`
`DOCKET NO.: 337722-000122
`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By: Larissa S. Bifano, Reg. No. 59,051
`
`James M. Heintz, Reg. No. 41,828
`
`Michael Van Handel, Reg. No. 68,292
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1447
`Email: Larissa.Bifano@dlapiper.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2019-00056
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,467,088
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-21
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES .......................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ......................................................................... 1
`
`Related Matters .................................................................................. 2
`
`Counsel .............................................................................................. 2
`
`Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery, and Postal ..................... 2
`
`III.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................ 2
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ......................................... 3
`
`Grounds for Challenge ....................................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’088 PATENT ......................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Alleged Invention .................................................... 4
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 7
`
`Prosecution History............................................................................ 8
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`“list” .................................................................................................. 9
`
`VII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`Ground I: Claims 1-21 are obvious in view of Cole, MacInnis,
`and Elgressy..................................................................................... 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Overview of Cole ................................................................... 10
`
`Claims 1, 11, and 21 are obvious in view of Cole,
`MacInnis, and Elgressy .......................................................... 13
`
`Claims 2 and 12 are obvious in view of Cole, MacInnis,
`and Elgressy........................................................................... 31
`
`Claims 3 and 13 are obvious in view of Cole, MacInnis,
`and Elgressy........................................................................... 32
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Claims 4 and 14 are obvious in view of Cole, MacInnis,
`and Elgressy........................................................................... 33
`
`Claims 5 and 15 are obvious in view of Cole, MacInnis,
`and Elgressy........................................................................... 34
`
`Claims 6 and 16 are obvious in view of Cole, MacInnis,
`and Elgressy........................................................................... 36
`
`Claims 7 and 17 are obvious in view of Cole, MacInnis,
`and Elgressy........................................................................... 38
`
`Claims 8 and 18 are obvious in view of Cole, MacInnis,
`and Elgressy........................................................................... 39
`
`Claims 9 and 19 are obvious in view of Cole, MacInnis,
`and Elgressy........................................................................... 39
`
`Claims 10 and 20 are obvious in view of Cole, MacInnis,
`and Elgressy........................................................................... 41
`
`B.
`
`Ground II: Claims 1-21 are unpatentable as being obvious in
`view of Pitzel, Cole, and Elgressy .................................................... 42
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Overview of Pitzel ................................................................. 42
`
`Claims 1, 11, and 21 are obvious in view of Pitzel, Cole,
`and Elgressy........................................................................... 44
`
`Claims 2 and 12 are obvious in view of Pitzel, Cole, and
`Elgressy ................................................................................. 59
`
`Claims 3 and 13 are obvious in view of Pitzel, Cole, and
`Elgressy ................................................................................. 60
`
`Claims 4 and 14 are obvious in view of Pitzel, Cole, and
`Elgressy ................................................................................. 61
`
`Claims 5 and 15 are obvious in view of Pitzel, Cole, and
`Elgressy ................................................................................. 63
`
`Claims 6 and 16 are obvious in view of Pitzel, Cole, and
`Elgressy ................................................................................. 65
`
`Claims 7 and 17 are obvious in view of Pitzel, Cole, and
`Elgressy ................................................................................. 66
`
`Claims 8 and 18 are obvious in view of Pitzel, Cole, and
`Elgressy ................................................................................. 66
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Claims 9 and 19 are obvious in view of Pitzel, Cole, and
`Elgressy ................................................................................. 67
`
`Claims 10 and 20 are obvious in view of Pitzel, Cole, and
`Elgressy ................................................................................. 67
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 69
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 76
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) respectfully submits this Petition for
`
`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent 6,467,088 (“’088 patent” or
`
`“’088”) (EX1001). The ’088 patent describes a technique for controlling the
`
`reconfiguration of a device in response to a reconfiguration request. See, e.g., ’088
`
`patent, Abstract (EX1001). The technique includes comparing a component
`
`required to implement the reconfiguration request and information specifying an
`
`additional component currently implemented in the device with a list of known
`
`acceptable or unacceptable configurations for the device, and then generating
`
`information indicative of an approval or denial of the reconfiguration request based
`
`on the result of the comparison. See, e.g., ’088 patent, claim 1 (EX1001). These
`
`concepts were well-known long before the ’088 patent was filed, and there was
`
`nothing inventive about the concepts at that time.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Apple certifies that Apple is the real
`
`party-in-interest, and further certifies that no other party exercised control or could
`
`exercise control over the filing of this petition or Apple’s participation in any
`
`proceeding instituted on this petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 5 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`According to assignment records at the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office, the ’088 patent (EX1001) is currently owned by Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`(“Uniloc”). The ’088 patent was asserted against Apple by Uniloc Luxembourg
`
`S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. in Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 1:18-cv-00296
`
`(WDTX). That case was filed on April 9, 2018, and was voluntarily dismissed
`
`without prejudice on July 19, 2018.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: Larissa S. Bifano (Reg. No. 59,051)
`
`Backup Counsel: James M. Heintz (Reg. No. 41,828)
`
`Backup Counsel: Michael Van Handel (Reg. No. 68,292)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery, and Postal
`
`Apple consents to electronic service at Apple-Uniloc-IPR@dlapiper.com.
`
`Petitioner can be reached at DLA Piper LLP (US), 33 Arch Street, 26th Floor,
`
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110 and 617-406-6000, Fax: 617-406-6100.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`2
`
`Page 6 of 76
`
`

`

`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-21 of the ’088 patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:1
`
`
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 5,752,042 (filed June 7, 1996; published May 12, 1998)
`
`(“Cole” (EX1002)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`2. PCT Application Publication No. WO 97/30549 (published August 21,
`
`1997) (“MacInnis” (EX1003)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 6,449,723 (filed October 30, 1998; published September
`
`10, 2002) (“Elgressy” (EX1004)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 7,062,765 (filed May 25, 1999; published June 13, 2006)
`
`(“Pitzel” (EX1005)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`1 The ’088 patent issued from an application filed prior to enactment of the
`
`America Invents Act (“AIA”). Accordingly, pre-AIA statutory framework applies.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 7 of 76
`
`

`

`B. Grounds for Challenge
`
`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`
`
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Charles Knutson
`
`(“Knutson Declaration” or “Knutson”) (EX1006), requests cancellation of claims
`
`1-21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`The grounds for challenge based on the foregoing prior art references
`
`include the following:
`
`
`
`Grounds References
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`1.
`
`§103
`
`Cole in view of MacInnis and Elgressy
`
`1-21
`
`2.
`
`§103
`
`Pitzel in view of Cole and Elgressy
`
`1-21
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’088 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Alleged Invention
`
`The ’088 patent relates to controlling the reconfiguration of an electronic
`
`device. ’088 patent, Abstract (EX1001). The patent acknowledges that, prior to its
`
`filing date, a number of techniques existed for updating device components. Id.,
`
`1:31-2:14 (EX1001). But according to the patent, these existing techniques failed
`
`to account for interdependencies between computer software and/or hardware
`
`resources.2 The patent asserts that, as a result of these deficiencies, “a need exists
`
`
`2 Id., 1:41-45 (“technique … cannot efficiently handle … hardware and software
`
`interdependencies”), 1:52-59, 1:65-2:3, 2:10-14 (EX1001).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 8 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`for improved techniques for managing reconfiguration of electronic devices, such
`
`that compatibility determinations can be facilitated.” Id., 2:15-19 (EX1001).
`
`Knutson ¶ 31 (EX1006).
`
`Figure 3 of the ’088 patent, reproduced below, illustrates an example system
`
`for reconfiguring an electronic device. ’088 patent, 3:8-10 (EX1001). The system
`
`includes a reconfiguration manager (outlined in red), a network (outlined in blue),
`
`and an electronic device (outlined in green). Id., 3:8-10, 5:41-54 (EX1001).
`
`’088 patent, FIG. 3 (EX1001) (Annotated).
`
`5
`
`Page 9 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`The electronic device includes a number of software and/or hardware components.
`
`’088 patent, 2:59-64, 3:20-24, 6:30-35 (EX1001). The reconfiguration manager
`
`includes a list of known configurations, which “indicat[e] which of a set of
`
`software components … are known to work well together or are otherwise
`
`compatible.” Id., 3:39-42 (EX1001). This “list” can be “any stored representation
`
`of information indicative of component compatibility.” Id., 4:6-8 (EX1001). For
`
`example, the list can be implemented in a graphical form, “as a stored table, set of
`
`tables, or other type of list in a memory of the reconfiguration manager …, as a
`
`po[r]tion of a program executed by the reconfiguration manager …, or in any other
`
`suitable format.” Id., 3:64-4:2 (EX1001). Knutson ¶ 32 (EX1006).
`
`
`
`The ’088 patent provides an example of an electronic device that stores
`
`“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.” ’088 patent, 3:20-25 (EX1001).
`
`Using this example, the patent describes how the reconfiguration manager can
`
`receive a request indicating that the device “wants to upgrade … to include version
`
`2.0 of software component A.” Id., 4:12-15 (EX1001). The request can include a
`
`list of components already on the device. Id., 4:15-19 (EX1001). Knutson ¶ 33
`
`(EX1006).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 10 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`The reconfiguration manager then processes the request, and determines
`
`
`
`whether the requested upgrade is compatible with other components of the device.
`
`’088 patent, 4:27-31 (EX1001). Using the above example, the reconfiguration
`
`manager determines whether the “requested upgrade, in this case version 2.0 of
`
`component A, is compatible with other components of [the] device … i.e., version
`
`2.3 of component B and version 2.0 of component C.” Id., 4:28-32 (EX1001).
`
`Depending on the result of this determination, the upgrade request is either
`
`approved as compatible with the current configuration of the device, or denied as
`
`incompatible with the current configuration of the device. Id., 5:4-29 (EX1001).
`
`If compatible, the requested upgrade is delivered from the reconfiguration manager
`
`to the device as part of the response. Id., 4:33-37 (EX1001). Knutson ¶ 34
`
`(EX1006).
`
`
`
`As the cited prior art demonstrates, at the time of the alleged invention, the
`
`problems associated with upgrade compatibility were well-known, and multiple
`
`solutions to these problems had been developed. Knutson ¶ 35 (EX1006). As the
`
`discussion below demonstrates, the purported invention of the ’088 patent provided
`
`nothing new, and only rehashed known techniques for upgrading devices. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A POSA for the ’088 patent would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in
`
`computer science, computer engineering, or a related subject or the equivalent, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 11 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`two years of experience working with databases, computer networks, and related
`
`technologies. Knutson ¶ 37 (EX1006).
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’088 patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 09/343,607 (“’607
`
`application”) on June 30, 1999. During prosecution, the Patent Office initially
`
`issued an Office Action that rejected all 21 claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,301,707 to Carroll et al. (“Carroll”).
`
`File History (“FH”) of ’607 application, Office Action of 02/14/2002, 2-5
`
`(EX1007).
`
`In response, the applicant argued that Carroll failed to teach “(1) receiving
`
`information representative of a reconfiguration request relating to the electronic
`
`device and (2) 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 configurations for the electronic device
`
`and a list of known unacceptable configurations for the electronic device.” FH of
`
`’607 application, Response of May 7, 2002, 3 (EX1008).
`
`The Patent Office then issued a Notice of Allowance. FH of ’607
`
`application, Notice of Allowance of 07/29/2002 (EX1009). The Examiner agreed
`
`with the applicant that Carroll “does not teach or suggest comparing an additional
`
`component with one of the list[s] in response to a request.” See id. The Examiner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 12 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`stated that, for this reason, “the claims are allowable over the art of record.” See
`
`id. As further described herein, the element the Examiner found to be allowable
`
`(“comparing an additional component with one of the list[s] in response to a
`
`request”) was well-known at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`At the time of the filing of this Petition, claim terms of an unexpired patent
`
`in inter partes review are given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016). However, if inter partes review of the ’088 patent is
`
`instituted, the patent is likely to expire before a Final Written Decision is issued in
`
`the proceeding. Claim terms of an expired patent in inter partes review are
`
`construed in accordance with the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The construction proposed for the
`
`term below should be applied regardless of whether the term is interpreted under
`
`the Phillips standard or the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard.
`
`A.
`
`“list”
`
`The term “list” is defined by the ’088 patent as, and should be interpreted to
`
`include, “any stored representation of information indicative of component
`
`compatibility.” Knutson ¶ 46 (EX1006). The ’088 patent explicitly states that
`
`“[t]he term ‘list’ as used herein is [] intended to include any stored representation
`
`9
`
`Page 13 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`of information indicative of component compatibility.” ’088 patent, 4:6-8
`
`(EX1001). The patent further states that a list can be implemented “in graphical
`
`form,” “as a stored table,” as a “set of tables,” as an “other type of list,” as a
`
`“po[r]tion of a program,” or in “any other suitable format.” Id., 3:64-4:2
`
`(EX1001). A list can indicate “pair-wise compatibility among components” or can
`
`“include information indicative of compatibility between groups of multiple
`
`components.” Id., 4:2-6 (EX1001). Knutson ¶ 46 (EX1006).
`
`VII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the following sections (as confirmed in
`
`Knutson ¶¶ 47-218 (EX1006)) detail the grounds of unpatentability, the limitations
`
`of the challenged claims of the ’088 patent, and how these claims were therefore
`
`obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`Ground I: Claims 1-21 are obvious in view of Cole, MacInnis, and
`A.
`Elgressy
`
`Cole, MacInnis, and Elgressy were not considered during prosecution, but
`
`are highly relevant to the claims of the ’088 patent.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Cole
`
`Cole discloses a system that “selects code updates to download to a client
`
`computer.” Cole, Abstract (EX1002). As shown in the figure below, the system
`
`includes a selection server (outlined in red), a client (outlined in green), and a
`
`10
`
`Page 14 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`network (i.e., Internet) between the selection server and the client. Id., 2:15-19,
`
`2:32-38 (EX1002).
`
`Cole, FIG. 2 (EX1002) (annotated).
`
`
`
`The selection server “automat[es] selection of code updates” for downloading to
`
`the client. Cole, Abstract, 2:52-56 (EX1002). A database in the selection server
`
`stores metadata identifying system characteristics required for each of the code
`
`updates. Cole, 2:57-59, 3:56-4:47, FIG. 2 (EX1002). This metadata is used to
`
`identify which code updates are potentially appropriate for which configurations of
`
`a client. Id., 3:56-4:47, FIGs. 3(a), 3(b) (EX1002). Knutson ¶ 49 (EX1006).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 15 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`After a user “selects an icon” on the client to invoke an update manager
`
`(Cole, 3:9-16 (EX1002)), the client sends basic system information about the
`
`client, such as the “system model, pre-load software level, BIOS level, and … type
`
`of operating system” to the selection server (Cole, 3:45-55 (EX1002)). The
`
`selection server then determines which code updates are potentially appropriate for
`
`the client and which code updates are inappropriate for the client by correlating the
`
`metadata in the selection server’s database to the basic system information
`
`obtained from the client, where matches “indicate that the corresponding code
`
`updates are potentially appropriate for [the] client.” Id., 3:56-4:45 (EX1002). If a
`
`code update’s system requirements do not match the client’s basic system
`
`information, the code update is eliminated from further consideration. Id., 4:30-34,
`
`4:41-45 (EX1002). If a code update’s system requirements do match the client’s
`
`basic system information, the selection server sends the client “FTP addressing
`
`information of a corresponding recognizer program” and the client downloads the
`
`recognizer program. Id., 4:25-30, 4:35-41, 4:45-47 (EX1002). This recognizer
`
`program then “further investigates the hardware, software and other components of
`
`the client” to further “determin[e] whether the corresponding code update is
`
`appropriate for the client.” Id., 5:2-6 (EX1002). If it is, the client can “download[]
`
`12
`
`Page 16 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`the code update[] from the content server.” Id., 6:27-30 (EX1002). Knutson ¶ 50
`
`(EX1006).
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1, 11, and 21 are obvious in view of Cole, MacInnis, and Elgressy
`
`Claims 1, 11 - “[[a] processor-implemented method]/[[a]n apparatus]]3 for
`a)
`controlling the reconfiguration of an electronic device”
`
`Claim 21 - “[a]n article of manufacture comprising a machine-readable
`
`medium containing one or more software programs”
`
`
`Cole discloses a selection server that “selects code updates to download to a
`
`client computer.” Cole, Abstract (EX1002). The selection server can include a
`
`“computer workstation, associated programming and a modem.” Id., 2:38-40
`
`(EX1002). The selection server also includes a “‘CGI’ program,” an “update
`
`selection program,” and a “database.” Id., 3:7-9, 3:56-4:25, FIG. 2 (EX1002). The
`
`selection server is therefore an apparatus, and includes a processor that executes a
`
`
`3 Several claims of the ’088 patent contain nearly identical limitations. Petitioner
`
`addresses these limitations together. Where headings correspond to multiple
`
`claims, Petitioner represents any differences between the language of the claims in
`
`brackets. Where substantive differences exist in the language of the claims, those
`
`substantive differences are addressed in detail in the section corresponding to the
`
`heading.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 17 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`software program stored in memory to implement a method. Knutson ¶ 55
`
`(EX1006).
`
`The selection server identifies code updates which are appropriate for the
`
`client given the client’s basic system information, and provides the client with
`
`addresses of these code updates so they can be downloaded. See Cole, 1:45-65,
`
`3:47-4:45 (EX1002). The selection server also removes code updates that are
`
`inappropriate for the client from further consideration. See id., 3:56-62, 4:30-34
`
`(EX1002). Knutson ¶ 56 (EX1006).
`
`In facilitating the installation of appropriate code updates on the client
`
`(“electronic device”), while preventing the installation of inappropriate code
`
`updates, the selection server “control[s] the reconfiguration of an electronic
`
`device.” Knutson ¶¶ 54, 57 (EX1006).
`
`“receiv[[ing]/[e]] information representative of a reconfiguration request
`b)
`relating to [[the]/[an]] electronic device”
`
`
`
`After a user selects an icon on the client to invoke an update manager, “the
`
`update manager [on the client] contacts [] general manager 31 [on the selection
`
`server] to begin a session” for selecting and downloading updates. Cole, 3:12-18
`
`(EX1002). Because this contact initiates a session to update the client, the contact
`
`is “information representative of a reconfiguration request relating to the electronic
`
`device.” Knutson ¶ 59 (EX1006).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 18 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`In addition to contacting the selection server, the update manager sends
`
`
`
`information about versions of applications already on the client, such as the update
`
`manager, a scout, a service application, and a download routine. Cole, 3:14-20
`
`(EX1002). Because this information is sent in response to the user having invoked
`
`the update manager, this information is also “information representative of a
`
`reconfiguration request relating to the electronic device.” Knutson ¶ 60 (EX1006).
`
`
`
`A recognizer program is then downloaded and run on the client to obtain
`
`basic system information, such as the client’s “system model, pre-load software
`
`level, BIOS level, and … type of operating system.” Cole, 3:45-50 (EX1002).
`
`The client sends the basic system information to the selection server, which
`
`“initiates the selection update program” at the selection server to determine which
`
`code updates are potentially appropriate for the client and which code updates are
`
`inappropriate for the client. Id., 3:52-4:45 (EX1002). Since the basic system
`
`information is used to identify code updates that are potentially appropriate for the
`
`client, the basic system information is also “information representative of a
`
`reconfiguration request relating to the electronic device.” Knutson ¶ 61 (EX1006).
`
`
`
`In sum, Cole discloses that the client (i) contacts the selection server, (ii)
`
`sends information about versions of applications already on the client to the
`
`selection server, and (iii) sends basic system information to the selection server,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 19 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`each of which is “information representative of a reconfiguration request relating
`
`to the electronic device.” Knutson ¶¶ 58, 62 (EX1006).
`
`“determin[[e]/[ing]] at least one device component required to implement
`c)
`the reconfiguration request”
`
`
`
`
`Cole discloses that a user invokes the update manager to prompt the
`
`selection server to identify and download code updates. See Cole, 3:12-16, 6:23-
`
`26, 6:46-55 (EX1002). A code update is a “device component required to
`
`implement the reconfiguration request.” See Cole, Abstract, 3:40-4:47 (EX1002).
`
`Knutson ¶ 64 (EX1006).
`
`Cole also discloses that the database in the selection server stores metadata
`
`describing basic system requirements for each of the code updates. Cole, 3:1-6,
`
`3:56-4:25 (EX1002). The system requirements can include, for example, a
`
`required Bios level, Bios date, pre-load level, or motherboard ID. Id., 2:52-59,
`
`3:56-4:47 (EX1002). Any one of these system requirements listed in the metadata
`
`is also a “device component required to implement the reconfiguration request,”
`
`because if the basic system information of the client does not meet one of these
`
`requirements,
`
`the corresponding code update
`
`is eliminated from further
`
`consideration and is not installed on the client. See id., 3:56-4:1, 4:30-34, 4:41-45
`
`(EX1002). Knutson ¶ 65 (EX1006).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 20 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`The selection server “determines” the code updates and “determines” the
`
`system requirements by accessing a database table, which lists code updates and
`
`metadata for the code updates. Cole, 4:1-24 (EX1002). Knutson ¶ 66 (EX1006).
`
`The code updates and basic system requirements are also “determined” by the
`
`selection server when information about the code updates and the metadata for the
`
`code updates is written into the database. See Cole, 3:1-6, 3:56-4:25 (EX1002).
`
`Knutson ¶ 66 (EX1006).
`
`Thus, Cole discloses that the selection server determines a (i) code update
`
`and (ii) system requirement for a code update, each of which is a “device
`
`component required to implement the reconfiguration request.” Knutson ¶¶ 63, 67
`
`(EX1006).
`
`To the extent a narrow interpretation of “device component required to
`
`implement the reconfiguration request” is taken, requiring that the device
`
`component be a particular component requested as part of the reconfiguration
`
`request,4 these features were well-known at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`Knutson ¶ 68 (EX1006).
`
`
`4 During prosecution, the Examiner appears to have interpreted the claimed
`
`“determined [device] component” to be a “requested” component. See FH of ’607
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 21 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`For example, MacInnis discloses a “system[] for downloading software and
`
`data modules into terminals over a network” (MacInnis, 1:5-7 (EX1003)), where a
`
`user selects a particular software module to download (e.g., the video game
`
`“Mortal Combat”), and a table is checked to determine whether the selected
`
`software module is compatible with the user’s terminal (MacInnis, 13:21-14:10,
`
`14:16-15:9, 15:15-16:10, 16:21-17:18, FIG. 3A (EX1003)). Knutson ¶ 69
`
`(EX1006).
`
`Like Cole, MacInnis discloses use of a table that identifies compatibility
`
`requirements for particular software modules. See MacInnis, 7:10-13, 8:3-5, 9:17-
`
`22, 10:7-11, 10:19-12:11, FIG. 3A (EX1003). And like Cole, MacInnis discloses
`
`that characteristics of a terminal can be compared with the compatibility
`
`requirements of a software module using a table (e.g., the table of FIG. 3A) to
`
`determine whether the terminal can download a particular software module. See
`
`id., 8:15-20, 9:4-14, 12:19-13:5, 15:15-16:13, FIGs. 2, 3A, 3B (EX1003). Knutson
`
`¶ 70 (EX1006).
`
`MacInnis discloses that a user of a terminal can request a particular software
`
`module for installation on the terminal, such as the video game “Mortal Combat.”
`
`application, Notice of Allowance of 07/29/2002 (EX1009). Petitioner adds
`
`MacInnis to address the Examiner’s apparent interpretation of the claim language.
`
`18
`
`Page 22 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`MacInnis, 13:21-22, 16:21-17:5 (EX1003). In response to the user selection,
`
`versions of
`
`that particular software module (i.e. “Mortal Combat”) and
`
`corresponding compatibility requirements are identified in the table (e.g., the table
`
`of FIG. 3A). Id., 13:22-14:10, 17:5-10, FIGs. 3A, 5 (EX1003). The compatibility
`
`requirements associated with the versions of the requested software module in the
`
`table are then compared with the characteristics of the terminal to determine
`
`whether any of the versions are compatible with the terminal. Id., 14:3-7, FIGs.
`
`3A, 3B (EX1003). Knutson ¶ 71 (EX1006).
`
`To a POSA at the time of the alleged invention, it would have been obvious
`
`to modify Cole so that the selection server receives a request for a particular code
`
`update, and identifies that particular code update and its corresponding system
`
`requirements in the database table for comparison with the basic system
`
`information of the client, in light of the teachings of MacInnis. Knutson ¶ 72
`
`(EX1006). A POSA would have been motivated to make this modification to
`
`decrease the number of processing operations required to identify whether a
`
`particular piece of software is compatible with a client. Id. For example, such a
`
`modified system would have identified whether a particular code update is
`
`compatible with the client, rather than having to determine whether each code
`
`update (even those for which the user may not be interested) in the database table
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 23 of 76
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00056
`Patent 6,467,088
`
`would be compatible with the client. Compare MacInnis, 13:21-14:3 (“download
`
`mechanism … [then] locates the two versions of the requested ‘Mortal Combat’
`
`video game in the table”) (EX1003) with Cole, 3:57-62 (determining “which code
`
`updates are consistent with the basic system information … and which code
`
`updates are inconsistent”) (EX1002). If a user were interested in a particular code
`
`update, identifying whether that particular code update is compatible with the
`
`client would be more