ................................................................................30
`
`IX. COMBINATIONS OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES ...................................31
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Modifications to Collins with IBM ..........................................................31
`
`Modifications to Gupta with Hesse .........................................................34
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`I, Leonard Laub, hereby declare:
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Counsel for Petitioner Unified Patents Inc.
`
`(“Unified” or “Petitioner”) to provide opinions on certain issues concerning Inter
`
`Partes Review No. IPR2017-00184 of U.S. Patent 7,069,293 (“the ʼ293 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to opine on the matters set forth below. I make
`
`these statements based upon facts and matters within my own knowledge or on
`
`information provided to me by others. All such facts and matters are true to the
`
`best of my knowledge and belief.
`
`3.
`
`I am the President of Keryston Associates, Inc. (“Keryston”). My firm
`
`is compensated at a rate of $300 per hour for my work on this matter. This
`
`compensation is not dependent on my opinions or testimony or the outcome of this
`
`matter.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Physics, with a minor in
`
`Mathematics, from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1970. I then pursued a
`
`Master’s degree in Mathematics from Northeastern Illinois University, and a Ph.D.
`
`degree in Physics from Northwestern University.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`6.
`
`I have over 50 years of professional experience in encoding,
`
`transmission, storage, decoding, and presentation of digitized audio and video
`
`signals, optics and optical systems design, lasers and laser applications, search and
`
`database techniques, telecommunications, technology licensing, and many other
`
`fields of commercial significance. I am named as an inventor on 20 patents. I have
`
`been a member of the Audio Engineering Society for over 40 years.
`
`7.
`
`I have been President of Keryston and its predecessor Vision Three,
`
`Inc. for over 35 years. Keryston provides professional consulting services to
`
`companies, investors, and government agencies relating to business and technical
`
`matters in a wide range of industries including audio and video recording, storage,
`
`transmission, and presentation; broadcast, mobile, and fiber telecommunications;
`
`computer and storage networks; mass data storage and retrieval; advanced energy
`
`storage and power generation; consumer electronics; optical and photographic
`
`systems; and microelectronics and display design and manufacture. Such
`
`consulting services include working with clients on specific business and
`
`technology projects, assisting with definition and optimization of products and
`
`business models, development, protection, and licensing of intellectual property,
`
`and other technology and business issues. Keryston also provides professional
`
`expert witness services.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`8.
`
`At Keryston, I have been frequently called upon to provide my expert
`
`opinion on matters concerning patent disputes. I have consultatively supported
`
`counsel and/or been qualified as a technical expert in over 50 litigation matters,
`
`including in areas that relate to the technology described in the ‘037 Patent.
`
`However, I have not testified in any of these cases during the last four years.
`
`9.
`
`In my professional career, I worked for Zenith Radio Corporation,
`
`Xerox Corporation, and Exxon Corporation before starting my current consulting
`
`practice. My consulting clients have included Agilent, Du Pont, Exxon, Fuji Photo
`
`Film, Fujitsu, Funai, General Electric, Google, IBM, ICI, MediaTek, Microsoft,
`
`3M, Mitsubishi, NCR, NTT, Olympus, Philips, Ricoh, Samsung, Seagate, Sony,
`
`Thomson (now Technicolor), Toshiba, and Warner Bros, plus many young,
`
`growing, and evolving companies worldwide.
`
`10. The following is a summary of my professional experience relevant to
`
`these proceedings:
`
`11. Zenith (1968-1973) – early development of massive random-access
`
`storage devices and investigation of indexing and database management techniques
`
`required for managing large bodies of digital content;
`
`Xerox and Star Systems (1976-1978) – built from scratch a business
`
`making large-scale systems for digital storing, networking, and retrieval of image
`
`and text information; issues addressed included centralized and decentralized
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`servers on local-area and wide-area networks providing content to user stations;
`
`advanced indexing and directory management for large numbers of stored objects;
`
`load balancing across servers; and integration of diverse storage media on servers.
`
`Star Systems (1978-1981) – built from scratch a business making large-
`
`scale systems for digital storing, networking, and retrieval of all types of digital
`
`content; issues addressed included centralized and decentralized servers on
`
`networks providing content to user stations; advanced indexing and directory
`
`management for large numbers of stored objects; load balancing across servers;
`
`and integration of diverse storage media on servers.
`
`FileNet (1981-1983) – supported development of large-scale storage by and
`
`on-demand retrieval of digital content over networks from centralized and
`
`decentralized servers
`
`NASA (ca. 1984) – consulted on gigantic storage and on-demand retrieval
`
`systems for digital content over local-area and wide-area (including links between
`
`orbiting spacecraft and earth stations) integrating diverse storage media in
`
`unprecedentedly large quantities.
`
`Numerous government agencies, banks,
`
`insurance
`
`companies,
`
`brokerages, etc. (1984 - 2000+) – consulted on design and implementation of
`
`large-scale systems for storage by and on-demand retrieval of digital content over
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`local-area and wide-area networks from centralized and decentralized servers. The
`
`following is a summary of related case experience I have had in this field:
`
`12. Quantum v Crossroads Data Systems (2015-16) – issues included
`
`management of large centralized and on-demand servers.
`
`13. By virtue of the above experience, I have gained a detailed
`
`understanding of the technology that is at issue in this proceeding. My experience
`
`with storage and on-demand provision of digital content by servers to user stations
`
`on networks is directly relevant to the subject matter of the ‘293 Patent.
`
`13. I believe I am qualified to provide opinions about how one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in December 1998 would have interpreted and understood the ʼ293
`
`Patent and the art relied upon by the Petitioner as discussed below.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`14.
`
`It is my understanding that an invention is unpatentable if the
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art. I further understand that obviousness is
`
`determined by evaluating: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claim, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`15. To establish obviousness based on a combination of the elements
`
`disclosed in the prior art, it is my understanding that a petitioner must provide a
`
`clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious. This articulation does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching
`
`of a motivation to combine in the prior art. It is my understanding that this
`
`articulation can come from a number of rationales, which include but are not
`
`limited to (1) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (2) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (3) use of known technique to improve similar devices,
`
`methods, or products in the same way; (4) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (5)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success, i.e., the combination is “obvious to try”; (6)
`
`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 are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and (7) 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 limitation.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`16.
`
`I further understand that these rationales may be found explicitly or
`
`implicitly: (1) in the prior art; (2) in the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the
`
`art that certain references, or disclosures in those references, are of special interest
`
`or importance in the field; or (3) from the nature of the problem to be solved.
`
`Additionally, I understand that the legal determination of the motivation to
`
`combine references allows recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense. In
`
`order to resist the temptation to read into prior art the teachings of the invention in
`
`issue, however, it should be apparent that the expert is not conflating “common
`
`sense” and what appears obvious in hindsight.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that if the teachings of a prior art would lead a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to make a modification that would render another prior art
`
`device inoperable, then such a modification would generally not be obvious. I also
`
`understand that if a proposed modification would render the prior art invention
`
`being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion
`
`or motivation to make the proposed modification.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I understand that a reference may be
`
`said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon reading
`
`the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
`
`reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`the applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
`
`development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of
`
`the result sought by the patentee. I understand that a reference teaches away, for
`
`example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or
`
`(2) the references leave the impression that the product would not have the
`
`property sought by the patentee. I also understand, however, that a reference does
`
`not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
`
`invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation
`
`into the invention claimed.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF MY STUDY
`
`19.
`
`I have read the ʼ293 Patent and have considered its disclosure from
`
`the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art in December 1998 in the
`
`field of the invention, and in light of the references cited by the Petitioner.
`
`V. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`20.
`
`It is my opinion that the relevant field with respect to the ʼ293 Patent
`
`is on-demand provision of digital content by servers to user stations on a network.
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering
`
`or computer science, and at least three years of experience working with client-
`
`server and distributed storage computer systems.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`21.
`
`In reaching the opinions contained herein, I have considered the types
`
`of problems encountered in the art in December 1998, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the education level and professional capabilities of workers in the
`
`field. The basis of my familiarity with the level of skill in the art is my years of
`
`interaction with large numbers of workers in the field and my knowledge of the
`
`technical issues in the field.
`
`VI. KNOWLEDGE OF ONE SKILLED IN THE ART BY DECEMBER
`1998
`
`22. Computing is a field in which more is always needed. What was once
`
`regarded as a great deal of computing power, memory, storage, network bandwidth,
`
`screen resolution, etc. has always soon become not enough, and more has rapidly
`
`become available. Memory that was regarded as inexpensive at $17,000 per
`
`megabyte in 1978 has given way to $80 for 16 gigabytes of far faster memory
`
`today. Magnetic disk drives in 1978 the size of a water cooler, storing 300
`
`megabytes, and costing about $50,000 have given way to far more reliable drives
`
`the size of a paperback book, storing 10 terabytes, and costing $850 today. Local-
`
`area networks moving 3 megabits per second over thick coaxial cable have given
`
`way to local-area-networks moving 1000 megabits per second to user stations over
`
`thin, flexible cable, and up to 100 gigabits per second over enterprise trunks. Wide-
`
`area networks have increased bandwidth from tens of kilobits per second to tens of
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`megabits per second for on-demand service and from 1.5 megabits per second to
`
`hundreds of megabits per second for dedicated service.
`
`23. At least as significant as all these quantitative advances was the step
`
`change resulting from the introduction in the late 1970s and early 1980s of
`
`personal computers (PCs). These permitted users to run demanding applications at
`
`their own desks, either on their own or connected to a network to permit
`
`communication with other users and shared facilities. A PC at every desk in an
`
`enterprise added up to far more computing power than the one or few mainframes
`
`or minicomputers that had been the sole means of computing.
`
`24. The great increase in volume and range of computing work done in an
`
`enterprise created rapidly rising demand for storage of information. Magnetic disk
`
`drives built into PCs sufficed up to a point, but a better answer, initially for
`
`enterprises and over time for smaller operations as well, was to adopt the “client-
`
`server” approach developed in the 1970s. In this approach, “servers” are computers
`
`dedicated to specialized tasks, most often receiving and providing digital content,
`
`and servers are connected on a network to “clients,” the PCs and workstations at
`
`user’s desks. Clients then request digital content from servers and send information
`
`to servers.
`
`25. This approach has a number of benefits compared with just using
`
`storage at each PC. A dedicated server can:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
` store more, with higher reliability, at lower cost, than any PC
`
` be reliably backed up, either automatically or manually
`
` scaled as needed without changing user equipment
`
` be kept in a physically secure place
`
` have rules and safeguards to restrict access to certain items of content
`
` log storing and retrieving actions
`
`26. With one or more servers in place to store and retrieve large quantities
`
`of content, user stations (“clients”) can be streamlined to concentrate on processing
`
`power and display, not high storage capacity.
`
`27. With client-server architecture well in place, system architects were
`
`able to use client-server for additional beneficial purposes:
`
` Automatically standardize PC configurations and updating of PCs by
`
`sending out and automatically installing standardized profile packages
`
`(operating systems, boot profiles, and other configurations) from centrally
`
`managed servers
`
` Manage proliferation of application programs by storing install packages on
`
`servers so a user can request installation of an application program on a
`
`client and have that done in a standardized way, with automatic management
`
`of licenses and other user permissions.
`
`28. These approaches maintained the attraction of considerable computing
`
`power at each desk but addressed the problem of clients being out of date, used for
`
`purposes outside those of the enterprise, or loaded with applications either not
`
`properly licensed or in excess of the number of seats or users for which the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`enterprise had obtained licenses.
`
`29.
`
`In larger enterprises, servers also proliferated as number of clients and
`
`intensity of work at each client increased. This led system architects to create
`
`structured hierarchies of servers. With a relatively small number centrally located
`
`and managed, fanning out over wide-area and local-area networks to a larger
`
`number of servers in more decentralized locations (e.g., in departments rather than
`
`in a main data center) and connected in turn over networks to clients.
`
`30. One of ordinary skill would also understand that a digital computer
`
`that is connected to a network and runs computer programs must necessarily have a
`
`computer-readable storage medium, with computer-readable program code in that
`
`medium, such as a hard drive, random access memory (RAM), and the like.1
`
`31. These approaches were well in place by December 1998, as
`
`exemplified by the architecture shown below (from US Patent 5,845,090, with
`
`priority date of February 14, 1994 and issue date of December 1, 1998):
`
`
`
` 1
`
` See, e.g., EX1004 at §§ 4.6, 4.6.1, 4.6.2; p. 59; EX1005 at 6:54-60; EX1006 at
`4:22-28.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`
`
`32.
`
`In this architecture, a centrally located and managed Network
`
`Management Server 1 provides content to intermediate servers 4 which, in this
`
`illustration, supply clients (Targets) with Distribution Packages, which can contain
`
`install packages for application programs, and Command Packages, which contain
`
`content for administering and configuring clients.
`
`33. The interaction between the intermediate servers and clients can be
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`either:
`
` “push,” in which a server sends a client a package on a schedule or in
`
`response to directions from up the hierarchy; this is typically done for
`
`system administration, exemplified by the Command Packages in the above
`
`illustration; or
`
` “on-demand,” where a client sends a request to a server and essentially
`
`immediately receives the requested content.
`
`34. On-demand server operation is illustrated in the above-cited US
`
`Patent 5,845,090:
`
`35. Examples of on-demand server operation include provision to clients
`
`
`
`of:
`
` data needed for calculations
`
` document, spreadsheet, and other files needed for review or further work
`
` images or other media files needed for review, presentation, or processing
`
` installation packages for application programs needed on a client
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`VII. THE PROBLEM ALLEGEDLY SOLVED BY THE ʼ293 PATENT
`
`36. At issue in this matter is US Patent 7,069,293 to Cox et al., with
`
`priority date of December 14, 1998, issued June 27, 2006 (“the ‘293 Patent”).
`
`37. The ‘293 Patent discloses a hierarchical arrangement of networked
`
`servers and clients as shown below:
`
`
`
`38. This arrangement is used, among other things, to distribute on-
`
`demand to clients installation packages for application programs and to oversee
`
`those installations, as shown below:
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`
`
`39. This process uses both the application program itself and a file packet
`
`related to the application program that contains information needed for registration
`
`of the application (which, as shown in FIG. 7 above, comprises determining both
`
`that the target client is authorized to have that application program and that a
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`license is available for that application program on that client (typical enterprise
`
`licenses for commercial application programs are limited to a specified number of,
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`e.g., “seats” or “concurrent users”)
`
`40. The ‘293 Patent discloses application program packages initially
`
`provided to the centralized Network Management Server (“NMS”). Those are then
`
`sent from the NMS to intermediate servers (the “Hop Servers” shown in FIG. 1 or
`
`any “Staging Server” as shown in FIG. 5B), each along with the relevant file
`
`packet. A client can then request installation of an application program, at which
`
`point whichever server is directly connected to the client sends the application
`
`program package and mediates the installation as shown above in FIG. 7.
`
`41. The ‘293 Patent also discloses refinements of the above-described
`
`technique, including:
`
` use of an IBM Tivoli™ server
`
` basing registration of an application program on Universal Record Locators
`
`(URLs)
`
` inclusion of Java™ applets as application programs
`
`VIII. PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A. The Collins Reference
`
`42. US Patent 5,845,090 to Collins et al, titled “System for Software
`
`Distribution in a Digital Computer Network” (hereinafter “Collins”), filed with the
`
`Petition as EX1003, has priority date of February 14, 1994 and was issued
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`December 1, 1998, and so is prior art to the ‘293 Patent. Collins was not cited in
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`the prosecution of the ‘293 Patent.
`
`43. Collins’ disclosures include:
`
` a three-tier hierarchy of servers and clients, with a centralized Network
`
`Management Server which manages the on-demand provision, through
`
`various intermediate servers (including “Hop Servers” and “Staging
`
`Servers”), to clients of packages including Distribution Packages carrying
`
`application programs and methods and other necessary information for their
`
`installation on clients;
`
` mediation by an on-demand server of installation of an application program
`
`requested from that server by a client
`
`44. Collins illustrates this hierarchy in FIG. 1, shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`45. Collins illustrates the on-demand provision of a package to a client in
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`FIG. 5B, shown below:
`
`46. Collins illustrates mediation by an on-demand server of installation of
`
`an application program on a client in FIG. 7, shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`47. More specifically, Collins discloses distribution of application
`
`programs2 to a target on-demand server on a network3 from a centralized network
`
`management server on the network4 to which is provided an application program5.
`
`48. A person skilled in the art would find it inherent in Collins that
`
`distribution of that application program would require it to be located in a specified
`
`directory on the source device (so the application program can be found for
`
`distribution), and that a directory on the target device to receive the application
`
`program also be specified (so the application program can be found on the
`
`receiving device for use or further distribution)6.
`
`49. Collins discloses preparing a file packet associated with the
`
`application program7.
`
`50. 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
`
`
`
` 2
`
` EX1003 at Abstract.
`3 EX1003 at 3:16-18, 3:22-25, 8:33, FIG. 5B.
`4 EX1003 at 2:27-29, 2:30-31, 2:56-61, 4:42-45.
`5 EX1003 at 2:32-36, 2:56-60, 4:66–5:3, 5:11-16, FIG. 2.
`6 EX1003 at 6:58-64.
`7 EX1003 at 2:32-36, 5:3-10.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`methods disclosed in Collins.8
`
`51. Collins discloses distributing the file packet to the target on-demand
`
`server9 to make the application program available for use at a client10. The
`
`components of Collins involved in such distributions are illustrated in Collins’ FIG.
`
`2, shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
` EX1003 at 3:9-12, 6:26-32.
`9 EX1003 at 3:22-25, 5:35.
`10 EX1003 at 2:32-36, 5:50-56.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`52. Collins also discloses that this distribution goes through the Outbound
`
`Package Queue 13 of the Network Management Server, which informs the Package
`
`Transfer Agent 16 of the Network Management Server of which Remote
`
`Distribution Server (an on-demand server which can be a Hop Server) is to receive
`
`that distribution11, and causes the receiving server to send back to the Network
`
`Management Server return notifications12, which are logged by the Reporting Tool
`
`in the Network Management Server13. A person of ordinary skill would necessarily
`
`read this as requiring the Distribution Package sent by the Central Package
`
`Manager 12 of the Network Management Server to contain information identifying
`
`the Remote Distribution Server to which the Distribution Package is to be sent.
`
`53. Collins similarly discloses that further distribution of an application
`
`program by an on-demand server to a client goes through the Outbound Package
`
`Queue 18 of the Remote Distribution Server (an on-demand server which can be a
`
`Hop Server), which informs the Package Transfer Agent 17 of that Remote
`
`Distribution Server of which Target (client) is to receive and install that
`
`distribution14, and causes that client to send back to the Network Management
`
`
`
`11 EX1003 at 5:50-56.
`12 EX1003 at 5:57-59.
`13 EX1003 at 5:46-49.
`14 EX1003 at 5:60-63.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`Server return notifications15 which are logged by the Reporting Tool in the
`
`Network Management Server16. A person of ordinary skill would necessarily read
`
`this as requiring the Distribution Package sent by the Remote Distribution Server
`
`to contain information identifying the Remote Distribution Server from which the
`
`Distribution Package is sent to the client for installation.
`
`B.
`
`The IBM Reference
`
`54. The documents “WorkSpace On-Demand Handbook” by IBM
`
`(“IBM”), filed with the Petition as EX1004, is dated December 1997 and so is
`
`prior art to the’293 Patent. IBM was disclosed with the application for the’293
`
`Patent, but not cited during prosecution of the ‘293 Patent.
`
`55.
`
`IBM describes a precursor to the technique disclosed in the ‘293
`
`Patent. IBM discloses a networked three-tier client server system with the top tier
`
`being a legacy mainframe computer, the middle tier being one or more on-demand
`
`servers, and the bottom tier being an array of clients (See, e.g., IBM § 1.1, p. 1), as
`
`illustrated of IBM Figure 68:
`
`
`
`15 EX1003 at 5:65 - 6:4.
`16 EX1003 at 5:46-49.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`56. Among other functions, IBM discloses providing clients with on-
`
`demand installation of application programs18. These programs are stored in
`
`specific directories on the on-demand servers19. along with information descriptive
`
`
`
`
`
`18 EX1004 at § 3.1 p. 19.
`19 EX1004 at § 6.4.1, p. 109.
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`of them and their proper installation20 When a client requests such an installation,
`
`the application program is sent to a specific directory on the client by the on-
`
`demand server responding to that request21, and installation is mediated by that on-
`
`demand server22.
`
`57.
`
`IBM also provides clients with web browsers to be used as a user
`
`interface for applications supplied from a remote server.23 Because the client
`
`devices can access an application program from an on-demand server through a
`
`web browser, one of ordinary skill in the art in December 1998 would necessarily
`
`understand that the application programs of IBM were registered based on a URL.
`
`C. The Gupta Reference
`
`58. US Patent 6,446,109 to Gupta, titled “Application Computing
`
`Environment” (“Gupta”), filed with the Petition as EX1005, was filed on June 29,
`
`1998, and so is prior art to the ‘293 Patent. Gupta was not cited during the
`
`prosecution of the ‘293 Patent.
`
`59. Gupta discloses a three-tier hierarchy of connected servers and clients
`
`
`
`20 EX1004 at § 6.4 p. 109.
`21 EX1004 at § 6.4.1, p. 115.
`22 EX1004 at § 6.4, p. 109.
`23 EX1004 at §§ 2.2.1.1, 2.3.1.1, 4.4, pp. 11, 14, 57.
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`for distribution of, among other things, application programs24, with a centralized
`
`Application Server25 which stores application programs26 and manages the on-
`
`demand provision of application programs27 and
`
`information relevant
`
`to
`
`installation of those application programs on clients28 through ”Webtop” servers to
`
`clients29.
`
`60. This hierarchy is illustrated in Gupta FIG. 41, shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`24 EX1005 at Abstract.
`25 EX1005 at 9:32-35.
`26 EX1005 at 2:19-20, 2:35-37.
`27 EX1005 at 2:38-39.
`28 EX1005 at 11:40-44, 11:3-8.
`29 EX1005 at Abstract.
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00184 Laub Declaration
`U.S. Patent 7,069,293
`
`61. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find the connections Gupta
`
`discloses and shows among servers and clients inherently to be networks.
`
`62.
`
` A person of ordinary skill in the art would find inherent in Gupta’s
`
`listing of various media on which application programs are provided30 and Gupta’s
`
`disclosure of application servers carrying application programs31 inherently to
`
`disclose providing of those application programs to those application servers.
`
`63. Gupta discloses discovering and specifying the source directory for
`
`distribution of an application program32.
`
`64. A person of ordinary skill would find inherent in
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
