`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00023
`U.S. Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`via P-TACTS
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Via Express Mail
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`c/o Office of the General Counsel
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`via CM/ECJ
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 and 142 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.2 and 90.3, Patent
`
`Owner Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”) hereby provides notice that it appeals to the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Final Written Decision
`
`entered July 28, 2023 (Paper 35, attached as Exhibit A) and from all underlying findings,
`
`orders, decisions, rulings, and opinions, including without limitation, the institution
`
`decision entered in IPR2020-0023.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), Patent Owner states that the issues
`
`for appeal include, but are not limited to: the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”)’s
`
`determinations in the institution decision that there is a reasonable likelihood that claims
`
`1-4, 6-14, and 16-21 of the ’088 patent are unpatentable and the Board’s subsequent
`
`determination that claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-21 of the ’088 patent are unpatentable; the
`
`Board’s consideration and analysis of the expert testimony, prior art, and other evidence
`
`in the record; and the Board’s factual findings, conclusions of law, or other determinations
`
`supporting or relating to the above issues – including constitutionality of the appointment
`
`of PTAB judges.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 142 and 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), this Notice is being filed
`
`with the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Simultaneous
`
`with this submission, a copy of this Notice is being filed with the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board. In addition, a copy of this Notice, along with the required docketing
`
`fees, is being filed with the Clerk’s office of the United States Court of Appeals for
`
`the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`DATED: September 29, 2023
`
`By: /James Etheridge/
`James Etheridge (Reg. No. 37,614)
`Etheridge Law Group
`2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Ste. 120-324
`Southlake, TX 76092
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`817-470-7249
`
`Counsel for Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that, in addition to being filed electronically through
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s P-TACTS system, the foregoing Notice of Appeal
`
`was filed by Priority Mail Express on September 29, 2023 with the Director of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, at the following address:
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`c/o Office of the General Counsel
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal, along
`
`with the required docket fee, was filed on the below date, with the Clerk’s Office for
`
`the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit through the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF filing system.
`
`The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) of a copy of
`
`this Notice of Appeal by electronic mail on the below date, on the counsel of record
`
`for Petitioner:
`
`Lead: Derrick W. Toddy, Reg. No. 74,591, derrick.toddy@klarquist.com
`
`Backup: Andrew M. Mason, Reg. No. 64, 034, Andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`
`John M. Lunsford, Reg. No. 67, 185, john.lunsford@klarquist.com
`
`Todd M. Siegel, Reg. No. 73, 232, todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`
`Date: September 29, 2023
`
`/s/ James Etheridge
`James Etheridge
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`Reg. No. 37,614
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 35
`Date: July 28, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, AMANDA F. WIEKER and
`SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision on Remand
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. §§ 114, 318
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`This case is on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for
`
`the Federal Circuit to address the patentability of claims 1−4, 6−14, and
`
`16−21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,467,088 B1 (“the ’088 patent”), owned by
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”). Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`
`No. 2021-2039 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 20, 2022) (nonprecedential).
`
`For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1−4, 6−14, and
`
`16−21 of the ’088 patent are unpatentable.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’088 Patent and Illustrative Claim
`
`
`
`The ’088 patent is directed to techniques for upgrading or
`
`reconfiguring software and/or hardware components in electronic devices.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:6−9. According to the ’088 patent, prior art software update
`
`techniques fail to avoid potential conflicts and thus 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 this problem by providing a list or listing that
`
`indicates “which of a set of software components supported by [a
`
`reconfiguration] 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
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`“includes a listing 16 of known configurations, and a repository 18 of
`
`software components.” Id. at 3:27−29.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates reconfiguration manager 10 interacting with
`
`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
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`component C, and version 2.3 of component B. Id. at 4:12−19.1
`
`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 Figure 1 as a dashed line between components that are not
`
`compatible. Id. at 3:58−61. For example, “[t]he 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.
`
`Challenged claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
`
`challenged claims:
`
`
`
`1 Although Fig. 1 depicts device 12 having three versions of software
`component A (labels 14A–C), the description of Fig. 1 indicates these are
`different versions of components A, B, and C, respectively. Ex. 1001, 3:20–
`24.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`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;
`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; and
`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.
`
`B. Trial Background
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1−4, 6−14, and 16−21 of the
`
`’088 patent. The Petition asserts that the claims are unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds (Pet. 3–4), which are supported by a declaration by John
`
`Villasenor (Ex. 1003):
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. §2
`
`References/Basis
`
`1–4, 6–14, 16–21
`9, 19
`1–3, 9–13, 19–21
`1, 3, 4, 6–11, 13,
`14, 16–21
`
`
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Apfel,3 Lillich,4 Todd5
`Apfel, Lillich, Todd, Pedrizetti6
`Apfel, Lillich
`
`§ 103
`
`Apfel, Todd
`
`We instituted review on all grounds presented. Paper 7 (“Institution
`
`Decision”). During the trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 10, “PO Resp.”) but did not submit expert testimony. Petitioner then
`
`filed a Reply (Paper 11), accompanied by a second declaration by John
`
`Villasenor (Ex. 1016). Patent Owner then filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 13,
`
`“Sur-Reply”). We heard oral argument on January 15, 2021, a transcript of
`
`which appears in the record (Paper 19).
`
`C. Final Written Decision and Federal Circuit Appeal
`
`We issued a Final Written Decision determining that Petitioner had
`
`not proven by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1−4, 6−14, and
`
`16−21 are unpatentable. Paper 20 at 32–33 (“Final Decision” or “Final
`
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013.
`The ’088 patent was filed June 30, 1999, so we apply pre-AIA § 103.
`Ex. 1001, code (22).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,974,454, filed as Exhibit 1004.
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,613,101, filed as Exhibit 1005.
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,867,714, filed as Exhibit 1006.
`6 U.S. Patent No. 6,151,708, filed as Exhibit 1007.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`Dec.”). Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal of the Final Decision with the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Paper 21.
`
`On October 20, 2022, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the
`
`appeal vacating our Final Decision as to all challenged claims and
`
`remanding for further proceedings. Microsoft, slip. op. at 7. The Federal
`
`Circuit also reversed the Board’s “apparent construction” that “narrow[ed]
`
`the determining and comparing steps to a certain order.” Id.
`
`The Federal Circuit issued its mandate on November 28, 2022.
`
`D. Remand Proceedings
`
`After the Federal Circuit mandate issued, the parties proposed a
`
`procedure and schedule on remand. Paper 24, 2. Subsequently, we issued
`
`an order with a remand briefing schedule permitting the parties to address
`
`the impact of the Federal Circuit’s opinion but not permitting the parties to
`
`introduce new evidence. Id. The parties then filed the following briefing:
`
`Petitioner’s Remand Brief (Paper 32, “Pet. Remand Br.”), Patent Owner’s
`
`Remand Brief (Paper 31, “PO Remand Br.”), Petitioner’s Remand Response
`
`(Paper 34, “Pet. Remand Resp. Br.”), and Patent Owner’s Remand Reply
`
`(Paper 33, “PO Remand Reply Br.”).
`
`A. Principle of Law
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). A claim is unpatentable as obvious if “the differences between the
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`
`matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007)
`
`(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). We resolve the question of obviousness based
`
`on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the
`
`level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness.7 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`
`(1966). We apply these principles to the Petition’s challenges.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`We apply the following assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art: a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “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 “[l]ess work
`
`experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a
`
`Master’s Degree, and vice versa.” Final Dec. 7–8.
`
`C. 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]
`
`
`
`7 The parties have not provided any such evidence in this proceeding.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`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).
`
`There are no claim construction issues on remand. We apply the
`
`Federal Circuit’s instruction that we must avoid “narrow[ing] the
`
`determining and comparing steps to a certain order.” Microsoft, slip. op.
`
`at 7.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Apfel, Lillich, and Todd
`
`Petitioner contends, inter alia, that claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–21
`
`would have been obvious over the combination of Apfel, Lillich, and Todd.
`
`Pet. 32–64; see also infra Section III.E (addressing the combination of
`
`Apfel, Lillich, Todd, and Pedrizetti). In the alternative, Petitioner argues
`
`that (1) claims 1–3, 9–13, and 19–21 would have been obvious over Apfel
`
`and Lillich (Ground 3), or that (2) claims 1, 3, 4, 6–11, 13, 14, and 16–21
`
`would have been obvious over Apfel and Todd (Ground 4). Id. at 69–72.
`
`Before addressing the merits of Grounds 1 and 2, we first address the
`
`Petition’s alternative grounds.
`
`Claim 1 recites in part,
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:51–56 (emphasis added). Similar limitations are found in
`
`independent claims 11 and 21. Id. at 7:56–62, 8:57–62. In our Final
`
`Decision, we observed that Petitioner argues this limitation requires a
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`comparison with both a list of known acceptable configurations and a list of
`
`known unacceptable configurations, because of the claim’s conjunctive “at
`
`least one of.” Final Dec. 28 (citing Pet. 23–25). The Petition’s two
`
`alternative grounds address a potential disjunctive construction of this
`
`limitation, “namely as covering only a comparison to ‘a list of known
`
`acceptable configurations’ or a comparison to ‘a list of known unacceptable
`
`configurations.’” Pet. 70.
`
`Our Final Decision did not address these alternative grounds because
`
`Petitioner’s conjunctive interpretation was “undisputed on the full record.”
`
`Final Dec. 28. This interpretation remains undisputed on remand. See
`
`generally PO Remand Br. Thus, we only address Petitioner’s ground
`
`alleging unpatentability of claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–21 over the
`
`combination of Apfel, Lillich, and Todd and do not reach Petitioner’s
`
`alternative grounds.
`
`1. Overview of Apfel
`
`Apfel is concerned with “[i]nstalling and updating a software program
`
`module component.” Ex. 1004, code (57). In particular, Apfel describes a
`
`system for automatically updating a software program module component
`
`stored on a computer, as shown in Figure 3 reproduced below.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of Apfel illustrates a system including computer 20, database
`
`server 80a, and package server 80b. Id. at 6:36−37. Computer 20 requests
`
`an upgrade by sending query 100 to database server 80a. Id. at 6:39−40. If
`
`an upgrade is available, then database server 80a will send back response
`
`105 that includes the Uniform Resource Locator (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 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.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`2. Overview of Lillich
`
`Lillich describes a “method and apparatus for verifying compatibility
`
`between components of a system[,] which share a client-provider
`
`relationship.” Ex. 1005, code (57). Figure 1 of Lillich is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Lillich is a symbolic, simplified block diagram of
`
`system 30. Id. at 5:28. As shown in Figure 1, “[s]ystem 30 may be
`
`hardware, 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. 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.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`3. Overview of Todd
`
`Todd describes “a system for detecting and avoiding faults stemming
`
`from conflicts in hardware and/or software configurations in a computer
`
`system.” Ex. 1006, code (57). Figure 1 of Todd is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`In Figure 1 of Todd, system 100 includes computer system 110 and
`
`remote data source 130. Computer system 110 includes configuration
`
`detection circuitry 120 responsible for obtaining data pertaining to at least a
`
`portion of the current hardware and software configuration of computer
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`system 110. Id. at 6:42–46. 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 computer system 110. Id. at 6:50–55. Remote data source 130
`
`contains a database of software revisions that may be communicated to
`
`computer system 110 as a function of its current configuration data. Id. at
`
`12:1–8. Diagnostic and analytic processes within remote data source 130
`
`analyze the current configuration data of computer system 110 to identify
`
`conflicts. Id.
`
`4. Independent Claim 1
`
`a. Pre-appeal Final Written Decision
`
`In the Final Decision, we determined that the combination of Apfel,
`
`Lillich, and Todd does not disclose or suggest the comparing step of the
`
`independent claims. Final Dec. 15–26. We reasoned that although “Apfel’s
`
`database server does perform a comparison,” this comparison is “between
`
`the information presented in the query and the lookup table,” so there is no
`
`“‘determined component’ in Apfel’s query.” Id. at 18. We further found
`
`that “Apfel lacks detail sufficient to explain that the database lookup
`
`involves further comparing the resulting newer version component with the
`
`query information that identifies currently installed components . . . with a
`
`known list of acceptable configurations.” Id. at 19. We also found that
`
`Apfel does not inherently or implicitly disclose this comparison. Id. at 20,
`
`23–26. We further determined that Petitioner’s reliance on Lillich does not
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`cure Apfel’s deficiency because Petitioner does not rely on Lillich “for
`
`teaching the comparison that includes the (a) determined component.” Id. at
`
`27. Accordingly, we determined that Petitioner had not proven the
`
`unpatentability of claims 1–3, 6, 7, 12–14, 16–18, and 20 by a
`
`preponderance of evidence. Id. at 29.
`
`b. Federal Circuit Decision
`
`The Federal Circuit found that the Board’s conclusion that Apfel did
`
`not disclose the comparing step lacked substantial evidence. Microsoft, slip
`
`op. at 3. The court determined that the Board “erred in its factual finding
`
`regarding Apfel because it overlooked a passage that specifically discloses
`
`assessing the compatibility of available upgrades.” Id. at 3–4. This passage
`
`of Apfel states:
`
`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. For example, even if an
`upgrade is available, it should not be downloaded if the
`computer 20 already has the upgrade or if the upgrade is
`somehow incompatible with computer 20.
`
`Id. (quoting Ex. 1004, 7:13–19). The court found that the Board’s
`
`description of this passage, that “Apfel would not allow the download of a
`
`version . . . that is incompatible with computer 20,” “contradicts its
`
`conclusion that ‘Apfel’s database lookup only determines that a new
`
`upgrade is available—not that there is a known compatible upgrade
`
`available.’” Id. at 4 (citing Final Dec. 16–17).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`The court further found that the following Apfel passage also appears
`
`to contradict the Board’s conclusion that Apfel does not disclose a
`
`comparing step:
`
`At decision step 427, it is determined whether there is an
`upgrade package for the Web Authoring Components program
`module. In the exemplary embodiment, the database server 80a
`uses the information received in the HTTP query at step 415 to
`determine if an upgrade package is available, such as by a
`database lookup. Different update packages may be provided
`for different version combinations, different operating systems,
`and different languages. Thus, the database server 80a
`maintains a database of upgrade packages and corresponding
`configurations which should result in their download.
`
`Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1004, 9:30–40). The Federal Circuit explained that this
`
`passage, “although not explicitly referring to a compatibility check,
`
`recognizes that different update packages correspond, for example, to
`
`different operating systems, and that a database of the different
`
`configurations is maintained to guide downloads.” Id. at 4. The court
`
`focused on the following sentence from this passage—“[d]ifferent update
`
`packages may be provided for different version combinations, different
`
`operating systems, and different languages.” Id. at 5 (citing Ex. 1004, 9:36–
`
`38). This passage, according to the court, “suggests a form of compatibility
`
`assessment to find the correct upgrade package.” Id.
`
`The court further stated that “[t]he Board also erred when it concluded
`
`that Apfel did not disclose the comparing step because [Apfel] did not
`
`perform the determining and comparing steps in a certain order required by
`
`the disputed claims.” Id. (citing Final Dec. 18–19, 21). The court found that
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`“the Board misconstrued the claims to require . . . two separate acts in a
`
`certain order.” Id. at 5–6. Instead, the court found that “the claim cannot
`
`require that the steps be performed in the order written, but rather allows for
`
`the determining and comparing steps to be part of a single process.” Id. at 7.
`
`This is because “[a]ny construction that would narrow the determining and
`
`comparing steps to a certain order is not supported by either the claim
`
`language or the specification.” Id. Thus, the court reversed the Board’s
`
`“apparent construction.” Id.
`
`The court concluded, “[b]ecause the Board erred in concluding that
`
`Apfel does not perform the claimed ‘comparing’ step and implicitly relied
`
`on an improper claim construction, we vacate the Board’s decision and
`
`remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Id.
`
`c. Disputed Issues on Remand
`
`On remand, the parties address the following issues: whether Apfel
`
`discloses the comparing step, and whether Petitioner set forth a sufficient
`
`rationale to combine the references. We present our analysis of claim 1 in
`
`the order of the recited limitations, beginning with the receiving step.
`
`(1) Receiving step
`
`Claim 1 requires receiving information representative of a
`
`reconfiguration request relating to the electronic device. Petitioner asserts
`
`that Apfel teaches this receiving step because it describes a “database server
`
`receiving a reconfiguration (upgrade) request for software resident on a
`
`computer, which includes the information necessary to determine whether an
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`appropriate upgrade is available.” Pet. 35−37. We agree that Apfel teaches
`
`this limitation.
`
`Apfel teaches that the computer sends a query to the database server.
`
`Ex. 1004, 6:38−40. This query, Apfel states, “includes all 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. 6:49−53. More specifically, Apfel describes
`
`the HTTP query as including information such as the version of the program
`
`module component to be upgraded, the platform that the program module
`
`component is running on, and the language of the program module
`
`component. Id. at 2:27−35, 9:1−9. Thus, the database server receives from
`
`the computer a communication, specifically an HTTP query, which
`
`constitutes the recited “reconfiguration request” that relates to the computer
`
`as it provides specific information about the configuration of the computer,
`
`such as the platform the software is running on and the language of the
`
`program. This query is representative of a “reconfiguration request” because
`
`based on its content, the server is configured to determine whether an
`
`upgrade is available for that computer, i.e., the computer’s configuration
`
`would be updated. Patent Owner presents no argument regarding the
`
`receiving step. See generally PO Resp.
`
`We determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that Apfel teaches the receiving step.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`
`(2) Determining step
`
`The claim requires determining at least one device component
`
`required to implement the reconfiguration request. Petitioner relies on Apfel
`
`as teaching this limitation because the Apfel database server uses the
`
`received HTTP request from the previous step to perform a database lookup
`
`to determine if an upgrade package is available. Pet. 37−38; Ex. 1004,
`
`6:49−53, 8:53−55, 9:30−35. We agree that Apfel teaches the determining
`
`step. Apfel’s database server uses the information received in the HTTP
`
`query to determine if an upgrade package is available using the database
`
`lookup. Ex. 1004, 9:30−35. Thus, Apfel determines the device component
`
`required to implement the reconfiguration request because the lookup results
`
`in identifying an available upgrade package. Patent Owner presents no
`
`argument regarding the determining step. See generally PO Resp.
`
`We determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that Apfel teaches the determining step.
`
`(3) Comparing step
`
`As noted above, Petitioner argues that during trial, the parties only
`
`disputed whether the prior art satisfied the claimed comparing step, and the
`
`Federal Circuit answered that question in the affirmative. Pet. Remand Br.
`
`1–4. Petitioner highlights the court’s statement that “[t]he Board found that
`
`Apfel did not disclose the comparing step. That conclusion lacks substantial
`
`evidence.” Id. at 3. Petitioner further highlights the court’s statements that
`
`Apfel, at column 9, lines 30–40, “suggests a form of compatibility
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`assessment” and that Apfel, at column 7, lines 13–19, “specifically
`
`references incompatibility,” thus “render[ing] the Board’s conclusion that
`
`Apfel does not disclose a compatibility check lacking in substantial
`
`evidence.” Id. Petitioner adds, “[g]iven the Federal Circuit’s finding that
`
`Apfel discloses the claimed ‘comparing,’ the only issue on remand is
`
`whether the prior art satisfies the other claimed elements.” Id. at 4.
`
`Petitioner argues that, because Patent Owner did not challenge those other
`
`elements during trial, the Board should find for Petitioner for the reasons set
`
`forth in the Petition, consistent with the Board’s findings in the Institution
`
`Decision. Id.
`
`Patent Owner contends that the court’s determination that Apfel
`
`requires a comparing step does not require that the comparing step include
`
`the recited “information specifying at least one additional component.”
`
`PO Remand Br. 2. According to Patent Owner, a proper reading of Apfel
`
`shows that the first passage relied upon by the court, see Ex. 1004, 7:13–19,
`
`provides a high-level overview of a two-assessment process. Id. Patent
`
`Owner argues that these two assessments are (1) a determination of whether
`
`an upgrade is available, and (2) an assessment of the compatibility of the
`
`determined upgrade. Id. Patent Owner contends that the second passage
`
`relied upon by the court, see Ex. 1004, 9:30–40, provides a detailed
`
`explanation of the first assessment. Id. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he
`
`second assessment of [Ex. 1004, 7:13–19] makes clear that a compatibility
`
`determination is distinct from determining an upgrade, thus demonstrating
`
`that the second passage does not include a compatibility determination.” Id.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00023
`Patent 6,467,088 B1
`
`at 2–3. Thus, Patent Owner contends that Apfel provides no “indication of
`
`the information or determination involved in the compatibility
`
`determination, demonstrating that Apfel utterly fails to disclose the
`
`comparing recitations of the independent claims.” Id. at 3.
`
`Petitioner responds that “[t]he Court did not remand for the Board to
`
`overturn the Court’s determination that Apfel teaches the ‘comparing’ step,”
`
`yet that is what Patent Owner’s remand brief requests. Pet. Remand Resp.
`
`Br. 1. Petitioner contends that “the mandate rule forecloses reconsideration
`
`of issues implicitly or explicitly decided on appeal,” including whether
`
`Apfel discloses the comparing step. Id. at 2 (citing Amado v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). In Petitioner’s view, “Patent
`
`Owner’s remand brief ignores the determination of the Court, rehashes the
`
`same Apfel passages already carefully considered by the Court, and seeks a
`
`different outcome.” Id. at 3. Petitioner asserts that