`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 2
`III.
`FEE AUTHORIZATION ................................................................................ 2
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 3
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................. 3
`VI. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`A. Overview of the ’852 Patent .................................................................. 3
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 5
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 6
`D.
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §42.100(B) ................................ 6
`VII. SPECIFIC EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ................................................ 7
`A. Ground 1: Richardson and Demeyer Render Obvious Claims 1,
`5-8, and 18 ............................................................................................. 7
`1.
`Overview of Richardson (Ex. 1104) ........................................... 7
`2.
`Overview of Demeyer (Ex. 1105) ............................................... 9
`3.
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 13
`4.
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 16
`5.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 32
`6.
`Claim 5: “wherein the unique device identifier further
`comprises one or more geo-location codes” ............................. 36
`Claim 6: “wherein at least one of the one or more geo-
`location codes comprise an Internet Protocol address of
`the client device” ....................................................................... 36
`
`7.
`
`i
`
`

`

`8.
`
`9.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`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
`Ground 2: Richardson, Demeyer, and Villela Render Obvious
`Claims 2-4 ........................................................................................... 38
`1.
`Overview of Villela (Ex. 1106) ................................................ 38
`2.
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 38
`3.
`Claim 2: “wherein the unique device identifier comprises
`a hash code” .............................................................................. 39
`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” .......................... 40
`Claim 4: “wherein the at least one irreversible
`transformation comprises a cryptographic hash function” ....... 41
`Ground 3: Richardson, Demeyer, and Shakkarwar Render
`Obvious Claim 16 ................................................................................ 41
`1.
`Overview of Shakkarwar (Ex. 1107) ........................................ 41
`2.
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 42
`3.
`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” .............................................................................. 43
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`D. Ground 4: Richardson, Demeyer, and Hughes Render Obvious
`Claim 17 .............................................................................................. 43
`1.
`Overview of Hughes (Ex. 1108) ............................................... 43
`2.
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 44
`3.
`Claim 17: “wherein the machine parameters comprise
`information regarding at least one of: wireless 802.11,
`webcam, game controller, silicone serial, and PCI
`controller” ................................................................................. 44
`VIII. THE PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT WITH
`IPR2017-02041 .............................................................................................. 45
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`
`1101
`
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1108
`
`1109
`
`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
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2008/0320607 (“Richardson”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2005/0076334 (“Demeyer”)
`
`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”)
`
`1110
`
`Recorded Patent Assignment for U.S. Patent Application
`
`12/818,906 (Reel/frame 030136/0015)
`
`1111
`
`Ex parte Craig S. Etchegoyen, Appeal 2014-001653,
`
`Application 12/784,426, Decision on Appeal (P.T.A.B. July
`
`29, 2016)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`1112
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Mr. James Geier
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`
`ii
`
`

`

`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. 1101), 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. 1101, 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. 1102, 985-1007.1 The primary prior art reference relied on in this Petition
`
`
`1 Citations to Exhibits 1102 and 1109 refer to the renumbered page numbers.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`teaches these features. For reasons 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). Petitioner has filed another IPR petition against the ’852 Patent in
`
`IPR2017-02041, filed on August 31, 2017.
`
`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.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`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. U.S. Patent Pubs. 2008/0320607 (“Richardson”) and 2005/0076334
`
`(“Demeyer”) render obvious Claims 1, 5-8, and 18;
`
`2. Richardson, Demeyer, and U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0113090 (“Villela”)
`
`render obvious Claims 2-4;
`
`3. Richardson, Demeyer, and U.S. Patent Pub. 2008/0120195
`
`(“Shakkarwar”) render obvious Claim 16; and
`
`4. Richardson, Demeyer, and U.S. Patent Pub. 2004/0059938 (“Hughes”)
`
`render obvious Claim 17.
`
`None of the references relied on in this Petition was discussed during
`
`prosecution of the ’852 Patent. See generally, Ex. 1102.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND
`A. Overview of the ’852 Patent
`The ’852 Patent discloses systems and devices “for remotely updating a
`
`program configuration.” Ex. 1101, Abstract. The disclosed system controls
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`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.
`
`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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`unique identifiers,” and “[t]he updated program configuration is delivered to the
`
`client device.” Id., 4:35-39.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The ’852 Patent issued from Application No. 12/818,906, filed on June 18,
`
`2010. Ex. 1101, Cover.
`
`On August 12, 2011, the Examiner issued an office action rejecting all
`
`claims over prior art. Ex. 1102, 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.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`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. 1103), ¶¶ 20-21.2
`
`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.
`
`
`2 Mr. Geier is an expert in the field of computer systems and telecommunication
`
`networks. Ex. 1103, ¶¶ 5-9; Ex. 1112.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`
`VII. SPECIFIC EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`A. Ground 1: Richardson and Demeyer Render Obvious Claims 1, 5-
`8, and 18
`1. Overview of Richardson (Ex. 1104)
`Richardson, titled “System and Method for Auditing Software Usage,” was
`
`filed on June 17, 2008, and published on December 25, 2008. Ex. 1104, Cover.
`
`Richardson is prior art to the ’852 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and
`
`102(e). Ex. 1101, Cover.3
`
`Richardson discloses a system “for auditing and selectively restricting
`
`software usage.” Ex. 1104, Abstract. When a “protected software” is executed on
`
`a computer, the software “checks to see if a license is granted for this software to
`
`run.” Id., [0020]. If a matching license key is not found, the user may seek to
`
`authorize the software. Id., [0023]. In the software authorization process, the
`
`software prompts the user to input the “product serial number,” compiles a “unique
`
`
`3 The application that issued as the ’852 Patent was assigned to Patent Owner on
`
`May 25, 2012, nearly two years after its filing. Ex. 1110, 37. Because Richardson
`
`and the ’852 Patent were not commonly owned at the time of the alleged invention,
`
`Richardson qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(c). See Arista
`
`Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Case No. IPR2016-00309, Final Written
`
`Decision (Paper 52), at 41-43 (P.T.A.B. June 1, 2017).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`device identifier,” and transmits both the “product serial number” and “unique
`
`device identifier” to a remote licensing “system 60” (also called “authorization
`
`server”) for license verification. Id., [0023]; see also [0006], [0045]. Upon
`
`verification of the software and device identifiers, the licensing system transmits
`
`back an “unlock key” that enables the software for certain features or certain
`
`durations. Id., [0030], [0035].
`
`Figure 2 below illustrates the overall process, including entry of the product
`
`serial number (Step 43), generation of a unique device identifier (Step 45),
`
`transmission of the serial number and device identifier (Step 47), and transmission
`
`of the unlock key (Steps 63-68). Id., Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`Richardson further discloses that the “unique device identifier” is generated
`
`from various “machine parameters,” such as component serial numbers and
`
`hardware characteristics. Id., [0021]-[0022].
`
`2. Overview of Demeyer (Ex. 1105)
`Demeyer, titled “System and Method for Licensing Software,” was
`
`published on April 7, 2005. Ex. 1105, Cover. Demeyer is prior art to the ’852
`
`Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Demeyer discloses “a system and method for licensing software using a
`
`clearinghouse to license only the technology modules that an end user registers.”
`
`Id., Abstract. These “technology modules 107” represent “functionality modules”
`
`within a “software product” “that require securing additional licensing from one or
`
`more technology holders.” Id., [0043]. Figure 4, below, illustrates the relationship
`
`between the “User Computer System 100” and the “Registration Clearinghouse
`
`140.” Id., Fig. 4.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`
`
`
`In the Demeyer system, “software product 110 initiates an activation request
`
`to registration clearinghouse 140.” Id., [0052]. The software product then
`
`prepares and transmits identifying information to the registration clearinghouse.
`
`Id., [0052]-[0053]. Demeyer discloses using a device identifier (e.g., a device
`
`“serial number” or “Service Code”) and a software identifier (e.g., “a serial number
`
`for the software product”) as part of the identifying information. Id., [0039],
`
`[0052].4 “[T]he identification information should individually distinguish the
`
`
`4 This Board has previously found that “Demeyer describes using a software
`
`identifier and machine identifier in licensing schemes.” Ex parte Etchegoyen,
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`particular end user 160 or the particular copy of software product 110 such that the
`
`information can be used to determine if a particular software product 110 has
`
`already been registered.” Id., [0052]. The identification information may include
`
`“end user 160 identification, identification of the technology module 107, and a
`
`serial number for the software product 110 such as a CD key.” Id. The
`
`“identification of the technology module 107” may identify a software feature—
`
`such as “Dolby audio decoding” in a DVD playback program—that the user is
`
`licensed to use. Id., [0003]-[0004], [0041]-[0042].
`
`Next, the registration clearinghouse verifies that the identifying information
`
`relates to a technology module authorized for registration based on a license
`
`associated with the technology module. Id., [0053]-[0054]; see also [0068]-
`
`[0073]. The registration clearinghouse then “provides a relieving mechanism 130
`
`to software product 110, thereby enabling the previously protected technology
`
`modules 107 associated with the relieving mechanism 130.” Id., [0055]; see also
`
`[0056] (“the supplied relieving mechanism 130 is used to enable the technology
`
`module 107”). The “relieving mechanism 130” can be in the form of “key code
`
`131[,] automatically entered into software product 110,” or “the missing source
`
`
`Appeal 2014-001653, Decision on Appeal, at 4 (P.T.A.B. July 29, 2016) (Ex.
`
`1111).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`code 132[,] automatically supplied to enable the technology module 107.” Id.,
`
`[0056].
`
`Figure 5 below illustrates the authentication process, including the steps of
`
`the client device (“Computer System 100”) preparing and sending identifying
`
`information (Steps 307-308), the “Registration Clearinghouse 140” receiving and
`
`verifying identifying information (Step 309), and the “Registration Clearinghouse
`
`140” transmitting data to the client device to enable the relevant technology
`
`module (Steps 311-312). Id., Fig. 5, [0049]-[0056].
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`
`3.
`Reasons to Combine
`A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Richardson and
`
`Demeyer. Both references relate to remote authorization systems for software. Ex.
`
`1104, Abstract; Ex. 1105, Abstract, [0043], [0049]-[0056]. Both use multiple
`
`factors, including a software identifier and a machine identifier, to uniquely
`
`identify the client device. Ex. 1104, [0021]-[0022]; Ex. 1105, [0039], [0052]; Ex
`
`parte Etchegoyen, Appeal 2014-001653, Decision on Appeal, at 4 (P.T.A.B. July
`
`29, 2016) (Ex. 1111). And both are designed to work with similar client devices.
`
`Ex. 1104, [0019]; Ex. 1105, [0001]-[0004]. Given that Richardson and Demeyer
`
`are in a common field of endeavor and disclose similar software authorization
`
`systems, a POSITA would have recognized that Demeyer’s security features could
`
`be added to and would benefit Richardson’s system. Ex. 1103, ¶ 54. Thus, a
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Richardson and Demeyer
`
`because the resulting combination involves only the use of a known technique to
`
`improve a similar device with no unexpected results. Id.
`
`Further, a POSITA would have understood that collecting Demeyer’s
`
`“identification information” parameters was obvious-to-try or an obvious design
`
`choice. Richardson discloses the collection of parameters to generate a unique
`
`device identifier but is agnostic to the parameters used so long as the resulting
`
`device identifier is unique. See Ex. 1104, [0021]-[0022]; Ex. 1103, ¶ 55. Indeed,
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`Richardson discloses the interchangeability of the various parameters. See id. A
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious-to-try, and a matter of a simple design
`
`choice, to mix and match parameters relating to the device, the user, and the
`
`software and its features, as taught by Richardson and Demeyer, to generate the
`
`unique device identifier disclosed by Richardson. Ex. 1103, ¶ 55.
`
`In addition, a POSITA would have been motivated by the benefit of
`
`improved security to combine Richardson and Demeyer. Id., ¶ 56. Richardson and
`
`Demeyer both disclose utilizing device-, user-, and/or software-related data to
`
`authorize software use. Richardson discloses generating a unique device identifier
`
`based on collected machine parameters. Ex. 1104, [0021]-[0022], Fig. 2.
`
`Richardson further discloses that the machine parameters may include “system
`
`configuration information” that relates to the software used on the device. Id.
`
`Richardson also teaches that using additional parameters, such as “IP address
`
`and/or other geo-location code,” can “add another layer of specificity to the
`
`computing device’s unique identifier.” Id. Similarly, Demeyer discloses
`
`collecting “identification information [that] individually distinguish[es] the
`
`particular end user 160 or the particular copy of software product 110.” Ex. 1105,
`
`[0052]. The collected identification information includes “end user 160
`
`identification, identification of the technology module 107, and a serial number for
`
`the software product 110 such as a CD key.” Id. A POSITA would have
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`understood that increasing the number of parameters used for identification would
`
`beneficially “add another layer of specificity” to the unique device identifier. Ex.
`
`1103, ¶ 56; see also Ex. 1104, [0021]. A POSITA would also have understood that
`
`Richardson employed a non-exhaustive list of parameters and thus would be
`
`amenable to using additional parameters that would further increase the uniqueness
`
`of the identifier. Ex. 1103, ¶ 56; see also Ex. 1104, [0020]-[0021]. Thus, a
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate into Richardson the factors
`
`disclosed by Demeyer to increase the uniqueness of the identifier, allow for better
`
`differentiation of users, and lead to a more secure system. Ex. 1103, ¶ 56.
`
`Furthermore, a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Demeyer’s
`
`teaching of using source code to control functionality to the Richardson system.
`
`Id., ¶ 57. Richardson discloses using an “unlock key” to control certain
`
`functionality of a software program. Ex. 1104, [0030], [0035]. As an alternative
`
`to using a “key code” to control functionality, Demeyer discloses withholding
`
`“necessary source code” as a mechanism for “disallowing the execution of
`
`[certain] functionality” of a controlled program. Ex. 1105, [0049], [0056], [0072].
`
`A POSITA would have understood this to be a more secure way to control
`
`functionality because it is more difficult for an unauthorized user to obtain missing
`
`source code than to derive or obtain an unlock key. Ex. 1103, ¶ 57. Because
`
`Demeyer discloses using source code as an alternative to key codes, a POSITA
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`would have expected success from this combination. Id. Thus, a POSITA would
`
`have been motivated to incorporate into Richardson the use of “missing source
`
`code” as a mechanism to control functionality (as disclosed by Demeyer) to
`
`improve security. Id.
`
`4.
`Claim 18
`Petitioner addresses Claim 18 first because it is the broadest independent
`
`claim.
`
`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:”
`Richardson discloses a client device configured to execute a computer
`
`program. Ex. 1104, [0019] (“The copy controlled software is executed (step 41)
`
`on a computing device, also referred to as the client 40.”). The client devices can
`
`be “desktops, laptops, tablet computers, PDAs, mobile devices, mobile phones,
`
`vehicle onboard computers, or any network device capable of communication with
`
`a computer network.” Id.
`
`When executing “protected software,” the client device performs a remote
`
`update of program configuration by obtaining an “unlock key” from a remote
`
`authorization server. Id., [0020], [0023]-[0024], [0030], [0035]. This “unlock
`
`key” changes the program configuration on the client device by, for example,
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`enabling or disabling features (id., [0035]) or limiting operation of the program to a
`
`time period (id., [0030]).
`
` Demeyer also discloses a client device (“computer system 100”)
`
`configured to execute a computer program (“software product 110”). Ex. 1105,
`
`[0038]-[0039], [0048]. The “software product 110” includes certain “functionality
`
`modules” that are protected from execution. Id., [0048]-[0052], Fig. 4. When
`
`executing the “software product 110,” the client device may perform a remote
`
`update of program configuration by obtaining a “key code” or “missing source
`
`code” from a remote server (“Registration Clearinghouse 140”) to enable the
`
`protected functionality. Id., [0046], [0055], [0067], [0072].
`
`Thus, each of Richardson and Demeyer discloses the preamble of Claim 18.
`
`Ex. 1103, ¶¶ 43-46.
`
`b)
`
`Element [18a]: “the client device comprising: a
`processor;”
`Richardson discloses “a client-side system” that comprises “a processor
`
`module.” Ex. 1104, [0050]; see also [0019], [0022], Claim 22. Thus, Richardson
`
`discloses Element [18a]. Ex. 1103, ¶¶ 47-48.
`
`c)
`
`Element [18b]: “a memory coupled to the processor and
`storing the computer program which, when executed by
`the processor,”
`Richardson discloses “a client-side system” that comprises “a memory
`
`module operatively coupled to the processor module and comprising executable
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`code for” execution by the processor module. Ex. 1104, [0050]; see also [0021]-
`
`[0022], Claim 22. Thus, Richardson discloses Element [18b]. Ex. 1103, ¶¶ 49-50.
`
`d)
`
`Element [18b(i)]: “(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,”
`Richardson discloses that the processor of the client device executes a
`
`program to perform physical device recognition on the client device to determine
`
`“machine parameters of the computing device.” Ex. 1104, [0021]-[0022], Fig. 2
`
`(Step 45). Examples of the determined machine parameters include “hard disk
`
`serial number, MAC ID, RAM manufacturing date,” “CPU number,” “amount of
`
`memory, type of processor, software or operating system serial number,” and “the
`
`computing device’s IP address and/or other geo-location code.” Id. Richardson
`
`further discloses that “the process for generating a device identifier may include
`
`measuring physical, non-user-configurable characteristics of disk drives and solid
`
`state memory devices.” Id., [0021].
`
`The machine parameters determined by Richardson are identical or similar
`
`to those disclosed by the ’852 Patent. Ex. 1101, 7:62-65 (“the process for
`
`generating a device identifier may include measuring physical, non-user-
`
`configurable characteristics of disk drives and solid state memory devices”), 8:11-
`
`9:15 (“machine serial number,” “machine ROM release date,” “CPU ID,” and
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`“memory total”), 10:1-5 (“geo-location codes”). Because the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “physical device recognition” must encompass the examples
`
`provided in the ’852 Patent, Richardson discloses performing physical device
`
`recognition on the client device to determine machine parameters. Ex. 1103, ¶ 51.
`
`Richardson’s disclosed machine parameters include information relating to
`
`the device user’s location (e.g., “the computing device’s IP address and/or other
`
`geo-location code”) as well as information relating to the device’s software
`
`configuration (e.g., “the platform on which a web browser or another application
`
`runs,” “unique parameters associated with the firmware in use,” and “software or
`
`operating system serial number”). Ex. 1104, [0022]. A POSITA would have
`
`recognized that a user’s location is user-specific information that may be
`
`considered an example of “account information.” Ex. 1103, ¶ 52. A POSITA also
`
`would have recognized that data relating to the client device’s software
`
`configuration can contain information regarding features of software that the user
`
`of the client device is entitled to use. Id. At a minimum, Richardson discloses
`
`elements closely related to determining 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. Id. Moreover, these limitations are obvious in
`
`view of Demeyer. Id., ¶ 58.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,239,852
`First, Demeyer discloses the client device recognizing and gathering
`
`“identification information [that] should individually distinguish the particular end
`
`user 160 or the particular copy of software product 110.” Ex. 1105, [0052]. To
`
`identify the end user, the gathered “identification information” includes
`
`information regarding “end user 160 identification.” Id. Demeyer further
`
`discloses that the “registration clearinghouse 140” uses the end user’s
`
`identification information to track licensing information and/or purchase records
`
`relating to the user. Id., [0045], [0