(12) United States Patent
`alSafadi et al.
`
`US006467088B1
`US 6,467,088 B1
`on. 15, 2002
`
`(10) Patent N0.:
`(45) Date of Patent:
`
`(54) RECONFIGURATION MANAGER FOR
`CONTROLLING UPGRADES OF
`ELECTRONIC DEVICES
`
`(75)
`
`Inventors: Yasser alSafadi, Yorktown Heights, NY
`(US); J. David Scha?'er, Wappingers
`Falls, NY (US)
`
`(73)
`
`Assignee: Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.,
`Eindhoven (NL)
`
`(*)
`
`Notice:
`
`Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
`patent is extended or adjusted under 35
`U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.
`
`(21)
`(22)
`(51)
`(52)
`(58)
`
`(56)
`
`Appl. No.: 09/343,607
`Filed:
`Jun. 30, 1999
`
`Int. Cl.7 ................................................ .. G06F 9/45
`
`US. Cl. ...................................... .. 717/173; 713/100
`Field of Search ............................... .. 717/173, 178,
`717/177; 710/10; 713/100
`
`References Cited
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`5,155,847 A 10/1992 Kirouac et al. ........... .. 395/600
`5,253,344 A * 10/1993 Bostick et al.
`.... .. 710/8
`5,327,560 A * 7/1994 Hirata et al.
`709/221
`5,497,490 A * 3/1996 Harada et al. .
`713/100
`
`5,634,075 A * 5/1997 Smith et al. . . . . . .
`5,822,531 A * 10/1998 Gorczyca et al. .
`5,898,872 A * 4/1999 Richley .......... ..
`5,918,194 A * 6/1999 Banaska et al. ..
`
`5,933,026 A * 8/1999 Larsen et al. . . . . .
`6,058,455 A * 5/2000 Islam et al.
`
`. . . . .. 710/9
`707/202
`.. 713/100
`702/91
`
`. . . .. 326/81
`710/10
`
`6,065,068 A * 5/2000 Foote . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`. . . .. 710/10
`
`707/200
`6,167,408 A * 12/2000 Cannon et al.
`717/177
`6,301,707 B1 * 10/2001 Carroll et al.
`6,385,668 B1 * 5/2002 Gaddess et al. .......... .. 370/254
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`WO
`WO
`WO
`
`WO9015394
`WO9425923
`WO9632679
`
`6/1990
`11/1994
`10/1996
`
`......... .. G06F/15/46
`......... .. G06F/15/21
`......... .. G06F/13/00
`
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`
`Mitchell et al., Dynamically Recon?guring Multimedia
`Components: A Model—Based Approach, Sep. 1998, ACM,
`p. 40—46.*
`
`* cited by examiner
`Primary Examiner—Gregory Morse
`Assistant Examiner—John Q. Chavis
`(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm—Daniel J. Piotrowski
`(57)
`ABSTRACT
`
`A recon?guration manager implemented on a computer or
`other data processing device controls the recon?guration of
`software or other components of an electronic device such as
`a computer, personal digital assistant (PDA), set-top box,
`television, etc. The recon?guration manager receives a
`recon?guration request, e.g., a software upgrade request
`from the electronic device, and determines one or more
`device components that are required to implement the recon
`?guration request. The recon?guration manager also
`determines, e.g., from information in the request, identi?ers
`of one or more additional components currently imple
`mented in the electronic device. The recon?guration man
`ager then compares the needed and currently implemented
`components with previously-stored lists of known accept
`able and unacceptable con?gurations for the electronic
`device. If the needed and currently implemented compo
`nents correspond to a con?guration on the list of acceptable
`con?gurations, the request is approved and the needed
`components are downloaded to the electronic device. If the
`needed and currently implemented components correspond
`to a con?guration on the list of unacceptable con?gurations,
`the request is denied. Otherwise, the recon?guration man
`ager may indicate that the requested recon?guration is
`unknown, or may take another action such as responding to
`the electronic device with a list of other components that
`would be required to implement the request.
`
`EP
`GB
`
`0308056
`
`* 3/1989
`
`......... .. G06F/11/00
`
`2325766
`
`12/1998
`
`........... .. G06F/9/44
`
`21 Claims, 3 Drawing Sheets
`
`GEE DEVlCEX (HW, SW]
`OONHGURADON
`
`110
`
`FWD SENS] OF FOTENRAL UPGRADE
`OONElGURAlIONS FROM KNOWN GOOD
`
`114
`
`V
`DENY UPGRADE
`
`SELECT SET OF UPGRADE
`OONElGURATION
`
`SEARCH FOR KNOWN GOOD
`CONFIGURADON
`
`SERVER DOWNLOADS UPGRADE
`
`HO
`f‘20 FUZZY, UNKNDWNl
`
`V
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2202
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, 1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Oct. 15, 2002
`
`Sheet 1 of 3
`
`US 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`
`HAIDVNVNOLLVYENSISNOOSY
`
`SLNANOdWOO8MS40
`
`SNOLLVENSISNOODNMONYOL
`
`
`AYOLISOddu
`
`ASNOdSdY
`
`LSAn0sd
`
`NMONY
`
`“SIANODGV€NMONM-----------||4‘OIANOOC009
`
`
`
`
`
`XJOIAI
`
`Jbl
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2202
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, 2
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2202
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, 2
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`0a. 15, 2002
`
`Sheet 2 of3
`
`US 6,467,088 B1
`
`\ of
`220722: ENE
`
`
`
`N28 émaiiotéag +
`
`022 2055122
`:5 2,5555%
`
`2:
`
`95 226%
`
`26:25:28
`
`@028 $505251? »
`
`
`2055128
`
`:Estééé %
`
`2:? 205x558 @212:
`
`2225128
`
`
`
`D08 2205
`
`225E528
`
`
`
`m:|\| 526% @552 A %
`
`N:
`
`mm;
`
`D08 2265 EOE 2225128 l/l
`
`
`
`
`5&3: 2:252 5 @5 Q21 0 I
`
`oz
`
`@922: LO mm 65%
`
`ZQEEEEZS
`
`5.2%: 2%
`f #3
`
`Nam
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2202
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, 3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`0a. 15, 2002
`
`Sheet 3 of3
`
`US 6,467,088 B1
`
`PROCESSOR _/w 220
`
`T
`
`l
`
`MEMORY
`'\
`O \
`_
`222
`
`CLIENT
`
`212 f
`
`212/ CLIENT
`
`210
`
`SERVER
`
`0
`_
`
`RECONFIGURATION
`MANAGER
`
`‘ PROCESSOR
`
`l
`T
`232%» MEMORY
`
`/ 10
`
`FIG.3
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2202
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, 4
`
`

`

`US 6,467,088 B1
`
`1
`RECONFIGURATION MANAGER FOR
`CONTROLLING UPGRADES OF
`ELECTRONIC DEVICES
`
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION
`
`The present invention relates generally to the ?eld of
`electronic devices, and more particularly to techniques for
`upgrading or otherWise recon?guring software and/or hard
`Ware components in such devices.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`
`For many different electronic devices, such as desktop,
`laptop and palmtop computers, personal digital assistants
`(PDAs), telephones, televisions, set-top boxes and other
`consumer electronic processing devices, it is common for
`ongoing development efforts to continue to produce
`improvements to existing device softWare or hardWare
`components, as Well as neW components that add to or
`otherWise improve device functionality. Users of such
`devices often prefer to upgrade their devices, incrementally,
`rather than discard their current devices and purchase neW
`ones. HoWever, for most contemplated upgrades, it is gen
`erally necessary to determine if the neW or improved com
`ponent is compatible With the rest of the device, and if not,
`What other components Would need simultaneous upgrading
`in order to provide the desired compatibility. This compat
`ibility determination can be particularly difficult if the range
`of possible device con?gurations is large and the interaction
`among device components is complex.
`Anumber of different techniques have been developed for
`updating components of electronic devices. For example,
`US. Pat. No. 5,155,847 discloses a technique for updating
`softWare at remote locations. A central computer system
`stores the original softWare, and keeps track of all the
`softWare con?gurations for a number of remote systems. The
`remote system softWare is upgraded or otherWise changed
`based on patches transmitted by the central computer sys
`tem. HoWever, this technique generally requires the central
`computer system to keep track of the particular softWare
`con?gurations at each of the remote systems. Furthermore,
`the technique is not directly applicable to electronic devices
`other than computers, and cannot ef?ciently handle recon
`?guration of hardWare components, or hardWare and soft
`Ware interdependencies.
`Another conventional technique, described in PCT Appli
`cation No. WO 94/25923, manages the con?guration of an
`enterprise-Wide netWork Which includes at least one cen
`traliZed computer and a plurality of desktop computers. The
`technique attempts to ensure that each of the desktop com
`puters has an appropriate set of resources as determined in
`accordance With a set of enterprise policies. HoWever, the
`technique generally assumes that the resources required by
`each desktop computer are independent, and fails to
`adequately address situations in Which the required
`resources are highly interdependent. Furthermore, this tech
`nique generally assumes that the information regarding
`component interactions is fully speci?ed and built in to the
`system.
`UK Patent Application No. GB 2,325,766 discloses a
`version management system for keeping ?les on remote
`devices updated to latest versions as determined by a master
`list maintained on a central server. The updating process in
`this approach generally involves adding, amending and
`deleting ?les in their entirety. Asigni?cant problem With this
`approach is that it apparently assumes either that the ?les are
`independent or that any potential con?icting requirements
`
`10
`
`15
`
`25
`
`35
`
`45
`
`55
`
`65
`
`2
`have already been resolved using other techniques. It fails to
`provide generaliZed techniques for ensuring compatibility
`among requested components.
`A convention technique disclosed in PCT Application No.
`WO 96/32679 describes the remote patching of operating
`code in a mobile unit of a distributed system. Amanager host
`device in the system transmits patches to the mobile unit,
`and the mobile unit creates patched operating code by
`merging the patches With current operating code and sWitch
`ing execution to the patched operating code. HoWever, like
`the other conventional techniques described previously, this
`technique also fails to adequately ensure compatibility
`among softWare and hardWare components for a variety of
`different electronic devices.
`As is apparent from the above, a need exists for improved
`techniques for managing recon?guration of electronic
`devices, such that compatibility determinations can be
`facilitated, particularly for large and complex device con
`?gurations.
`SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
`The invention provides a recon?guration manager that
`may be implemented on a computer or other data processing
`device to control the recon?guration of softWare or other
`components of an electronic device such as a computer,
`personal digital assistant (PDA), set-top box, television, etc.
`In accordance With the invention, a recon?guration manager
`receives a recon?guration request, e.g., a softWare upgrade
`request from the electronic device, and determines one or
`more device components that are required to implement the
`recon?guration request. The recon?guration request can be
`received directly from the electronic device itself, or other
`Wise supplied to the recon?guration manager.
`The recon?guration manager also determines, e.g., from
`information supplied by the electronic device as part of the
`request, identi?ers of one or more additional components
`currently implemented in the electronic device. The recon
`?guration manager then compares the needed and currently
`implemented components With previously-stored lists of
`knoWn acceptable and unacceptable con?gurations for the
`electronic device. If the needed and currently implemented
`components correspond to a con?guration on the list of
`acceptable con?gurations, the request is approved and the
`needed components are doWnloaded or otherWise supplied
`to the electronic device. If the needed and currently imple
`mented components correspond to a con?guration on the list
`of unacceptable con?gurations, the request is denied.
`OtherWise, the recon?guration manager may indicate that
`the requested recon?guration is unknoWn, or may take
`another action such as responding to the electronic device
`With a list of other components that Would be required to
`implement the recon?guration request.
`Advantageously, the invention provides ef?cient tech
`niques for incrementally upgrading or otherWise recon?g
`uring electronic devices. The invention ensures that
`upgrades are compatible With the con?guration of a given
`device before they are implemented in that device, thereby
`avoiding problems associated With inconsistent upgrades.
`Although particularly Well suited for use With softWare
`upgrades delivered over a netWork, the invention is appli
`cable to recon?guration of other types of device
`components, e.g., hardWare components or combinations of
`hardWare and softWare components, and to numerous other
`applications. These and other features and advantages of the
`present invention Will become more apparent from the
`accompanying draWings and the folloWing detailed descrip
`tion.
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2202
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, 5
`
`

`

`US 6,467,088 B1
`
`3
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
`
`FIG. 1 illustrates the operation of a recon?guration man
`ager in accordance With a preferred embodiment of the
`invention.
`FIG. 2 is a How diagram shoWing processing operations
`implemented in the recon?guration manager of FIG. 1.
`FIG. 3 is a block diagram of an exemplary netWork-based
`computer system Which includes a recon?guration manager
`in accordance With the invention.
`
`10
`
`DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE
`INVENTION
`
`FIG. 1 shoWs a preferred embodiment of the invention, in
`Which a recon?guration manager 10 interacts With an elec
`tronic device 12 also referred to as “Device X.” The device
`12 may represent a desktop, laptop or palmtop computer, a
`personal digital assistant (PDA), a telephone, television,
`set-top box or any other type of consumer electronic pro
`cessing device. The device 12 includes a number of softWare
`components 14A, 14B and 14C, corresponding to version
`1.1 of a softWare component A, version 2.3 of a softWare
`component B, and version 2.0 of a softWare component C,
`respectively. The recon?guration manager 10 may be imple
`mented on a computer, a set of computers, or any other type
`of data processing system or device.
`The recon?guration manager 10 includes a listing 16 of
`knoWn con?gurations, and a repository 18 of softWare
`components. Repository 18 may represent, e.g., a database,
`data Warehouse, physical Warehouse or any other type of
`storage device or element incorporated in or otherWise
`associated With a computer or other processing system or
`device on Which the recon?guration manager 10 is imple
`mented. The repository 18 need not be co-located With the
`processing portions of the recon?guration manager 10. For
`example, the repository 18 could be accessed by the recon
`?guration manager 10 over a suitable netWork connection.
`The list 16 in this example is illustrated in the form of a
`graph indicating Which of a set of softWare components
`supported by the manager 10 are knoWn to Work Well
`together or are otherWise compatible. The list 16 includes
`identi?ers of a number of softWare components, each rep
`resented by an oval, including components corresponding to
`versions 1.1, 1.8 and 2.0 of the softWare component A,
`versions 1.5 and 2.3 of the softWare component B, versions
`1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 of a softWare component C, and version 1.7
`of a softWare component Z. Each of at least a subset of these
`components of the list 16 may be stored in the softWare
`component repository 18. Additional components not shoWn
`may also be stored in the repository 18.
`A solid line betWeen a given pair of components in the
`exemplary list 16 indicates that the pair of components
`corresponds to a knoWn “good” con?guration, i.e., the
`components Work Well together or are otherWise compatible.
`The pair including version 1.1 of component A and version
`1.5 of component B is an example of a knoWn good
`con?guration. A dashed line betWeen a given pair of com
`ponents in the list 16 indicates that the pair of components
`correspond to a knoWn “bad” con?guration, i.e., are not
`60
`compatible. The pair including version 1.8 of component A
`and version 1.0 of component C is an example of a knoWn
`bad con?guration.
`It should be understood that the list 16, although shoWn in
`graphical form in FIG. 1, may be implemented, e.g., as a
`stored table, set of tables or other type of list in a memory
`of the reconstruction manager 10, as a potion of a program
`
`4
`executed by the recon?guration manager 10, or in any other
`suitable format. Moreover, although illustrated in FIG. 1 as
`indicating pair-Wise compatibility among components, the
`list in other embodiments could include information indica
`tive of compatibility betWeen groups of multiple compo
`nents. The term “list” as used herein is therefore intended to
`include any stored representation of information indicative
`of component compatibility. A given stored list in accor
`dance With the invention can be implemented in a straight
`forWard manner, as Will be apparent to those skilled in the
`art.
`In operation, the recon?guration manager 10 receives a
`request 20 from the device 12. In this example, the request
`20 indicates that a user of the device 12 Wants to upgrade the
`device to include version 2.0 of softWare component A. The
`request in the illustrative embodiment also includes a list of
`the components currently in the device, i.e., version 1.1 of
`component A, version 2.0 of component C and version 2.3
`of component B. The request may include additional
`information, such as any needed information regarding the
`interconnection of the components or other parameters asso
`ciated With the device. The recon?guration manager 10
`processes the request, in a manner to be described in greater
`detail in conjunction With the How diagram of FIG. 2, and if
`appropriate delivers to device X a response 22 Which
`includes the requested version 2.0 of softWare component A.
`For example, the recon?guration manager ?rst determines
`Whether the requested upgrade, in this case version 2.0 of
`component A, is compatible With other components of
`device X, i.e., version 2.3 of component B and version 2.0
`of component C. The recon?guration manager 10 in the
`embodiment of FIG. 1 makes this determination using the
`list 16. In this case, list 16 indicates that version 2.0 of
`component A is compatible With version 2.3 of component
`B and version 2.0 of component C. As a result, the requested
`upgrade is delivered to device 12 as part of the response 22.
`FIG. 2 shoWs a How diagram illustrating the operation of
`the recon?guration manager 10 in greater detail. In step 100,
`the recon?guration manager 10 obtains information regard
`ing the hardWare and softWare con?guration of device X,
`i.e., electronic device 12 of FIG. 1. This information is
`generally included as part of the request 20 sent by the
`device 12 to the recon?guration manager 10. In other
`embodiments, this information may be obtained in another
`suitable manner, e.g., from a local database based on a serial
`number or other identi?er of the electronic device.
`In step 102, the recon?guration manager 10 determines
`that the request 20 includes a request for a softWare upgrade,
`i.e., a request to upgrade to version 2.0 of component A. It
`should be noted that, although described primarily in con
`junction With softWare upgrades, the invention is also appli
`cable to hardWare upgrades, and to upgrades in combina
`tions of hardWare and softWare, as Well as to other changes
`in device con?guration. In the FIG. 2 example, the request
`is for an upgrade to a particular softWare component. Other
`types of requests Which may be processed by the recon?gu
`ration manager 10 of FIG. 1 include requests for an upgrade
`to a particular device feature. Such a feature upgrade may
`require the recon?guration manager to upgrade several
`device components.
`In step 104 of FIG. 2, the recon?guration manager 10
`generates a potential upgrade con?guration that Will satisfy
`the received request. The recon?guration manager in step
`106 then searches through a set of knoWn bad con?gura
`tions. If the upgrade con?guration as generated in step 104
`is determined in step 108 to correspond to one of the knoWn
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`55
`
`65
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2202
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, 6
`
`

`

`US 6,467,088 B1
`
`5
`bad con?gurations, the recon?guration manager in step 110
`attempts to ?nd a set or sets of potential upgrade con?gu
`rations from a set of knoWn good con?gurations.
`If the resulting set of potential upgrade con?gurations is
`determined in step 112 to be empty, the recon?guration
`manager in step 114 denies the upgrade, since it is knoWn to
`be incompatible With the current con?guration of device X,
`and communicates this denial in its response to device X. If
`step 112 indicates that the set is not empty, a particular set
`of upgrade con?guration is selected in step 116, and the
`upgrade is approved in step 118 as compatible With the
`current con?guration of device X. The selection in step 116
`may be based at least in part on one or more established
`criteria, such as least expensive, maximum improvement in
`system operating speed, most recently modi?ed, most
`energy efficient, or other suitable criteria. The recon?gura
`tion manager or other server associated thereWith then
`doWnloads the upgrade to device X in step 120.
`If step 108 determines that the upgrade con?guration as
`generated in step 104 does not correspond to a knoWn bad
`con?guration, the recon?guration manager in step 122
`searches the list of knoWn good con?gurations to determine
`if the upgrade con?guration determined in step 104 is a
`knoWn good con?guration. If it is determined in step 124 to
`be a knoWn good con?guration, the upgrade is approved in
`step 118, and the recon?guration manager or other server
`associated thereWith doWnloads the upgrade to device X in
`step 120. If the con?guration is not a knoWn good
`con?guration, the recon?guration manager in step 130
`returns in its response to the device X an indication that the
`requested upgrade is “fuZZy” or unknown, e.g., not knoWn to
`be valid.
`Other types of responses that may be generated by the
`recon?guration manager 10 include, e.g., a response Which
`includes a list of additional components that are prerequi
`sites for the requested upgrade. This type of response may
`provide a user associated With device X With an option to
`doWnload all of the components required to implement the
`desired upgrade.
`FIG. 3 shoWs an example of a system 200 in Which a
`recon?guration manager in accordance With the invention
`may be implemented. The system 200 includes recon?gu
`ration manager 10 and electronic device 12 as previously
`described in conjunction With FIGS. 1 and 2. The recon
`?guration manager 10 and electronic device 12 are con
`nected With a number of server devices 210 and client
`devices 212 over a netWork 214. As previously noted, the
`recon?guration manager 10 and electronic device 12 may be
`implemented as computers or other electronic data process
`ing devices. In this example, the electronic device 12
`includes a processor 220 and a memory 222, and the
`recon?guration manager 10 includes a processor 230 and a
`memory 232.
`The processors 220 and 230 may represent, e.g.,
`microprocessors, central processing units, computers, circuit
`cards, application-speci?c integrated circuits (ASICs), as
`Well as portions or combinations of these and other types of
`processing devices. The memories 222 and 232 may
`represent, e.g., disk-based optical or magnetic storage units,
`electronic memories, as Well as portions or combinations of
`these and other memory devices.
`The functional operations associated With the recon?gu
`ration manager 10 and electronic device 12, as described in
`detail in conjunction With FIGS. 1 and 2, may be imple
`mented in Whole or in part in one or more softWare programs
`stored in their respective memories 222, 232 and executed
`
`15
`
`25
`
`35
`
`45
`
`55
`
`65
`
`6
`by their respective processors 220, 230. The netWork 214
`may represent a global computer communications netWork
`such as the Internet, a Wide area netWork, a metropolitan
`area netWork, a local area netWork, a cable netWork, a
`satellite netWork or a telephone netWork, as Well as portions
`or combinations of these and other types of netWorks.
`Recon?guration manager 10 and device 12 may themselves
`be respective server and client machines coupled to the
`netWork 214.
`It should be noted that the recon?guration manager need
`not receive a recon?guration request directly from the
`electronic device itself. For example, it is possible for the
`recon?guration manager to receive requests from an
`intermediary, e.g., a server or other designated machine
`Which collects recon?guration requests from multiple
`devices or users and delivers the requests in an appropriate
`manner to the recon?guration manager. As another example,
`a help desk operator or other human or machine interface
`can receive recon?guration requests from users of electronic
`devices. In such applications, information identifying the
`electronic device, e.g., the device serial number, may be
`supplied by the user. Information regarding the particular
`components in the device may be determined, e.g., by
`accessing a local database using the device identifying
`information, may be supplied directly by the user, or may be
`determined using combinations of these and other tech
`niques.
`The above-described embodiments of the invention are
`intended to be illustrative only. For example, the invention
`can be used to implement upgrading or other recon?guration
`of any desired type of softWare or hardWare component, as
`Well as combinations of these and other components, for any
`desired type of electronic device, and in many applications
`other than those described herein. The invention can also be
`implemented at least in part in the form of one or more
`softWare programs Which are stored on an otherWise con
`ventional electronic, magnetic or optical storage medium
`and executed by a processing device, e.g., by the processors
`220 and 230 of system 200. These and numerous other
`embodiments Within the scope of the folloWing claims Will
`be apparent to those skilled in the art.
`What is claimed is:
`1. A processor-implemented method for controlling the
`recon?guration of an electronic device, the method com
`prising the steps of:
`receiving information representative of a recon?guration
`request relating to the electronic device;
`determining at least one device component required to
`implement the recon?guration request;
`comparing the determined component and information
`specifying at least one additional component currently
`implemented in the electronic device With at least one
`of a list of knoWn acceptable con?gurations for the
`electronic device and a list of knoWn unacceptable
`con?gurations for the electronic device; and
`generating information indicative of an approval or a
`denial of the recon?guration request based at least in
`part on the result of the comparing step.
`2. The method of claim 1 further including the step of
`generating information indicative of an approval of the
`recon?guration request if the determined-component and the
`additional component are consistent With a given one of the
`knoWn acceptable con?gurations.
`3. The method of claim 1 further including the step of
`doWnloading the determined component to the electronic
`device if the determined component and the additional
`
`Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2017-2202
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2001, 7
`
`

`

`US 6,467,088 B1
`
`7
`component are consistent With a given one of the known
`acceptable con?gurations.
`4. The method of claim 1 further including the steps of:
`comparing the determined, component and information
`specifying at least one additional component currently
`implemented in the electronic device With the list of
`knoWn unacceptable con?gurations for the electronic
`device; and
`generating information indicative of a denial of the recon
`?guration request if the determined component and the
`additional component are consistent With a given one of
`the knoWn unacceptable con?gurations.
`5. The method of claim 1 further including the steps of:
`comparing the determined component and information
`specifying at least one additional component currently
`implemented in the electronic device With the list of
`knoWn unacceptable con?gurations for the electronic
`device; and
`generating information indicating that the requested
`recon?guration is unknoWn if the determined compo
`nent and the additional component are not consistent
`With a given one of the knoWn acceptable or unaccept
`able con?gurations.
`6. The method of claim 1 further including the step of
`transmitting in response to the recon?guration request a list
`of additional components required in the electronic device in
`order to implement the recon?guration.
`7. The method of claim 1 Wherein the information speci
`fying at least one additional component currently imple
`mented in the electronic device includes identi?ers of each
`of the components in a set of components currently imple
`mented in the electronic device.
`8. The method of claim 7 Wherein the identi?ers of each
`of the components in the set of components are included in
`the recon?guration request.
`9. The method of claim 1 Wherein the recon?guration
`request comprises a request for an upgrade of at least one of
`a softWare component and a hardWare component of the
`electronic device.
`10. The method of claim 1 Wherein the recon?guration
`request is received from the electronic device over a netWork
`connection established With a recon?guration manager
`implementing the receiving, determining, comparing and
`generating steps.
`11. An apparatus for controlling the recon?guration of an
`electronic device, the apparatus comprising:
`a memory for storing at least one of a list of knoWn
`acceptable con?gurations for the electronic device and
`a list of knoWn unacceptable con?gurations for the
`electronic device; and
`to
`a processor coupled to the memory and operative
`receive information representative of a recon?guration
`request relating to the electronic device; (ii) to deter
`mine at least one device component required to imple
`ment the recon?guration request; (iii) to compare the
`determined component and information specifying at
`least one additional component currently implemented
`in the electronic device With at least one of the list of
`knoWn acceptable con?gurations for the electronic
`device and the list of knoWn unacceptable con?gura
`tions for the electronic device; and (iv) to generate
`information indicative of an approval or a denial of the
`recon?guration request based at least in part on the
`comparison operation.
`12. The apparatus of claim 11 Wherein the processor is
`further operative to generate information indicative of an
`
`10
`
`15
`
`25
`
`35
`
`45
`
`55
`
`65
`
`8
`approval of the recon?guration request if the determined
`component and the additional component are consistent With
`a given one of the knoWn acceptable con?gurations.
`13. The apparatus of claim 11 Wherein the processor is
`further operative to doWnload the determined component to
`the electronic device if the determined component and the
`additional component are consistent With a given one of the
`knoWn acceptable con?gurations.
`14. The apparatus of claim 11 Wherein the processor is
`further operative to compare the determined component and
`information specifying at least one additional component
`currently implemented in the electronic device With the list
`of knoWn unacceptable con?gurations for the electronic
`device; and to generate information indicative of a denial of
`the recon?guration request if the determined component and
`the additional component are consistent With a given one of
`the knoWn unacceptable con?gurations.
`15. The apparatus of claim 11 Wherein the processor is
`further operative to compare the determined component and
`information specifying at least one additional component
`currently implemented in the electronic device With a list of
`knoWn unacceptable con?gurations for the electronic
`device; and to generate information indicating that the
`requested recon?guration is unknoWn if the determined
`component and the additional component are not consistent
`With a given one of the knoWn acceptable or unacceptable
`con?gurations.
`16. The apparatus of claim 11 Wherein the processor is
`further operative to transmit in response to the recon?gura
`tion request a list of additional components required in the
`electronic device in order to implement the recon?guration
`request.
`17. The apparatus of claim 11 Wherein the information
`specifying at least one additional component currently
`implemented in the electronic device includes identi?ers of
`each of the components in a set of components currently
`implemented in the electronic device.
`18. The apparatus of claim 17 Wherein the identi?ers of
`each of the components in the set of components are
`included in the recon?guration request transmitted by the
`electronic device.
`19. The apparatus of claim 11 Wherein the recon?guration
`request comprises a request for an upgrade of at l