`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`BITDEFENDER, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01315
`U.S. Patent 6,510,466
`______________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VAL DIEULIIS
`
`
`
`AUGUST 2, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 4
`
`2. QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 5
`
`3. COMPENSATION, TESTIMONY, AND PUBLICATIONS ..................... 8
`
`4. INFORMATION CONSIDERED ................................................................ 9
`
`5. LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................10
`
`6. THE ’466 PATENT ......................................................................................11
`
`6.1 Claims.................................................................................................... 22
`6.2 Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................ 25
`6.3 Claim Construction ................................................................................ 26
`6.3.1 “means for installing a plurality of application
`programs at the server” ............................................................... 28
`6.3.2 “means for receiving at the server a login request
`from a user at the client” ............................................................. 29
`6.3.3 “means for establishing a user desktop interface at
`the client associated with the user responsive to
`the login request from the user, the desktop
`interface including a plurality of display regions
`associated with a set of the plurality of application
`programs installed at the server for which the user
`is authorized”.............................................................................. 30
`6.3.4 “means for receiving at the server a selection of
`one of the plurality of application programs from
`the user desktop interface” .......................................................... 31
`6.3.5 “means for providing an instance of the selected
`one of the plurality of application programs to the
`client for execution responsive to the selection” ......................... 32
`6.3.6 “means for maintaining application management
`information for the plurality of applications at the
`server” ........................................................................................ 33
`
`7. U.S. PATENT NO. 5,832,505 (“KASSO”) ...................................................34
`
`8. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,338,138 (“RADUCHEL”) ..........................................39
`
`9. U.S. PATENT NO. 5,615,367(“BENNETT”) ..............................................40
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 2 of 61
`
`

`

`
`10. KASSO COMBINED WITH RADUCHEL DOES NOT
`RENDER OBVIOUS ANY CLAIM OF THE ’466 PATENT ....................41
`
`10.1 A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Modify
`Kasso to Practice Any Claim of the ’466 Patent ..................................... 43
`10.1.1 Kasso Leads Away From Consolidating Servers ........................ 46
`10.2 A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Modify
`Kasso with Raduchel ............................................................................. 51
`10.3 The Petitioner Fails to Demonstrate Kasso combined
`with Raduchel renders obvious the limitation “receiving
`at the server a login request from a user at a client” ............................... 53
`10.3.1 A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to
`Modify Kasso’s Distributed Server System to a
`Single-Server System ................................................................. 53
`10.3.2 A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to
`Modify Kasso to Receive Login Requests at the
`HTTP Server .............................................................................. 55
`10.4 The Petitioner Fails to Demonstrate Kasso combined
`with Raduchel renders obvious the limitation
`“establishing a user desktop interface ... 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” ........................................... 56
`
`11. THE PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE KASSO OR
`KASSO COMBINED WITH RADUCHEL AND BENNETT
`RENDERS OBVIOUS THE LIMITATION “MAINTAINING
`APPLICATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR THE
`PLURALITY OF APPLICATIONS AT THE SERVER” .........................58
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 3 of 61
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Dr. Val DiEuliis, hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`My name is Val DiEuliis, and I have been retained by
`
`Uniloc, USA, Inc., and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (“Uniloc” or the “Patent
`
`Owner”). My client Uniloc and its associated counsel, Etheridge Law
`
`Group, have asked me to study U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466 (“the ’466
`
`patent”), the Petition, and the proffered prior art in this case, in addition
`
`to other relevant documents. I document my findings in this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have concluded that U.S. Patent No. 5,832,505 (Kasso;
`
`EX1009) combined with U.S. Patent No. 6,338,138 (Raduchel; EX1010)
`
`does not render obvious any challenged claim of the patent at issue,
`
`the’466 patent, for at least the reasons that the Petitioner fails to make a
`
`prima facie case of obviousness for several claim limitations in the
`
`independent claims. In addition, in my opinion, a POSITA would not
`
`have been motivated to apply Kasso’s teachings in a way that would lead
`
`to the ’466 patent or to combine Kasso with Raduchel.
`
`3.
`
`The limited scope of my opinions and analysis in this
`
`declaration do not imply that I may not later express other opinions or
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 4 of 61
`
`

`

`
`report other results from other investigations concerning other issues
`
`raised by the Petitioner or their experts in this IPR.
`
`2.
`
`4.
`
`Qualifications
`
`I am an electrical engineer with over 45 years of experience
`
`developing, programming, and analyzing computer algorithms and
`
`software. I am experienced with and able to create, read, and interpret
`
`firmware and software in C, C++, Java, assembly language, HTML, and
`
`other computer programming languages. I have served as an expert
`
`witness in multiple cases for which I analyzed computer source code in
`
`various languages and testified at ITC hearings and two jury trials
`
`concerning my results.
`
`5.
`
`During my career, I have developed and managed projects
`
`for various applications, including sensors, controls, communications,
`
`user interfaces, device firmware, handheld devices, medical devices and
`
`systems, and test systems for optical and magnetic disk systems.
`
`6.
`
`I have designed, developed, and implemented hardware and
`
`software for digital communication networks, including factory networks
`
`and document capture and distribution networks; and communications
`
`links for various applications. See DiEuliis CV (See e.g., Website
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 5 of 61
`
`

`

`
`Development, Industrial Valve Position Sensor, Condition-Based
`
`Maintenance System, Avionics Environmental Monitor, Radio Frequency
`
`Billboard Network, Wireless Bar Code System for Hospitals, and ISA
`
`Board for 4-Port RS422 Serial Communications Multiplexer.). See also
`
`Id. at 3 (Digital Document Storage Technology).
`
`7.
`
`As a graduate student at the University of Illinois at
`
`Urbana-Champaign, I obtained extensive training in the complexity of
`
`algorithms; the complexity of databases; information theory;
`
`combinatorics and combinatorial algorithms; and the mathematics and
`
`algorithms of error correcting codes, a field closely related to
`
`cryptography. In addition, as a part of my graduate research, I created and
`
`developed heuristic algorithms and wrote software to synthesize
`
`non-linear codes for optimizing the spectra of coded digital
`
`communications signals.
`
`8.
`
`I received the Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in electrical
`
`engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1978
`
`and 1976, respectively, and the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from
`
`the University of Notre Dame in 1972. I am a Registered Professional
`
`Engineer (electrical) in the State of Minnesota, and a Life Senior Member
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 6 of 61
`
`

`

`
`of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
`
`Additionally, I am a co-inventor of two patents.
`
`9.
`
`I have been an independent engineering consultant, doing
`
`business as Electronics Consultants, since 1984. My clients have
`
`included 3M, Honeywell, Imation Corporation, and Seagate Technology,
`
`among others. Prior to that, I worked as a research engineer for the 3M
`
`Company in St. Paul, Minnesota for five years. In addition, before my
`
`graduate studies, I worked as an electrical engineer in the U. S. Army
`
`with the U.S. Army Security Agency for two years, during which time I
`
`held a Top Secret W/Crypto and SI Access security clearance.
`
`10.
`
`As an adjunct instructor at the University of Saint Thomas in
`
`St. Paul, Minnesota, I developed and presented a lecture on classical
`
`linear control theory for graduate students; developed and taught a
`
`graduate course on computer networks; and taught an undergraduate
`
`analog and digital electronics course to mechanical engineering students.
`
`11.
`
`This and other information about my background is included
`
`in my CV, which is attached to this declaration as Attachment A.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 7 of 61
`
`

`

`
`3.
`
`12.
`
`Compensation, Testimony, and Publications
`
`I am being paid $440 per hour for the time I spend working
`
`on this matter. My compensation is not contingent on my performance,
`
`the outcome of this IPR, or any issues involved in or related to this IPR.
`
`13.
`
`During the past four years, I have testified at trial, hearing,
`
`or deposition in the following cases:
`
`• Terremark North America, LLC, et al. v. Joao Control &
`
`Monitoring LLC.; US PTO Inter Partes Review IPR2015-01466;
`
`Joao Control & Monitoring on behalf of Joao Control &
`
`Monitoring; 2016. I testified at a deposition.
`
`• Kofax, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., et al.; US PTO Inter Partes
`
`Review IPR2015-01207; Uniloc USA on behalf of Uniloc USA;
`
`2016. I testified at a deposition.
`
`• Sega of America, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al.; USPTO
`
`Inter Partes Review; IPR2014-01453; Uniloc USA on behalf of
`
`Uniloc USA; 2015. I testified at a deposition.
`
`• Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Activision Blizzard et al.; United States
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler); Civil
`
`Action No. 6:13-cv-00256-LED; and Uniloc USA v. Electronic
`
`Arts, Inc.; Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-259-LED; Nelson Bumgardner
`
`Casto and Carter, Scholer, Arnett, Hamada, and Mockler on behalf
`
`of Uniloc USA et al.; 2013-2014. I testified at three depositions
`
`and a jury trial.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 8 of 61
`
`

`

`
`
`• In the Matter of Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components thereof,
`
`and Products Containing Same; U.S.I.T.C. Investigation No.
`
`337-TA-897; Optical Devices, LLC v. Lenovo et al.; O’Melveny &
`
`Myers on behalf of Samsung, Kenyon & Kenyon on behalf of
`
`Lenovo, Greenberg Traurig on behalf of LG Electronics,
`
`McDermott Will & Emery on behalf of Nintendo and Panasonic,
`
`DLA Piper on behalf of Toshiba, and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
`
`Sullivan on behalf of MediaTek; 2013-2014. I testified at a
`
`deposition.
`
`• Taser International, Inc. v. Karbon Arms, LLC; United States
`
`District Court for the District of Delaware; Civil Action No.
`
`1:11-cv-426-RGA; Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, on behalf of
`
`Karbon Arms, 2013. I testified at a deposition.
`
`
`14.
`
`4.
`
`15.
`
`I have had no publications in the past 10 years.
`
`Information Considered
`
`In order to arrive at my opinions, I have reviewed and
`
`considered the materials listed below:
`
`• Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466, and
`
`exhibits, Case No. IPR2017-01315, April 24, 2017 [Pet.]
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466 (“’466”) [EX1001], and its prosecution
`
`history [EX1002]
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,832,505 (“Kasso”) [EX1009]
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 9 of 61
`
`

`

`
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,338,138 (“Raduchel”) [EX1010]
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,615,367 (“Bennett”) [EX1011]
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,905,860 (“Olsen”) [EX1012]
`
`• Declaration of Thomas A. Day, April 23, 2017 (corrected on
`
`April 24, 2017) [EX1008]
`
`Legal Standards
`
`I understand there are certain legal rules, standards, or
`
`5.
`
`16.
`
`requirements that I accept for the purpose of my analysis of the opinions
`
`and conclusions set forth in this declaration.
`
`17.
`
`I understand a patent is obvious “if the differences between
`
`the subject matter sought to be patented 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 to which
`
`said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). An obviousness
`
`determination must be based on four factual inquiries: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the
`
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective indicia
`
`of nonobviousness.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that if a single limitation of a claim is
`
`absent from the prior art, the claim cannot be considered obvious.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 10 of 61
`
`

`

`
`19.
`
`I further understand that it is improper to combine references
`
`where the references teach away from their combination. A prior art
`
`reference teaches away from the claimed invention when a person of
`
`ordinary skill, upon reading the reference would be led in a direction
`
`divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. Prior art also
`
`teaches away when it criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s]
`
`investigation into the claimed invention. Additionally, a reference teaches
`
`away from a combination when using it in that combination would
`
`produce an inoperative result.
`
`20.
`
`In addition, I understand that if a proposed modification or
`
`combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of
`
`the prior art device being modified, then the teachings of the references
`
`are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious.
`
`6.
`
`21.
`
`The ’466 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466 (“’466”), titled Methods, systems
`
`and computer program products for centralized management of
`
`application programs on a network, was issued on January 21, 2003. The
`
`application 09/211,528, by inventors David E. Cox et al., was filed on
`
`December 14, 1998. See EX1001.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 11 of 61
`
`

`

`
`22.
`
`The ’466 patent “relates to network management in general
`
`and in particular to application program management on a computer
`
`network.” Id. at 1:21-23.
`
`23.
`
`The Abstract of the ’466 patent provides an overview of the
`
`invention as follows:
`
` Methods, systems and computer program products
`for management of application programs on a
`network including a server supporting client
`stations are provided. The server provides
`applications on-demand to a user logging in to a
`client supported by the server. Mobility is
`provided to the user and hardware portability is
`provided by establishing a user desktop interface
`responsive to a login request which presents to the
`user a desktop screen through a web browser
`interface which accesses and downloads selected
`application programs from the server responsive to
`a request from the user on the user desktop screen
`at the client. The application program is then
`provided from the server and executed at the
`client. The application program may further be
`customized to conform to the user's preferences
`and may also provide for license use management
`by determining license availability before initiating
`execution of the application program. Finally,
`software distribution and installation may be
`provided from a single network management
`server.
`(Id. at Abstract; see also Id. at 3:55-4:9) (Emphasis
`added.)
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 12 of 61
`
`

`

`
`
`24.
`
`
`
`The Abstract, reproduced in its entirety above, describes a
`
`client-server network system in which an “on-demand server” supports a
`
`client by providing application programs to the client. The ’466 patent
`
`explains the meaning of “application program” as follows:
`
`As used herein, the term "application program"
`generally refers to the code associated with the
`underlying program functions, for example,
`Lotus Notes or a terminal emulator program.
`However, it is to be understood that the
`application program will preferably be included
`as part of the application launcher which will
`further include the code associated with managing
`usage of the application program on a network
`according to the teachings of the present invention.
`(EX1001 at 14:24-31) (Emphasis added.)
`
`
`25.
`
`The passage above explains that the ’466 patent defines the
`
`application program as the code that executes on a processor and
`
`which performs the functions, such as spreadsheet calculations, word
`
`processing, and the multitude of other functions for which application
`
`programs are available. In addition, the ’466 considers the application
`
`program as part of a related program, an “application launcher” that
`
`manages the usage of the application program on a network.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 13 of 61
`
`

`

`
`26.
`
`Furthermore, the Abstract explains that the application
`
`programs are distributed to an on-demand server that then sends the
`
`application program to the client. The written description, however, also
`
`explains that the on-demand server also may execute the application
`
`program itself (locally), as in the following:
`
`Application programs are distributed as file
`packages (packets) to on-demand servers. A
`profile manager import call is included in the
`distributed file packet along with an import text
`file containing the data required to properly
`install and register the application program on
`the on-demand server and make it available to
`authorized users. Settable on-demand server
`identifier fields are included to allow a plurality of
`on-demand servers to receive a common file
`packet and properly install and register the
`program for use locally.
`(Id. at 4:10-22) (Emphasis added.)
`
`
`
`27.
`
`The passage above teaches that the application programs
`
`(that is, the executable code) are installed on the server, and may be
`
`registered at the server for execution by the server. This is also described
`
`in the text accompanying FIG. 4 of the ’466 patent, which illustrates the
`
`operation of the on-demand server. “At block 230, server system 22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 14 of 61
`
`

`

`
`determines whether a new software application has been received for
`
`installation on server system 22.” Id. at 12:27-29.
`
`28.
`
`In addition, the patent teaches that the application programs
`
`are installed and registered on the server so that clients may have access
`
`to them. First, a POSITA would have understood this to mean that the
`
`application program executable code itself is copied to the server and
`
`stored (e.g., on a disk drive) such that it can be accessed either for
`
`distribution to a client or for execution by the server. Second, a POSITA
`
`would have understood that in addition to the installation, the application
`
`is registered in the server’s database. Id. at FIG. 2 (Database 208) and
`
`7:50-65 (accompanying text to FIG. 2).
`
`29.
`
`The ’466 patent describes the historical context of its
`
`invention starting with “traditional mainframe computers” that provided a
`
`user interface through computer terminals (so-called “dumb terminals)
`
`that were hardwired to the mainframes. All of the computing for
`
`application programs was done at the central computer. EX1001
`
`at 1:27-30. I am personally familiar with this arrangement from my
`
`experience during my graduate student and early working years in the
`
`mid-1970s to mid-1980s.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 15 of 61
`
`

`

`
`30.
`
`Since the advent of personal computers and computer
`
`networking, “processing power has typically evolved from a central
`
`processing center with a number of relatively low-processing power
`
`terminals to a distributed environment of networked processors.”
`
`Id. at 1:30-43.
`
`31.
`
`The ’466 patent discusses various problems that were
`
`created by this shift to distributed computing power, including difficulties
`
`in controlling software, such as application programs, because a central
`
`administrator was not in control of the application program.
`
`32.
`
`The patent also discusses various prior art solutions and the
`
`problems associated with these solutions. Id. at 1:57-3:37. These include
`
`the following few examples, among others:
`
`• “A customized install must be created by a system administrator
`
`for each different version to be installed.” Id. at 1:67-2:2.
`
`• “Once installed at a client, a user must typically use that specific
`
`client station.” Id. at 2:3-4.
`
`• “The combinations of network connections, differing hardware,
`
`native applications and network applications makes portability of
`
`preferences or operating environment characteristics which provide
`
`consistency from workstation to workstation difficult.”
`
`Id. at 2:19-23; see also generally Id. at 2:12-35.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 16 of 61
`
`

`

`
`
`• The prior art solutions did not allow users to register their
`
`preferences (e.g., screen resolution or color) for handling,
`
`executing, and using the application based on their identity. Rather,
`
`these solutions were based on the specific workstation (computer).
`
`(Id. at 3:9-15)
`
`• “The networked environment increases the challenges for a
`
`network administrator in maintaining proper licenses for existing
`
`software and deploying new or updated applications programs
`
`across the network.” Id. at 1:44-56.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`In addition to the list above, another problem, “the lack of a
`
`uniform framework for deployment of new or updated application
`
`programs, from different software designers,” is most pertinent to the
`
`claims at issue in this IPR. The ’466 patent explains this issue as
`
`follows:
`
`Furthermore, these various approaches have, at
`most, only limited capabilities to provide a
`uniform framework for deployment of new or
`updated application programs from different
`software designers. To the extent software
`distribution capabilities from a central location
`are provided, such as with the TME 10.TM.
`system, they typically require various steps in
`the installation process to occur at different
`locations rather than allowing the entire process
`to be controlled from a single point for an entire
`managed network environment.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 17 of 61
`
`

`

`
`
`34.
`
`(Id. at 3:28-36) (Emphasis added.)
`
`
`The ’466 patent solved many of the above mentioned
`
`problems in various ways. Among other objects and advantages of the
`
`’466 invention, it provides the following:
`
`• centralized management of application programs on a
`
`computer network (Id. at 3:39-42)
`
`• an application management system that is user-based across
`
`various hardware interface devices (Id. at 3:43-45)
`
`• software deployment from a central administrative server
`
`location across a plurality of client stations (Id. at 3:46-49)
`
`• accommodates various types of hardware operating under
`
`different operating systems across client stations
`
`(Id. at 3:50-53)
`
`
`
`35.
`
`FIG. 1, reproduced below, illustrates the primary
`
`components and the structure of the ’466 system. See also
`
`Id. at 6:57-7:21 (accompanying text to FIG.1). The overall computer
`
`network system 10 comprises various servers 20, 22, and 22ˈ; networks
`
`10ˈ, 10ˈˈ, and 10ˈˈˈ; and client stations 24, 24ˈ, 26, and 26ˈ. The networks
`
`10ˈ, 10ˈˈ, and 10ˈˈˈ “may be separate physical networks, separate
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 18 of 61
`
`

`

`
`partitions of a single physical network or may be a single network.” Id. at
`
`7:13-16.
`
`36.
`
`Server 20 is a network management server, which centrally
`
`manages the network system 10. EX1001 at 6:60-62 and 7:7-10. Servers
`
`22 and 22ˈ are on-demand servers, which deliver applications to clients
`
`when requested. Id. at 7:11-13. Each client station communicates over
`
`the network with its on-demand server: (a) client stations 24 and 24ˈ
`
`communicate with and are served by on-demand server 22; and (b) client
`
`stations 26 and 26ˈ communicate with and are served by on-demand
`
`server 22ˈ. Id. at 6:67-7:3.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 19 of 61
`
`

`

`
`
`FIG. 1 of the ’466 Patent: System Diagram
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 20 of 61
`
`

`

`
`37.
`
`FIG. 2 of the ’466 patent illustrates some detail concerning
`
`the on-demand server 22. Among other things, the accompanying text
`
`describes Database 208 as follows:
`
`As shown in FIG. 2, the server system 22 of the
`present invention includes client management
`server 204 and access to a storage device for
`maintaining an application management
`database 208. While illustrated in FIG. 2 as an
`integrated part of system 22, database 208 may be
`a separate device so long as it is available to server
`system 22. In the illustrated embodiment which
`will be described herein, client management server
`204 includes web server 206 providing an interface
`to an administrator user such as that illustrated by
`administrator console 200 and to users interfacing
`to the system through client stations such as the
`illustrated user console 202. Database 208 acts as
`a central repository of application management
`information, such as user, software, device,
`preference and access control information,
`responsive to client management server 204.
`(Id. at 7:50-65) (Emphasis added.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 21 of 61
`
`

`

`
`6.1
`
`38.
`
`Claims
`
`In this declaration, regarding the independent claims, I focus
`
`on the following aspects of the claim language:
`
`• “receiving at the server a login request from a user at the client”
`
`• “establishing a user desktop interface at the client associated with
`
`the user responsive to the login request from the user”
`
`
`
`39.
`
`First, claim 1, an independent method claim recites the
`
`following steps:
`
`“receiving at the server a login request from a
`user at the client”
`(EX1001 at 21:21-22) (Emphasis added.)
`
`
`“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”
`(Id. at 21:23-28) (Emphasis added.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 22 of 61
`
`

`

`
`40.
`
`Second, claim 15, an independent system claim recites:
`
`“means for receiving at the server a login request
`from a user at the client”
`(Id. at 22:63-64) (Emphasis added.)
`
`
`“means for establishing a user desktop interface at
`the client associated with the user responsive to
`the login request from the user, the desktop
`interface including a plurality of display regions
`associated with a set of the plurality of application
`programs installed at the server for which the
`user is authorized”
`(Id. at 22:65-23:2) (Emphasis added.)
`
`
`41.
`
`Third, claim 16, an independent computer program product
`
`claim, recites:
`
`“computer-readable program code means for
`receiving at the server a login request from a user
`at the client”
`(Id. at 22:63-64) (Emphasis added.)
`
`
`“computer-readable program code means for
`establishing a user desktop interface at the client
`associated with the user responsive to the login
`request from the user, the desktop interface
`including a plurality of display regions associated
`with a set of the plurality of application programs
`installed at the server for which the user is
`authorized”
`(Id. at 22:65-23:2) (Emphasis added.)
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 23 of 61
`
`

`

`
`42.
`
`In my opinion, according to the plain language of the above
`
`limitations, a POSITA would have understood that “the server” in the
`
`“receiving” limitation is the same server as “the server” recited in
`
`“installing a plurality of application programs at the server,” which is
`
`recited in each independent claim. Id. at 21:20. Moreover, the definite
`
`article “the” in “the server” refers back to its antecedent basis in the
`
`preamble, which recites “a network including a server and a client.”
`
`Id. at 21:17-18 (emphasis added). In the same manner, “the login
`
`request” in the “establishing” limitation must refer back to “a login
`
`request” that was “received in the preceding limitation.
`
`43.
`
`All other challenged claims are dependent on one of the
`
`three independent claims cited above. Hence, all claims at issue recite the
`
`limitation discussed above.
`
`44.
`
`In addition to the limitations in the independent claims
`
`discussed above, dependent claims 2, 17, and 30 recite the further
`
`limitation “maintaining application management information for the
`
`plurality of applications at the server.” For the same reasons I discussed
`
`above in ¶ 42, “the” server must refer to the same server in the
`
`independent claims.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 24 of 61
`
`

`

`
`6.2
`
`45.
`
`Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The Petitioner and its expert, Mr. Day, define a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art “at the time of the alleged invention” as a person
`
`who “would 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 architecture. Additional education may
`
`compensate for less experience and vice-versa.” Pet. at 17;
`
`EX1008 at ¶ 17.
`
`46.
`
`I have no reason to disagree with the Petitioner’s and
`
`Mr. Day’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover,
`
`based on my degrees in electrical engineering, which included extensive
`
`training in software development, data communications and networking,
`
`and 45-plus years of experience, including significant software
`
`development, I had, on the priority date, considerably more experience
`
`and expertise than the POSITA. I base my opinions regarding the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art upon this understanding and my own experience
`
`in the field. I have considered the way in which a POSITA would have
`
`understood the ’466 patent on its priority date, and I offer my opinions on
`
`that basis.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01315: Declaration of Dr. Val DiEuliis
`
`
`Page 25 of 61
`
`

`

`
`6.3
`
`47.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The Petitioner acknowledges that for an unexpired patent
`
`(e.g., the ’466 patent at issue herein), the Board interprets the claims with
`
`the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`Pet. at 17. Mr. Day, the Petitioner’s expert, is silent concerning the
`
`construction of terms and the standards he applied in his interpretation of
`
`the claim language.
`
`48.
`
`The Petitioners construe the means-plus-function terms
`
`recited in claim 15. I discuss these constructions below.
`
`49.
`
`The limited scope of my opinions and analysis concerning
`
`claim construction in this declaration does not imply that I may not later
`
`express other opinions, express more analysis, construe other terms, or
`
`report other results from other investigations concerning other issues
`
`raised by the Petitioner or its experts in this IPR.
`
`50.
`
`Independent claim 15 and dependent claims 2, 17, and 30 of
`
`the ’466 patent recite means-plus-function terms. The patent itself
`
`describes, in its written description, that the “means” in these claims
`
`correspond to “flowc