`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: April 14, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Microsoft Corp. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–21 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,467,088 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’088 patent”). Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated
`below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of
`prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim. We, therefore,
`institute inter partes review.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following district court proceedings involving
`the ’088 patent: Uniloc USA, Inc. and UNILOC Luxembourg, S.A. v. Apple
`Inc., 1:18-cv-00296 (W.D. Tex.), filed April 9, 2018; Uniloc 2017 LLC v.
`Microsoft Corporation, 8:19-cv-00956 (C.D. Cal.), filed May 20, 2019; and
`Uniloc USA, Inc. and Apple Inc., 6:19-cv-00532 (W.D. Tex.), filed
`September 10, 2019. Pet. x; Prelim. Resp. 11−12; Paper 4, 2.
`In addition to this Petition, the ’088 patent was also challenged by a
`different party, Apple Inc., in IPR2019-00056 (“the Apple IPR”).
`
`B. The ’088 Patent
`The ’088 patent is directed to techniques for upgrading or
`
`reconfiguring software and/or hardware components in electronic devices.
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:6−9. The ’088 patent explains that prior art systems developed
`for updating components of electronic devices rely on a central computer
`system that tracks all software configurations for a number of remote
`systems. Id. at 1:31−36. These prior art systems updated software by the
`central computer transmitting patches to each of the remote systems. Id. at
`1:39−42; see also id. at 2:4−10 (explaining that a distributed system
`transmits patches to mobile units). Other known techniques for software
`update involve assuming that each desktop computer has a set of resources
`determined in accordance with a set of enterprise policies or a central server
`maintaining a master list that is used to keep files on a remote device
`updated to the latest version. Id. at 1:49−52, 1:60−65. According to the
`’088 patent, all of the above techniques fail to avoid potential conflicts and
`ensure compatibility because they do not account for interdependencies of
`the resources required by the desktops or the files resident in the remote
`devices. Id. at 1:41−45, 1:52−56, 1:65−2:3, 2:10−14.
`The ’088 patent solves the problem by providing a list or listing, that
`indicates “which of a set of software components supported by the manager
`10 are known to work well together or are otherwise compatible.” Id. at
`3:36−42. For instance, Figure 1 of the ’088 patent, reproduced below,
`illustrates reconfiguration manager 10 that includes a listing 16 of known
`configurations, and a repository 18 of software components. Id. at 3:27−29.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1, above, illustrates a reconfiguration manager 10 interacting
`with an electronic device 12, also referred to as “Device X.” Id. at 3:14−16.
`When reconfiguration manager 10 receives a request for an upgrade from
`Device X, the request indicates that the device wants to upgrade to version
`2.0 of software component A and includes a list of the components currently
`on the device, i.e., version 1.1 of component A, version 2.0 of component C,
`and version 2.3 of component B. Id. at 4:12−19. Reconfiguration manager
`10 processes the request, and if appropriate, delivers the requested version
`2.0 of software component A. Id. at 4:22−26. Processing the request
`involves generating a potential upgrade configuration that will satisfy the
`received request, and searching through a set of known “bad”
`configurations. Id. at 4:62−66. A known “bad” configuration is indicated in
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`Figure 1 as a dashed line between components that are not compatible. Id. at
`3:58−61. For example, the pair including version 1.8 of component A and
`version 1.0 of component C is an example of a known bad configuration. Id.
`at 3:61−63.
`If the upgrade configuration corresponds to a bad configuration, the
`reconfiguration manager attempts to find a set or sets of potential upgrade
`configurations from a set of known “good” configurations. Id. at 4:67−5:3.
`A known “good” configuration is indicated in Figure 1 by a solid line
`between a given pair of components indicating that the components work
`well together or are otherwise compatible. Id. at 3:52−55.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–21 of the ’088 patent.
`Pet. 2. The ’088 patent recites three independent claims: 1, 11, and 21.
`Challenged claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the recited subject
`matter:
`1. A processor-implemented method for controlling the
`reconfiguration of an electronic device, the method comprising
`the steps of:
`receiving information representative of a reconfiguration
`request relating to the electronic device;
`determining at least one device component required to
`implement the reconfiguration request;
`information
`comparing
`the determined component and
`specifying at least one additional component currently
`implemented in the electronic device with at least one of a
`list of known acceptable configurations for the electronic
`device and a list of known unacceptable configurations for
`the electronic device; and
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`generating information indicative of an approval or a denial of
`the reconfiguration request based at least in part on the result
`of the comparing step.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:43−59. We refer to the steps of claim 1 as the receiving step,
`the determining step, the comparing step, and the generating step,
`respectively.
`
`D. Asserted Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following references as prior art (Pet. 3):
`1) Apfel: U.S. Patent No. 5,974,454, filed as Exhibit 1004;
`2) Lillich: U.S. Patent No. 5,613,101, filed as Exhibit 1005;
`3) Todd: U.S. Patent No. 5,867,714, filed as Exhibit 1006; and
`4) Pedrizetti: U.S. Patent No. 6,151,708, filed as Exhibit 1007.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 3−4):
`
`Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`1–4, 6–14, 16–21
`§ 103
`9, 19
`§ 103
`1–3, 9–13, 19–21
`§ 103
`1, 3, 4, 6–11, 13,
`§ 103
`14, 16–21
`
`References
`Apfel, Lillich, Todd
`Apfel, Lillich, Todd, Pedrizetti
`Apfel, Lillich
`Apfel, Todd
`
`Petitioner further relies on the Declaration of John Villasenor to
`support its patentability challenge. Ex. 1003 (“Villasenor Declaration”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of invention of the ’088 patent “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a related subject, and one or
`more years of experience working with configuring hardware and software
`components in electronic devices” and that “[l]ess work experience may be
`compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and
`vice versa.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Villasenor Decl. ¶¶ 31−34). At this stage,
`Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA.”
`Prelim. Resp. 13. Given the lack of dispute, and for purposes of this
`decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the
`art, as it is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art
`of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`B. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent is construed
`using the same standard used in federal district court, including construing
`the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the
`claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution
`history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). The Petition
`addresses three claim terms/phrases. Pet. 18−25. Two of the proposed
`constructions (“list” and “known . . . for the electronic device”) are derived
`from our preliminary claim construction in the Decision Denying Institution
`in the Apple IPR. See Ex. 1012, 7−8. Patent Owner “requests that the
`Board adopt the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 15. None of
`Patent Owner’s arguments point out disagreement with Petitioner’s proposed
`constructions, and, upon review of those proposed constructions, at this
`juncture, we find them reasonable. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions as follows:
`“list”
`any stored representation of information
`indicative of component compatibility
`The term “known” means “previously
`determined” and the phrase “for the
`electronic device” does not require that the
`“list” of known acceptable and known
`unacceptable configurations be specific to
`the electronic device
`To be read in accordance with the plain
`meaning of the phrase, namely as
`conjunctive lists of their respective
`elements, i.e., “at least one of [a] and at
`least one of [b].”
`
`“known . . . for the
`electronic device”
`
`“at least one of”
`
`
`Further, on this record, we determine that no other claim terms require
`an express construction to resolve the issues presented by the patentability
`challenges. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms “that are in
`controversy” must be construed and “only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy”).
`
`C. Overview of the Prior Art
`Overview of Apfel
`1.
`Apfel is concerned with installing and updating a software program
`module component. Ex. 1004, Abstract. In particular, Apfel describes a
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`system for automatically updating a software program module component
`stored on a computer, as shown in Figure 3 reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 of Apfel (above) illustrates a system including computer 20,
`database server 80a, and package server 80b. Id. at 6:36−37. Computer 20
`sends query 100 on or after a predetermined date over the Internet to
`database server 80a. Id. at 6:39−40. Query 100 includes all of the
`information regarding computer 20 that the database server 80a needs to
`determine if an upgrade is available and, if an upgrade is available, to
`determine the location of the upgrade package. Id. at 6:49−53. After
`reviewing query 100, database server 80a returns response 105 over the
`Internet to computer 20. Id. at 6:54−55. If an upgrade is available, then
`database server 80a will send back response 105 that includes the URL of
`the upgrade package. Id. at 6:63−65. After computer 20 receives response
`105 including the URL of the upgrade package, computer 20 will send query
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`110 to package server 80b at the URL of the update package. Id. at 7:4−8.
`Package server 80b will send update package 115 to computer 20, and
`computer 20 will then install the update package 115. Id. at 7:8−10. The
`servers are responsible for assessing whether an upgrade is available and
`whether it should be downloaded based on the information sent by computer
`20. Id. at 7:13−16.
`
`Overview of Lillich
`2.
`Lillich is titled “Method and Apparatus for Determining at Execution
`Compatibility Among Client and Provider Components Where Provider
`Version Linked With Client May Differ From Provider Version Available at
`Execution.” Ex. 1005, code [54]. Lillich describes a method and apparatus
`for verifying compatibility between components of a system, which share a
`client-provider relationship. Id. at Abstract. Figure 1 of Lillich is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 of Lillich (above) is a symbolic, simplified block diagram of
`system 30. Id. at 5:28. As shown in Figure 1, system 30 may be hardware,
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`software, or a combination thereof, and includes client 32 and provider 34
`connected by connector 36 such that information from the client and
`provider can be compared. Id. at 6:7−10. A provider indicator, a current
`indicator of a provider, and a compatibility range are defined for each of a
`client and a provider. Id. at 4:5–7. A provider indicator identifies a
`particular type of provider. Id. at 4:7–8. A current indicator of a provider
`specifies the version of the provider. Id. at 4:8–9. When a client is linked
`with a version of a provider, the current indicator of that provider is stored in
`the executable client produced, thereby identifying the version of the
`provider, referred to as a “definition provider,” used to build the client. Id.
`at 4:9–13. Lillich describes that the compatibility range for the client
`identifies the range of versions of the provider, which can be used to execute
`the client, i.e., which have an implementation which is compatible with the
`definitions supplied by the definition provider. Id. at 4:13–16. The
`compatibility range for the client specifies the oldest version of the provider
`that can be used to execute the client. Id. at 4:17–19. The compatibility
`range for the provider identifies the range of versions of the provider that
`could be used to build a client capable of operating with the current version
`of the provider. Id. at 4:19–22. The compatibility range for the provider
`specifies the oldest version of the provider that could have been used to
`build a compatible client. Id. at 4:22–25. The versions within each of the
`two compatibility ranges are older than or equal in age to the current
`version. Id. at 4:25–27. Lillich defines an “implementation provider” as
`“the provider which will be used to execute the client.” Id. at 4:28–31.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`Lillich further describes a connector for connecting, at runtime, the
`client to the implementation provider to determine compatibility between the
`client and the implementation provider. Id. at 4:28–32. Compatibility
`checks are performed between a client and available versions of the
`provider(s), implementation providers, with which it has been linked. Id. at
`4:32–35.
`
`Overview of Todd
`3.
`Todd is titled “System and Method for Distributing Configuration-
`Dependent Software Revisions to a Computer System.” Ex. 1006, code
`[54]. Todd describes a system for detecting and avoiding faults stemming
`from conflicts in hardware and/or software configurations in a computer
`system. Id. at Abstract. Figure 1 of Todd is reproduced below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Todd (above) is a block diagram of system 100. Id. at
`5:28. As shown in Figure 1, system 100 comprises computer system 110
`and remote data source 130. Computer system 110 comprises memory
`device 112 to store current configuration data pertaining to the hardware and
`software configuration of the computer system 110. Id. at 6:7–9. Computer
`system 110 also comprises processing circuitry 114, nonvolatile memory
`116, and communications circuitry 118. Id. at 5:66–6:41. Computer system
`110 also comprises configuration detection circuitry 120 responsible for
`obtaining data pertaining to at least a portion of the current hardware and
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`software configuration of the computer system 110. Id. at 6:42–46. Todd
`describes that the configuration detection circuitry 120 may be as simple as a
`software program, executable within the computer system 110, for querying
`the user as to the current hardware and software configuration. Id. at 6:46–
`49. However, Todd describes that configuration detection circuitry 120
`determines the hardware and software configuration automatically, by
`polling hardware components and cataloging software components to create
`a list of current configuration data setting forth the components that
`comprise the computer system 110. Id. at 6:50–55. As shown in Figure 1 of
`Todd, remote data source 130 contains a database of software revisions that
`may be communicated to computer system 110 as a function of the current
`configuration data transmitted from computer system 110 to remote data
`source 130 and diagnostic and analytic processes within the remote data
`source 130 that analyze the current configuration data to identify conflicts.
`Id. at 12:1–8.
`
`D. Obviousness Ground Based on Apfel, Lillich, and Todd
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–21 would have been
`obvious over the combined teachings of Apfel, Lillich, and Todd.
`Pet. 26−64. Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s assertions by arguing,
`inter alia, that “there exists no motivation within Apfel to be combined with
`either the teachings of Lillich or Todd.” Prelim. Resp. 20.
`Analysis
`1.
`Petitioner contends that Apfel teaches or suggests all the limitations of
`the independent claims, including the comparing step. See Pet. 41−42,
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`45−46 (arguing that Apfel inherently describes or implicitly teaches the
`comparing step with regard to the known acceptable configurations, and that
`Apfel shows obviousness with regard to the known unacceptable
`configurations). Petitioner further argues that Lillich teaches the comparing
`step with regard to the known acceptable configurations (id. at 42−45), and
`that Todd teaches the comparing step with regard to the known unacceptable
`configurations (id. at 46−48). As for motivation to combine these
`references, Petitioner’s arguments can be summarized as follows:
`Apfel and Lillich
`a. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Apfel
`and Lillich because a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`recognize the benefit of ensuring that a requested update will
`not render the system inaccurate or inoperative. Pet. 27−28.
`b. Further, it would have been obvious to modify Apfel’s database
`lookup to include the Lillich evaluation of the version numbers
`of the components in Apfel (such as the Web Authoring
`Components program module, the HTML converter, and the
`word processor program module) “to determine whether they
`are within an appropriate range to ensure compatibility between
`and among those components and any requested update or
`combination of updates to one or more of these component
`versions.” Id. at 44−45 (arguing also that the combination
`would have been nothing more than the application of a well-
`known known technique for determining compatibility as
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`evidenced by Apfel’s desire to perform a lookup for available
`upgrades that should be downloaded).
`Apfel and Todd
`a. It would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of
`Todd into Apfel because the combination provides a person of
`ordinary skill in the art with information about methods to
`perform network-based updates in a manner that ensures
`compatibility. Id. at 29−30.
`b. It would have been obvious to modify Apfel’s server
`assessment using Todd’s described conflict determination so
`that program updates that would result in known conflicts
`would not be downloaded. Id. at 48 (arguing also that Todd’s
`technique is one of a limited number of solutions for
`determining incompatibility).
`Apfel, Lillich and Todd
`a. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
`combining the affirmative approach emphasized in Lillich
`(verifying compatibility) with the safeguards presented in Todd
`(identifying conflicts) would result in an improved system as
`compared with an approach that performed only one of these
`checks. Id. at 30.
`b. The methods described in Lillich and Todd comprise well-
`known techniques that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
`have combined with Apfel’s database lookup without undue
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`experimentation, and with a reasonable likelihood of success.
`Id. at 31.
`With regard to Petitioner’s contentions that Apfel alone renders
`obvious the challenged independent claims, at this juncture, we find
`reasonable Petitioner’s arguments, which appear to be factually supported by
`the current record. As the Petition sets forth, regarding the recited receiving
`step, Apfel’s database server receives from a computer a request to update
`the Web Authoring Components program module of Word 8.0 (id. at
`35−37), and, regarding the recited determining step, Apfel performs a
`database lookup to determine if an upgrade package is available (id. at
`37−38). Apfel’s request for the update is an HTTP query that includes the
`information Apfel uses to make the determination: the version of the Web
`Authoring Components program module to be upgraded, the version of an
`HTML converter in the word processor program module, the version of the
`word processor program module, the localization language, and the type of
`operating system on the computer. See id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:39−46,
`8:53−66).
`As to the comparing step, Apfel also discloses that the database stores
`the upgrade package information and the corresponding configurations that
`should be downloaded, and that different update packages are available for
`different version combinations, different operating systems, and different
`languages. Ex. 1004, 9:36−40. Therefore, at this juncture, it seems
`reasonable, as Petitioner argues, that Apfel’s database lookup performs a
`comparison of the information in the HTTP query with the information
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`stored in the database, which, Petitioner argues, inherently discloses the list
`of known acceptable configurations for the electronic device. See Pet. 42. It
`further seems reasonable, as Petitioner argues, that, because Apfel denies the
`upgrade “if the upgrade is somehow incompatible with computer 20,” it
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Apfel’s
`database lookup (i.e., comparison) determines the incompatibility by using
`information previously received about configurations that are not
`compatible. See Pet. 45−46. After the determination whether to allow or
`deny the upgrade, regarding the recited generating step, Apfel sends an
`UPDATE message if the upgrade is available or sends a NOUPDATE
`message if the upgrade is denied. See id. at 49−50.
`As for Petitioner’s additional obviousness contention that the
`combination of Apfel, Lillich, and Todd teaches the comparing step, we also
`find that, on the present record, Petitioner’s arguments are factually
`supported and have merit. In particular, Petitioner asserts that Lillich
`teaches the comparison with “known acceptable configurations” because
`Lillich uses a compatibility range that allows it to assess whether the
`configuration of the provider software is compatible with the client software.
`Pet. 42−45 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:41−44, 3:66−4:27; Villasenor Decl.
`¶¶ 86−89). Todd, according to Petitioner, teaches the comparison with
`“known unacceptable configurations” because Todd, like Apfel, uses a
`database to identify incompatibility of conflicts between configurations. Id.
`at 46−48 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:15−30, 3:43−51, 3:55−59, 5:8−13, 12:9−15,
`14:17−20; Villasenor Decl. ¶¶ 92−95). As for reasons to combine, as stated
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`above, Petitioner explains why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have combined Apfel with the teachings of either Lillich or Todd. Petitioner
`also presents reasons to combine Apfel with both Lillich and Todd.
`Petitioner’s proffered rationales appear reasonable at this stage of the
`proceeding.
`Patent Owner challenges the reasons to combine. We address each of
`Patent Owner’s challenges in turn.
`Arguments Targeting Apfel’s Teachings
`First, Patent Owner argues that Apfel’s upgrade requests are fulfilled
`without regard to compatibility issues, and, therefore, there is no reason to
`attribute to Apfel the desire to perform a software upgrade based on
`compatibility. Prelim. Resp. 17−20. That is, Patent Owner argues, there
`exists no motivation within Apfel to combine its teachings with those of
`either Lillich or Todd. Id. at 20. We are not persuaded by this argument.
`As Petitioner notes, Apfel determines, for each configuration of the
`computer, which upgrade package to allow (Pet. 41–42)1 and Apfel
`evaluates whether, even if an upgrade is available, the upgrade “is somehow
`incompatible” with the computer and should not be downloaded (Pet.
`45−46).2 Thus, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Apfel is concerned with
`basing its determination whether to allow a software upgrade based on
`compatibility of two types: whether the software component is compatible
`
`1 The Petition cites Exhibit 1004 (6:65−67, 9:30−42) and Villasenor
`Declaration (¶¶ 83−85).
`2 The Petition cites Exhibit 1004 (7:13−19) and Villasenor Declaration
`(¶¶ 90, 91).
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`with the computer’s configuration or whether the software component is
`incompatible with the computer’s configuration. Accordingly, Patent
`Owner’s argument regarding Apfel’s teachings as lacking disclosure of
`compatibility is unpersuasive.
`Second, Patent Owner argues that Apfel should be construed to teach
`that the user or administrator, who has general knowledge about
`incompatibility, would perform “a manual action,” rather than the system
`determining the upgrade compatibility. Prelim. Resp. 19. This argument is
`unpersuasive. The passages in which Apfel describes the determination
`regarding whether the software is compatible with the computer refer to the
`actions performed by Apfel’s server, not an administrator. Ex. 1004,
`7:11−19. We do not see Apfel, nor does Patent Owner point to any
`persuasive disclosure in the reference, as teaching a manual action of any
`kind.
`Arguments Targeting Lillich’s Teachings
`Patent Owner argues that Lillich’s compatibility-verification
`technique “is only applicable to a client program component and a provider
`program component when executed locally on the memory of one
`computer.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Patent Owner also argues that the request for
`a software upgrade would not work as the claims require because the
`“compatibility could only be verified after the client program component is
`downloaded in response to the request, and executed locally on the host
`computer.” Id. at 23. According to Patent Owner, “combining a request for
`a software upgrade as taught by Apfel would destroy the functionality of the
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`compatibility verification technique as taught by Lillich.” Id. We are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.
`The asserted combination of teachings, as we understand the Petition,
`involves modifying Apfel’s database lookup to include the comparison of
`Lillich’s version numbers for the various components that Apfel utilizes to
`determine compatibility. Pet. 44−45. Thus, the combination relies on
`Apfel’s server utilizing Lillich’s compatibility-check technique. In other
`words, the comparison using Lillich’s technique occurs at Apfel’s server.
`Therefore, it is irrelevant, for purpose of the asserted combination, that
`Lillich teaches performing its technique at a local computer.
`Further, because the relevant Lillich teaching is that of the
`compatibility check, it is also unpersuasive to argue that Lillich’s programs
`are already downloaded and executed. Apfel provides the teachings of the
`servers receiving the upgrade requests, checking the compatibility, and
`servicing the request. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 7:13–16. We see no evidence in
`the record that Apfel would not work as intended or be incompatible with
`Lillich’s compatibility-check technique. Patent Owner’s arguments to the
`contrary focus on aspects of Lillich that are not part of the asserted
`combination. Nor has Patent Owner supported any of its arguments with
`facts tending to show that the teachings of Lillich could not be combined
`with Apfel’s teachings, as Petitioner asserts.
`Arguments Targeting Todd’s Teachings
`Patent Owner argues that Todd’s conflict check occurs after the
`computer has been reconfigured, contrary to the recited order of steps.
`Prelim. Resp. 28−29. Patent Owner contends that, “even if the software
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`upgrade request of Apfel was to be incorporated into the teachings of Todd,
`the resulting combination could not arrive at the recitations of Claims 1, 11,
`and 21.” Id. at 29. The argument is not persuasive.
`As with the arguments addressed above, Patent Owner focuses on a
`combination of teachings that Petitioner did not make. Petitioner relies on
`Apfel’s server receiving the upgrade requests, checking the compatibility,
`and servicing the request. Todd is merely supplying the teaching of how to
`perform a conflict check, which Apfel’s server would perform. Patent
`Owner’s arguments characterize Petitioner’s asserted combination
`backward: incorporating Apfel into Todd. The Petition clearly states the
`obviousness contention differently than argued by Patent Owner: “it would
`have been obvious to modify Apfel’s server assessment using stored
`information regarding incompatible configurations . . . regarding known
`conflicts . . . , as described in Todd.” Pet. 48. It is irrelevant when Todd
`performs the conflict check. The timing is regulated by Apfel’s server,
`which, according to Petitioner’s contention, would perform the conflict
`check during Apfel’s database lookup—not after the software upgrade is
`installed, as Patent Owner seems to argue.
`Finally we address Patent Owner’s argument that the combination of
`teachings of Lillich and Todd would render the resulting combination
`inoperable for its intended purpose. Prelim. Resp. 29−31. Patent Owner
`combines the various arguments made above with regard to Lillich
`performing the compatibility check locally with the argument that Todd is a
`network-based system. Id. According to Patent Owner, because Todd’s
`technique is applied on a network-based system, it would not function with
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`the Lillich local-based technique. Id. We are not persuaded by this
`argument for the same reasons as stated above. The Apfel server would be
`performing the relevant techniques taught by Lillich and Todd. The
`disclosure of Lillich being a local check and Todd’s being network-based
`say little to nothing about whether these techniques fail to be combinable
`with Apfel’s database lookup process. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments
`presume an incorporation of either Lillich’s technique into Todd’s system or
`vice-versa. Id. at 30−31 (arguing incompatibility of combining the system
`of Todd with that of Lillich). These arguments do not respond to the
`asserted combination of teachings, which involve Apfel’s database lookup as
`the base teaching, and, instead focus on the bodily incorporation of features
`of the secondary references that are not at-issue.
`In conclusion, on the present record, we do not find any of Patent
`Owner’s arguments persuasive to show fault with Petitioner’s asserted
`reasons to combine. Having considered Patent Owner’s arguments in light
`of Petitioner’s contentions and supported evidence of record, we are
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on its assertion that claims 1, 11, and 21 would