`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,239,852
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`FEE AUTHORIZATION ................................................................................ 2
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................. 3
`
`VI. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 4
`
`A. Overview of the ’852 Patent .................................................................. 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 5
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 6
`
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §42.100(B) ................................ 7
`
`VII. SPECIFIC EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ................................................ 7
`
`A. Ground 1: Michiels and Eisen Render Obvious Claims 1, 5-6,
`and 18 .................................................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Overview of Michiels (Ex. 1004) ............................................... 7
`
`Overview of Eisen (Ex. 1005) .................................................... 9
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 10
`
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 13
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 26
`
`Claim 5: “wherein the unique device identifier further
`comprises one or more geo-location codes” ............................. 29
`
`Claim 6: “wherein at least one of the one or more geo-
`location codes comprise an Internet Protocol address of
`the client device” ....................................................................... 30
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`Ground 2: Michiels, Eisen, and Villela Render Obvious Claims
`2-4 ........................................................................................................ 31
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Overview of Villela (Ex. 1008) ................................................ 31
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 31
`
`Claim 2: “wherein the unique device identifier comprises
`a hash code” .............................................................................. 32
`
`Claim 3: “wherein the computer program, when
`executed, implements at least one irreversible
`transformation such that the machine parameters cannot
`be derived from the unique device identifier” .......................... 34
`
`Claim 4: “wherein the at least one irreversible
`transformation comprises a cryptographic hash function” ....... 34
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Michiels, Eisen, and Shakkarwar Render Obvious
`Claims 7, 8, and 16 .............................................................................. 35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Overview of Shakkarwar (Ex. 1009) ........................................ 35
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 35
`
`Claim 7: “wherein the machine parameters comprise
`information regarding at least one of: machine model
`number, machine serial number, machine ROM version,
`machine bus speed, machine manufacturer name,
`machine ROM release date, machine ROM size, machine
`UUID, and machine service tag” .............................................. 36
`
`Claim 8: “wherein the machine parameters comprise
`information regarding at least one of: CPU ID, CPU
`model, CPU details, CPU actual speed, CPU family,
`CPU manufacturer name, CPU voltage, and CPU
`external clock” .......................................................................... 37
`
`Claim 16: “wherein the machine parameters comprise
`information regarding at least one of: device model,
`device model IMEI, device model IMSI, and device
`model LCD” .............................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`D. Ground 4: Michiels, Eisen, and Hughes Render Obvious Claim
`17 ......................................................................................................... 38
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of Hughes (Ex. 1010) ............................................... 38
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 38
`
`Claim 17: “wherein the machine parameters comprise
`information regarding at least one of: wireless 802.11,
`webcam, game controller, silicone serial, and PCI
`controller” ................................................................................. 39
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Schull and Sprong Render Obvious Claims 1 and 18 ....... 40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Overview of Schull (Ex. 1006) ................................................. 40
`
`Overview of Sprong (Ex. 1007) ................................................ 42
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 43
`
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 45
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 58
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Schull, Sprong, and Villela Render Obvious Claims
`2-4 ........................................................................................................ 62
`
`G. Ground 7: Schull, Sprong, and Eisen Render Obvious Claims 5-
`6 ........................................................................................................... 63
`
`H. Ground 8: Schull, Sprong, and Shakkarwar Render Obvious
`Claims 7-8 and 16................................................................................ 64
`
`I.
`
`Ground 9: Schull, Sprong, and Hughes Render Obvious Claims
`17 ......................................................................................................... 65
`
`VIII. THE PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT ......................... 65
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 66
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,239,852 (“the ’852 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,239,852
`
`Declaration of Mr. James Geier
`
`International Patent Pub. WO 2007/107905 (“Michiels”)
`
`International Patent Pub. WO 2007/001394 (“Eisen”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0004785 (“Schull”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,134,659 (“Sprong”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0113090 (“Villela”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2008/0120195 (“Shakkarwar”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2004/0059938 (“Hughes”)
`
`Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 180-2,
`
`Secure Hash Standard, issued and published by the National
`
`Institute of Standards and Technology on August 1, 2002
`
`(available at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-
`
`2/fips180-2.pdf) (“FIPS 180-2”)
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,014,234 (“Edwards”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Mr. James Geier
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,243,468 (“Pearce”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-8
`
`and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,239,852 (“the ’852 Patent”; Ex. 1001), assigned to
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (“Patent Owner”). This Petition presents several non-
`
`cumulative grounds of invalidity that were not considered during prosecution.
`
`These grounds are each likely to prevail, and this Petition, accordingly, should be
`
`granted on all grounds and the challenged claims should be cancelled.
`
`The ’852 Patent relates to systems “for remotely updating a program
`
`configuration.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. The client device generates a unique device
`
`identifier based on determined machine parameters, which it sends, along with a
`
`unique software identifier, to the update server. Id., Abstract, Claims 1, 18. The
`
`update server analyzes the identifiers and determines an updated program
`
`configuration based on a license associated with the software identifier. Id. The
`
`’852 Patent issued because the prior art discussed during prosecution did not
`
`disclose generating the unique device identifier from the determined machine
`
`parameters or determining whether the client is licensed to receive the upgrade.
`
`See Ex. 1002, 985-1007.1 Each of the primary prior art references relied on in this
`
`Petition teaches this feature and was not discussed during prosecution. For reasons
`
`
`1 Citations to Exhibits 1002 and 1011 refer to the renumbered page numbers.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`set forth in this Petition, Claims 1-8 and 16-18 of the ’852 Patent are obvious over
`
`the prior art.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Apple Inc.
`
`Related Matters: Patent Owner has asserted the ’852 Patent against
`
`Petitioner in Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:17-cv-258-JRG (E.D.
`
`Texas).
`
`Lead Counsel: Xin-Yi (Vincent) Zhou (Reg. No. 63,366)
`
`Backup Counsel: Sina S. Aria (Reg. No. 69,490) and Laura A. Bayne (Reg.
`
`No. 72,420). In addition, Petitioner plans to file a motion for pro hac vice
`
`admission for Luann L. Simmons.
`
`Service Information: Petitioner consents to electronic service by email to
`
`APPLEUNILOCIPR@OMM.COM. Please address all correspondence to lead and
`
`backup counsel at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 South Hope Street, Los Angeles,
`
`California 90071 (Telephone: 213-430-6000; Fax: 213-430-6407), with courtesy
`
`copies to the email address identified above.
`
`III. FEE AUTHORIZATION
`The PTO is authorized to charge $23,000 to Deposit Account No. 50-0639
`
`for the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R § 42.15(a) and any other fees.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`Petitioner certifies that the ’852 Patent is available for IPR, and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds presented.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests review and cancellation of Claims 1-8 and
`
`16-18 of the ’852 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on the following grounds:
`
`1. International Patent Pubs. WO 2007/107905 (“Michiels”) and WO
`
`2007/001394 (“Eisen”) render obvious Claims 1, 5-6, and 18;
`
`2. Michiels, Eisen, and U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0113090 (“Villela”) render
`
`obvious Claims 2-4;
`
`3. Michiels, Eisen, and U.S. Patent Pub. 2008/0120195 (“Shakkarwar”)
`
`render obvious Claims 7-8 and 16;
`
`4. Michiels, Eisen, and U.S. Patent Pub. 2004/0059938 (“Hughes”) render
`
`obvious Claim 17;
`
`5. U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0004785 (“Schull”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,134,659
`
`(“Sprong”) render obvious Claims 1 and 18;
`
`6. Schull, Sprong, and Villela render obvious Claims 2-4;
`
`7. Schull, Sprong, and Eisen render obvious Claims 5-6;
`
`8. Schull, Sprong, and Shakkarwar render obvious Claims 7-8 and 16;
`
`9. Schull, Sprong, and Hughes render obvious Claim 17.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`None of the references relied on in this Petition was discussed during
`
`prosecution of the ’852 Patent. See generally, Ex. 1002.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND
`A. Overview of the ’852 Patent
`The ’852 Patent discloses systems and devices “for remotely updating a
`
`program configuration.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. The disclosed system controls
`
`program configuration using the “device identifier” and “software identifier” of
`
`each client device. Id., 9:55-57. According to the specification, “[a]n application
`
`[] running on the client device … may generate a device identifier (e.g., a unique
`
`device identifier) using a process that operates on data indicative of the
`
`configuration and hardware of the client device 100.” Id., 6:58-63. The unique
`
`device identifier may include machine parameters such as “hard disk volume
`
`name, user name, computer name, user password, hard disk initialization date,”
`
`“user account information, program information (e.g., serial number); location of a
`
`user within a given application program, and features of the software/hardware the
`
`user is entitled to use.” Id., 5:36-41, 5:51-55.
`
`The client device also generates a “software identifier” by “collect[ing] or
`
`receiv[ing] information regarding the software on the client device 100 by
`
`checking information which is expected to be unique to software, for example, but
`
`not limited to the software serial number.” Id., 9:16-26.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`After generating the device and software identifiers, the “application may
`
`electronically send the device identifier and the software identifier to the auditing
`
`server 110 or directly to the update server 120 via the Internet 102.” Id., 9:55-57.
`
`Next, “[t]he unique identifiers are [] analyzed on the update server,” “an updated
`
`program configuration for the client device [is determined] from the analysis of the
`
`unique identifiers,” and “[t]he updated program configuration is delivered to the
`
`client device.” Id., 4:35-39.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The ’852 Patent issued from Application No. 12/818,906, filed on June 18,
`
`2010. Ex. 1001, Cover.
`
`On August 12, 2011, the Examiner issued an office action rejecting all
`
`claims over prior art. Ex. 1002, 817-839. On November 14, 2011, Patent Owner
`
`responded by amending the claims and distinguishing the cited art. Id., 864-877.
`
`Patent Owner argued that the claimed invention “is distinctive because it generates,
`
`from multiple machine parameters, a unique device identifier for a client device to
`
`determine, among other things, whether the client device is licensed to receive a
`
`software upgrade.” Id., 872.
`
`On December 30, 2011, the Examiner issued a final office action, again
`
`rejecting all claims over prior art. Id., 928-960.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`On May 30, 2012, Patent Owner filed an Appeal Brief before the Board of
`
`Patent Appeals and Interferences. Id., 985-1007. Patent Owner again argued that
`
`the cited prior art fails to teach both the generation of a unique device identifier for
`
`the client device from the machine parameters and the determination therefrom of
`
`whether the client is licensed to receive the upgrade. Id., 994. The Examiner
`
`withdrew the rejections and issued a Notice of Allowance on June 28, 2012. Id.,
`
`1013-1024.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Based on the disclosure of the ’852 Patent, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art around the filing of the ’852 Patent (“POSITA”) would have been someone
`
`with a bachelor’s degree in computer science or equivalent, and at least two years
`
`of experience in software engineering, network design, or electronic commerce, or
`
`an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience. Declaration of
`
`James Geier (Ex. 1003), ¶¶ 20-21.2
`
`
`2 Mr. Geier is an expert in the field of computer systems and telecommunication
`
`networks. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 5-9; Ex. 1013.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`D. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §42.100(B)
`Because the ’852 Patent will not expire during this proceeding, Petitioner
`
`interprets its claims based on their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification.
`
`VII. SPECIFIC EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`A. Ground 1: Michiels and Eisen Render Obvious Claims 1, 5-6, and
`18
`1. Overview of Michiels (Ex. 1004)
`Michiels, titled “Protection of Software from Piracy,” was published on
`
`September 27, 2007. Ex. 1004, Cover. Michiels is prior art to the ’852 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`Michiels discloses a computer program having “a plurality of blockades,”
`
`“wherein each blockade, once activated, is arranged to change the functionality of
`
`the application.” Id., 2:21-26. For example, a “blockade” may automatically
`
`activate after a predetermined amount of time to disable certain functions of the
`
`program. Id., 7:1-19.
`
`To continue using functionality controlled by a blockade, the computer must
`
`obtain a “program update to deactivate one of the blockades.” Id., 2:27-30. In
`
`addition, program updates may “fix a breach of a security mechanism” or “fix
`
`other bugs.” Id., 3:9-14. The program updates “can be retrieved [] automatically
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`by the program” from a remote server. Id., 3:15-20. Figure 1 below illustrates the
`
`disclosed update process.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, to receive a program update, “terminal 10” transmits
`
`an “update request” including “authorisation data” to a remote “registration server
`
`40.” Id., Fig. 1. The “authorisation data” is used by the server “to verify that
`
`terminal 10 is authorised to maintain at least the present pertaining functionality of
`
`application 18 and should receive an update.” Id., 8:25-27. The “authorisation
`
`data” includes a “Product ID,” uniquely identifying the copy of the software
`
`program, and a “Terminal ID,” uniquely identifying the user device. Id., 11:18-29,
`
`12:5-6.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`
`2. Overview of Eisen (Ex. 1005)
`Eisen, titled “Method and System for Identifying Users and Detecting Fraud
`
`by Use of the Internet,” was published on January 4, 2007. Ex. 1005, Cover.
`
`Eisen is prior art to the ’852 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`Eisen discloses a “method and system … to uniquely identify a computer
`
`user [based on] personal information and/or non-personal information, preferably
`
`the Browser ID.” Id., Abstract. As shown in Figure 5 below, Eisen combines
`
`“Customer Personal Information,” “Customer Non-personal Information,” a
`
`“Browser ID,” and a “Delta of Time Parameter” to form a unique “Customer
`
`Computer Identifier.” Id., Fig. 5, [0038].
`
`Figure 5 of Eisen
`Eisen discloses that increasing the number of parameters used for
`
`
`
`authentication improves security. Id., [0026] (“A more accurate PC fingerprint
`
`may be generally developed by considering a greater number of available computer
`
`related parameters.”).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`3.
`A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Michiels and Eisen.
`
`Both references relate to authenticating users and authorizing transactions between
`
`a computer system and a remote server. Ex. 1004, 6:3-5; Ex. 1005, Abstract,
`
`[0002]. Both disclose generating a device identifier by combining machine
`
`parameters associated with a client device to uniquely identify the device in the
`
`authentication process. Ex. 1004, 11:25-28; Ex. 1005, [0038], [0044]. Given that
`
`they are in a common field of endeavor and disclose similar authentication
`
`approaches, a POSITA would have recognized that Eisen’s security features could
`
`be added to and would benefit Michiels’ system. Ex. 1003, ¶ 52. Thus, a POSITA
`
`would have found it obvious to combine Michiels and Eisen because the resulting
`
`combination involves only the use of a known technique to improve a similar
`
`device with no unexpected results. Id.
`
`Moreover, Eisen is aimed at “improving fraud detection” in transactions
`
`such as “downloading information over the Internet.” Ex. 1005, [0002], [0010].
`
`Eisen’s method uniquely identifies a client device and prevents “spoofing” and
`
`“other deceptive practices.” Id., Abstract, [0011]. Michiels discloses a system that
`
`seeks to prevent a specific type of fraud—the unauthorized distribution of
`
`software. Ex. 1004, 1:4-8. Michiels seeks to prevent “multiple registrations of the
`
`same software product installed on terminals” by limiting full use of the software
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`to a single terminal. Id., 1:26-2:3. Thus, a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`apply Eisen’s teachings to improve Michiels by employing Eisen’s techniques for
`
`uniquely identifying a device and preventing deceptive practices by unauthorized
`
`users. Ex. 1003, ¶ 53.
`
`The references also disclose benefits that would have motivated a POSITA
`
`to combine their teachings. For example, Michiels discloses generating a unique
`
`device identifier (a “terminal ID”) from hardware properties, but does not specify
`
`the parameters used to generate the identifier. Ex. 1004, 11:25-28. Michiels,
`
`however, discloses that the disclosed system can work with various authentication
`
`techniques. Id., 13:4-6 (“Additionally or alternatively, other authentication
`
`techniques can be used at this point to authenticate the computer apparatus 10.”).
`
`Eisen specifies various parameters that can be combined to form a unique
`
`“Customer Computer Identifier.” Ex. 1005, [0038], Fig. 5. Eisen further teaches
`
`that increasing the number of factors used to generate the identifier improves its
`
`accuracy, making the authentication system more secure. Id., [0026]. In light of
`
`this disclosure, a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Eisen’s teachings
`
`to Michiels to improve security. Ex. 1003, ¶ 54. Such a combination would
`
`involve, for example, using the parameters disclosed by Eisen to generate the
`
`“terminal ID” disclosed by Michiels. Id. A POSITA would have expected success
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`from this combination because Michiels states that its system is designed to work
`
`with different authentication techniques. Id.; Ex. 1004, 13:4-6.
`
`A POSITA also would have been motivated to combine Eisen with Michiels
`
`to improve the efficiency of Michiels’ system. Eisen’s disclosed authorization
`
`server uses the information received from the client device to determine if the user
`
`associated with the unique device identifier is entitled to complete the transaction.
`
`Ex. 1005, [0026], [0031]-[0032], [0037]-[0040], [0044]. The collected information
`
`sent to the authorization server may include “Customer Personal Information” such
`
`as “user or personal name, address, billing information, shipping information,
`
`telephone number(s), e-mail address(es)” and “detailed information such as the
`
`type of content the user can receive.” Id., [0007], [0038], [0041], Fig. 7.
`
`Similarly, in the Michiels system, the authorization server analyzes information
`
`received from the client device to determine if the user associated with the unique
`
`device identifier is entitled to the updated program configuration according to a
`
`license associated with the unique software identifier. Ex. 1004, 2:23-30, 11:18-
`
`29, 12:3-18. A POSITA would have understood that Eisen’s disclosed method of
`
`embedding user account and feature-related information into the identifier could
`
`facilitate feature change, the processing of payments for additional licenses, and
`
`the limiting of licenses to particular users. Ex. 1003, ¶ 55. A POSITA would have
`
`understood Eisen’s disclosed method to be more efficient in eliminating the need
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`to separately transmit account and feature identification information, and thus
`
`would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Eisen to Michiels to improve
`
`system efficiency. Id.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 18
`a)
`
`Preamble: “A client device configured to execute a
`computer program to perform a remote update of a
`program configuration on the client device, the client
`device comprising:”
`
`Michiels discloses a client device (“terminal 10”) configured to execute a
`
`computer program (“program 16”) to perform a remote update of a program
`
`configuration on the client device (receiving “program update 34” from
`
`“registration server 40”). Ex. 1004, Fig. 1; see also 11:16-12:18, 12:20-13:17.
`
`Michiels discloses that “terminal 10” is a “computer apparatus” that
`
`executes “program 16” and communicates with the remote update server
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`(“registration server 40”) via the Internet. Id., 6:3-22. The “program update”
`
`received from the server can update the configuration of “program 16” by
`
`“deactivat[ing] one of the blockades” (i.e., enabling certain functions), “fix[ing] a
`
`breach of a security mechanism,” or “fix[ing] other bugs.” Id., 2:27-30, 3:9-14,
`
`11:1-15.
`
`Thus, Michiels discloses the preamble of Claim 18. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 41-43.
`
`b)
`
`Element [18a]: “the client device comprising: a
`processor”
`
`Michiels’s “terminal 10” includes a “processor 12.” Ex. 1004, 6:3-9, Fig. 1.
`
`Thus, Michiels discloses Element [18a]. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 44-45.
`
`c)
`
`Element [18b]: “a memory coupled to the processor and
`storing the computer program which, when executed by
`the processor”
`
`Michiels’ “terminal 10” includes a “memory/storage 14” coupled to the
`
`processor, which stores “a program 16 which includes a code module 18 for
`
`performing an application and code 20 for implementing a number (N) of
`
`blockades.” Ex. 1004, 6:1-13, Fig. 1.
`
`Thus, Michiels discloses Element [18b]. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 46-47.
`
`14
`
`

`

`d)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`Element [18b(i)]: “performs physical device recognition
`on the client device to determine machine parameters
`including account information for a user of the client
`device and features of software that the user of the client
`device is entitled to use”
`
`Michiels discloses “collect[ing] details of the hardware configuration at the
`
`terminal where the software has been installed” to uniquely identify the client
`
`device. Ex. 1004, 1:27-2:3. A unique “terminal ID 24” is generated from
`
`properties of the machine hardware. Id., 11:25-28 (“The terminal ID … can be
`
`compiled based on a number of properties of the hardware which, when combined,
`
`form a unique identifier.”).3 A POSITA would have understood that to “collect
`
`details of the hardware configuration” and compile “a number of properties of the
`
`hardware,” the device must perform physical device recognition to determine
`
`machine parameters. Ex. 1003, ¶ 48.
`
`Michiels also discloses or renders obvious determining account information
`
`for a user of the client device. The Michiels system includes a registration step in
`
`which data is sent from the client device to the registration server for storage and
`
`use in authorizing updates. Ex. 1004, 11:18-29. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that such registration would involve collecting account information for
`
`
`3 The ’852 Patent similarly discloses generating a unique device identifier from
`
`various properties of the hardware. Ex. 1001, 7:40-9:15.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`a user of the client device. Ex. 1003, ¶ 49. Indeed, Michiels discloses that it was
`
`known in the art to register software to limit piracy, and Michiels specifically
`
`references U.S. Patent No. 5,014,234 (“Edwards”; Ex. 1012) as a known prior art
`
`method. Ex. 1004, 1:22-2:10. Edwards utilizes blockades similar to those
`
`disclosed by Michiels. Id., 2:6-10; Ex. 1003, ¶ 49. As part of its registration
`
`process, Edwards discloses collecting user account information, such as name and
`
`address. Ex. 1012, Fig. 5. Thus, Michiels, alone or in view of its admitted prior
`
`art, discloses or renders obvious determining account information for a user of the
`
`client device. Ex. 1003, ¶ 49.
`
`Michiels further discloses or renders obvious determining features of
`
`software that the user of the client device is entitled to use. Michiels discloses that
`
`the update request sent from the client device to the registration server “should
`
`preferably include data which can be used, by server 40, to verify that terminal 10
`
`is authorised to maintain at least the present pertaining functionality of application
`
`18 and should receive an update.” Ex. 1004, 8:25-27. Thus, a POSITA would
`
`have understood that Michiels collects information to ensure that the client device
`
`is authorized to maintain the “present pertaining functionality” and to receive an
`
`update. Id.; Ex. 1003, ¶ 50. A POSITA would also have understood this collected
`
`information would specify “features of software that the user of the client device is
`
`entitled to use,” or would have found determining features of software that the user
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`of the client device is entitled to use obvious based on this disclosure. Ex. 1003, ¶
`
`50.
`
`In addition, determining account information for a user of the client device
`
`and features of software that the user of the client device is entitled to use are
`
`obvious in view of Eisen. As shown in Figure 5 below, Eisen combines “Customer
`
`Personal Information,” “Customer Non-personal Information,” “Browser ID,” and
`
`a “Delta of Time Parameter” to form a unique “Customer Computer Identifier.”
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 5, [0038]. Eisen also discloses performing physical device
`
`recognition by, for example, generating a “PC fingerprint” from measuring the
`
`internal “clock skew” of a device. Id., [0044].
`
`
`
`Figure 5 of Eisen
`Eisen discloses that “Customer Personal Information” may include “user or
`
`personal name, address, billing information, shipping information, telephone
`
`number(s), e-mail address(es).” Id., [0038], [0041], Fig. 7. Thus, Eisen discloses
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`determining the account information for a user of the client device and including it
`
`in its device identifier. Ex. 1003, ¶ 57.
`
`Eisen discloses that “Browser ID” may include “information about the user
`
`computer operating system, its current version, its Internet browser and the
`
`language.” Id., [0007]. “The Browser ID may also have more detailed information
`
`such as the type of content the user can receive; for example, this lets the website
`
`operator know if the user can run applications in FLASH-animation, open a PDF-
`
`file, or access a Microsoft Excel document.” Id. Thus, the “Browser ID” includes
`
`information about the version of installed software and features of software (e.g.,
`
`Flash, PDF, and Excel) that the user of the client device is entitled to use. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 58.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Michiels and Eisen for
`
`reasons discussed above in Section VII.A.3. A POSITA would have expected
`
`success from the combination because Michiels teaches that “[a]dditionally or
`
`alternatively, other authentication techniques can be used at this point to
`
`authenticate the computer apparatus 10. These will be well understood by a skilled
`
`person.” Ex. 1004, 13:4-6. When combined, it would have been obvious to
`
`include user account information as part of the parameters used to generate
`
`Michiels’ “terminal ID.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 59. A POSITA would have been motivated
`
`to make this combination because, as discussed above, Michiels already discloses
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`or renders obvious collecting user account information as part of the registration
`
`process, and including user account information in the “terminal ID” would
`
`improve the security and efficiency of the system. See Section VII.A.3.
`
`In view of Eisen, it also would have been obvious to include software
`
`version/feature information of Michiels’ “program 16” in its “terminal ID.” Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 60. Eisen discloses that its “Browser ID” contains “valuable information
`
`for identifying a unique user.” Ex. 1005, [0007]. The “browser” disclosed by
`
`Eisen is an example of a computer program that can be remotely updated using the