`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONFIGIT A/S,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01055
`Patent No. 6,836,766 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 6,836,766 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND REQUESTED RELIEF ......... 1 
`  Public Accessibility of Prior Art ................................................................ 2 
`NOTE ON EMPHASIS ................................................................................... 6 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’766 PATENT ............................................................. 6 
` 
`  PROSECUTION HISTORY: THE ’766 PATENT WAS NOT TESTED
`AGAINST PRIOR ART .................................................................................. 6 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 8 
`  Qualifications of the POSITA .................................................................... 8 
`  Using a Computer System to Test a Product Configuration for
`Configuration Errors As Claimed Was Well Known to the POSITA Prior
`to the ’766 Patent ........................................................................................ 8 
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11 
`  CLAIMS 1-5 & 9-19 ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................ 12 
`  Ground 1: Oracle1 in view of Oracle2 Renders Claims 1, 9-10, 14, 19
`Obvious ..................................................................................................... 12 
`  Overview of Oracle1 ......................................................................... 12 
`  Overview of Oracle2 ......................................................................... 14 
`Independent Claim 1 ......................................................................... 14 
` 
`  Dependent Claim 9 ........................................................................... 24 
`  Dependent Claim 10 ......................................................................... 25 
`  Dependent Claim 14 ......................................................................... 26 
`  Dependent Claim 19 ......................................................................... 30 
`  Reasons to Combine Oracle1 and Oracle2 ....................................... 31 
`  Ground 2: The Oracle1-Oracle2 Combination in Further View of
`SalesPlus Renders Claims 15 and 16 Obvious ......................................... 33 
`  Overview of SalesPlus ...................................................................... 33 
`  Dependent Claim 15 ......................................................................... 33 
`  Dependent Claim 16 ......................................................................... 34 
`  Reasons to Combine SalesPlus with the Oracle1-Oracle2
`Combination ...................................................................................... 35 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`  Ground 3: The Oracle1-Oracle2 Combination in Further View of
`SalesPlus, and Yu Renders Claims 11-13 and 17 Obvious ...................... 37 
`  Overview of Yu ................................................................................ 37 
`  Additional Overview of SalesPlus .................................................... 38 
`  Dependent Claim 11 ......................................................................... 38 
`  Dependent Claim 12 ......................................................................... 40 
`  Dependent Claim 13 ......................................................................... 43 
`  Dependent Claim 17 ......................................................................... 46 
`  Reasons to Combine Yu and SalesPlus with the Oracle1-Oracle2
`Combination ...................................................................................... 49 
`  Ground 4: The Oracle1-Oracle2 Combination in Further View of Memon
`Renders Claims 2 and 18 Obvious ........................................................... 52 
`  Background ....................................................................................... 52 
`  Overview of Memon ......................................................................... 54 
`  Memon is Analogous Art .................................................................. 55 
`  Dependent Claim 2 ........................................................................... 56 
`  Dependent Claim 18 ......................................................................... 60 
`  Reasons to Combine ......................................................................... 60 
`  Ground 5: The Oracle1-Oracle2-Memon Combination in Further View of
`SalesPlus Renders Claims 3-5 Obvious ................................................... 62 
`  Dependent Claim 3 ........................................................................... 62 
`  Dependent Claim 4 ........................................................................... 64 
`  Dependent Claim 5 ........................................................................... 68 
`  Reasons to Combine ......................................................................... 69 
`  DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................... 72 
`  The Fintiv Factors Weigh in Favor of Institution— 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) . 72 
`  GROUNDS FOR STANDING—37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ............................... 74 
`  MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 74 
`  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................... 74 
`  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................... 74 
`  Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................... 75 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`  Service Information .................................................................................. 75 
`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 75 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766 to Gilpin (“the ’766 patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Kristin L. Wood, Ph.D. (with Curriculum Vitae)
`Oracle Configurator Developer 11i User’s Guide, Release 11i for
`Windows 95/98 and Windows NT 4.0, April 2000, Part No. A73280-05
`(“Oracle1”)
`Oracle Configurator Configuration Interface Object (CIO) Developer’s
`Guide, Release 11i, March 2000, Part No. A81001-03 (“Oracle2”)
`Beologic A/S Reference Guide for the beologic salesPLUS Product
`Configurator, C language API, Version 2.0, 1995 (“SalesPlus”)
`Bei Yu and H. J. Skovgaard, “A configuration tool to increase product
`competitiveness,” in IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications,
`vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 34-41, July-Aug. 1998, doi: 10.1109/5254.708431;
`print ISSN: 1094-7167, electronic ISSN: 2374-9423 (“Yu”)
`1007 Atif M. Memon, Martha E. Pollack, Mary Lou Soffa, “Automated Test
`Oracles for GUIs”, Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium
`on the Foundation of Software Engineering (FSE-8), San Diego, CA,
`Nov. 6, 2000, https://dl.acm.org/doi/proceedings/10.1145/355045, ISBN:
`978-1-58113-205-2 (“Memon”)
`Declaration of Ms. Tina Brand
`Declaration of Mr. Andrew Wolfe
`Declaration of Mr. Jacob Munford
`File Wrapper of the ’766 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 5,825,651 to Gupta
`File Wrapper of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,651
`Docket in Versata Software Inc. et al., v. Configit A/S., No. 20-CV-9019
`(C.D. Cal.)
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`Docket in Versata Development Group, Inc. et al v. Ford Motor Co., No.
`15-cv-00316 (E.D. Tex.).
`Oracle Applications – Product Update Notes, Release 11i, May 2000,
`Part No. A85297-01
`https://web.archive.org/web/20001019084740/http://docs.oracle.com:80/
`Web Site Capture
`https://web.archive.org/web/20001019040314fw_/http://docs.oracle.com/
`help_media.html Web Site Capture
`https://web.archive.org/web/20001119103400/http://store.oracle.com/
`cec/cstage?eccookie=&ecaction=ecpassthru&template=combined_decsec
`tview_doc.en.htm Web Site Capture
`Declaration of Marianne Tind
`Configit Formal Notice of Stipulation
`U.S. Patent No. 5,579,476 to Cheng
`Ram Chillarege, “Software Testing Best Practices,” IBM Technical
`Report RC 21457, April 26, 1999
`Judith Bachant and John McDermott, “R1 Revisited,” AI Magazine, 5
`(3), 21–32, 1984.
`Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, John Vlissides, “Design
`Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software,” Addison-
`Wesley, 1995.
`Arnold van de Brug, Judith Bachant, and John McDermott, “The taming
`of R1,” IEEE Computer Architecture Letters 1.03 (1986): 33-39.
`Oracle SellingPoint CompanionBuilder Online Documentation (extracts)
`B. M. Kramer, “Knowledge-based configuration of computer systems
`using hierarchical partial choice,” Proceedings of the Third International
`Conference on Tools for Artificial Intelligence - TAI 91, 1991, pp. 368-
`375, doi: 10.1109/TAI.1991.167117.
`
`v
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`1028
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`1029
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`John McDermott, “R1: A Rule-based Configurator of Computer
`Systems,” Carnegie-Mellon University Technical Report CMU-CS-80-
`119, April, 1980.
`1030 William F. Wright, Rodney Smith, Ryan Jesser, Matt Stupeck,
`“Successful Implementation and Use of Enterprise Software: Compaq
`Computer Corporation,” University of California at Irvine, Case Study,
`Sept. 17, 1998
`1031 W. E. Howden, “Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Program Testing,”
`in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. SE-4, no. 4, pp. 293-
`298, July 1978, doi: 10.1109/TSE.1978.231514.
`S. Marcus, J. Stout, J., & J. McDermott. VT: An Expert Elevator
`Designer That Uses Knowledge-Based Backtracking. AI Magazine, 9(1),
`95, (1988). https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v9i1.664
`E.H. Groundwater, L.A. Miller, and S.M. Mirsky, “Guidelines for the
`Verification and Validation of Expert System Software and Conventional
`Software,” SAIC-95/1028, Vol. 3, 1995.
`Uma G. Gupta, “Automatic tools for testing expert systems,” Commun.
`ACM 41, 5es (May 1998), 179–184. DOI:
`https://doi.org/10.1145/276404.276409
`Pei-Lei Tu, Jen-Yao Chung and C. N. Nikolaou, “An intelligent approach
`to verification and testing of the configurator,” Proceedings of the
`Second Symposium on Assessment of Quality Software Development
`Tools, 1992, pp. 151-162, doi: 10.1109/AQSDT.1992.205849.
`S. M. Fohn, J. S. Liau, A. R. Greef, R. E. Young, P. J. O’Grady,
`“Configuring computer systems through constraint-based modeling and
`interactive constraint satisfaction,” Computers in Industry, Volume 27,
`Issue 1, 1995, Pages 3-21, ISSN 0166-3615.
`Daniel Mailharro. 1998. “A classification and constraint-based
`framework for configuration.” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 12, 4
`(September 1998), 383–397. DOI:
`https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060498124101
`J. R. Wright, Weixelbaum, E. S., Vesonder, G. T., Brown, K. E., Palmer,
`S. R., Berman, J. I., & H. H. Moore, “A Knowledge-Based Configurator
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`that Supports Sales, Engineering, and Manufacturing at AT&T Network
`Systems. AI Magazine,” 14(3), 69 (1993), doi:
`https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v14i3.1055
`E. T. Barr, M. Harman, P. McMinn, M. Shahbaz and S. Yoo, “The
`Oracle Problem in Software Testing: A Survey,” in IEEE Transactions on
`Software Engineering, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 507-525, 1 May 2015, doi:
`10.1109/TSE.2014.2372785.
`Dirk Riehle, “The Event Notification Pattern – Integrating Implicit
`Invocation with Object-Orientation,” Theory and Practice of Object
`Systems, vol. 2, no. 1, pp.43-52, 1996.
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000408210140/http://www.selectica.com/
`(Web Site Capture)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,452,239 to Dai
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000829052529/http://www.calico.com/
`products/eadvisor.shtml (Web Site Capture)
`Virginia E. Barker and Dennis E. O’Connor, “Expert Systems for
`Configuration at Digital: XCON and Beyond,” in Communications of the
`ACM, March 1989, Vol. 32, No. 3 ISSN:0001-0782/89/0300-0298.
`SAP AG, Variant Configuration (LO-VC) Release 4.6C Manual, 2000.
`John McDermott, “R1: The Formative Years,” AI Magazine, vol. 2, no.2,
`pp. 21-29, 1981.
`Rina Dechter and Itay Meiri, “Experimental Evaluation of Preprocessing
`Algorithms for Constraint Satisfaction Problems,” in Artificial
`Intelligence vol. 68, pp. 211-241, February 1992, SSDI:0004-3702 (93)
`E0057-S
`Rina Dechter and Daniel Frost, “Backtracking Algorithms for Constraint
`Satisfaction Problems,” Department of Information and Computer
`Science, University of California Irvine, September 17, 1999
`Bill Venners, “Object finalization and cleanup,” June 1, 1998
`(JavaWorld) (available at https://www.infoworld.com/article/2076697
`/object-finalization-and-cleanup.html)
`
`vii
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`Juha Tiihonen and Timo Soininen, “Product Configurators – Information
`System Support for Configurable Products,” TAI Research Centre and
`Laboratory of Information Processing Science Product Data Management
`Group, Helsinki University of Technology, 1997.
`Concept Guide for the Beologic salesPLUS Product Configurator,
`Version 2.0, November 1995
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`Configit A/S (“Petitioner” or “Configit”) petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-5 and 9-19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766 (“the ’766 patent”).
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND REQUESTED RELIEF
`Configit requests IPR of the ’766 patent’s claims 1-5 and 9-19 on the
`
`grounds in the table below, and requests all challenged claims be cancelled.
`
`Prior Art References Used in Challenge
`Oracle1, Oracle2
`
`Claims
`Ground Basis
`Ground 1 § 103 1, 9-10, 14,
`19
`Oracle1, Oracle2, SalesPlus
`Ground 2 § 103 15-16
`Ground 3 § 103 11-13, 17 Oracle1, Oracle2, SalesPlus, Yu
`Ground 4 § 103 2, 18
`Oracle1, Oracle2, Memon
`Ground 5 § 103 3-5
`Oracle1, Oracle2, Memon, SalesPlus
`
`
`
`Configit describes the invalidating prior art below. Configit also describes
`
`and relies on the general knowledge of the POSITA. Additional support for each
`
`ground is set forth in the Declaration of Dr. Kristin Wood (Ex. 1002). The
`
`references below are prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(a) & (b) (pre-AIA) and
`
`were publicly accessible before the ’766 patent’s priority date of January 31, 2001.
`
`Oracle1 (Ex. 1003) is a user manual for the Oracle Configurator 11i product
`
`titled “Oracle Configurator Developer 11i User’s Guide, Release 11i for Windows
`
`95/98 and Windows NT 4.0.”
`
`Oracle2 (Ex. 1004) is a user manual for the Oracle Configurator 11i product
`
`titled “Oracle Configurator Configuration Interface Object (CIO) Developer’s
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`Guide, Release 11i.”
`
`SalesPlus (Ex. 1005) is the “Reference Guide for the Beologic salesPLUS
`
`Product Configurator, C language API, Version 2.0.”
`
`Yu (Ex. 1006) is an article about the salesPLUS Product Configurator titled
`
`“A configuration tool to increase product competitiveness” by Bei Yu and H.J.
`
`Skovgaard, published in IEEE Intelligent Systems (vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 34-41).
`
`Memon (Ex. 1007) is an article titled “Automated Test Oracles for GUIs”
`
`by Atif M. Memon et al., published in the ACM Proceedings of the Eighth
`
`International Symposium on the Foundation of Software Engineering, pp. 30-39.
`
` Public Accessibility of Prior Art
`
`Oracle1 (Ex. 1003) and Oracle2 (Ex. 1004) were publicly accessible prior
`
`to the ’766 patent’s priority date of January 31, 2001. Oracle1 is dated “April
`
`2000,” and copyright 2000. Ex. 1003, 1-2. Oracle2 is dated “March 2000,” and
`
`copyright 2000. Ex. 1004, 1-2.1
`
`Configit submits the declaration of the person who co-authored Oracle1 and
`
`who oversaw the creation of Oracle2, Ms. Tina Brand. Ex. 1008. Ms. Brand was
`
`Manager of Configurator Documentation and Curriculum Development at Oracle
`
`
`1 PDF copies of Oracle1 and Oracle2 are online at the docs.oracle.com website
`
`with metadata showing the files were created in 2000. Ex. 1009 ¶¶5-8.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`Corporation in 2000; she attests to the public accessibility of Oracle1 and Oracle2
`
`
`
`prior to 2001. Id. ¶¶4-21. As Ms. Brand testifies, Oracle1 and Oracle2 were
`
`distributed to the public in 2000 in at least three ways: (1) on “CD-Pack” (PDF
`
`files on CD-ROM); (2) by download from docs.oracle.com; and (3) for sale in
`
`book form. Id. ¶¶8-9. Ms. Brand cites supporting documents, including Ex. 1017-
`
`1019, historical web page captures showing how CD-packs “with soft copy
`
`documentation” were available for $39.95 and identifying the website where the
`
`books were sold. Id. ¶¶9-21. Ms. Brand also describes how Oracle1 and Oracle2
`
`were accessible in other ways, including in customer training classes before 2001.
`
`Id.
`
`Configit also submits the declaration of Mr. Andrew Wolfe, a Development
`
`Manager for Oracle Configurator in 2000. Ex. 1009. Mr. Wolfe testifies that
`
`Oracle1 and Oracle2 were available to any interested member of the public by CD,
`
`download, or book in 2000. Ex. 1009 ¶10. Mr. Wolfe also identifies then-
`
`contemporaneous “Product Update Notes” for Oracle Configurator listing those
`
`methods of documentation distribution. Id. ¶¶13-14, Ex. 1016. Mr. Wolfe testifies
`
`that Oracle1 and Oracle2 were distributed to customers in 2000 including Ford,
`
`Airbus, Traco, Ping, Cummins, Teradyne, Alstom GasTurbines, and Alcatel. Id.
`
`¶11. Mr. Wolfe also testifies that Oracle1 and Oracle2 were available from the
`
`website docs.oracle.com without username/password restrictions in 2000. Id. ¶12.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`All of the above show that Oracle1 and Oracle2 were disseminated and made
`
`
`
`available to interested persons exercising reasonable diligence before the ’766
`
`patent’s priority date.
`
`SalesPlus (Ex. 1005) is a book that was publicly accessible by December
`
`24, 1999. SalesPlus is dated “November 1995,” and copyright 1995. Ex. 1005, 3.
`
`SalesPlus was cataloged, indexed, and available in a searchable index no later than
`
`December 24, 1999. Ex. 1020 ¶¶4-6 (declaration of librarian of the Royal Danish
`
`Library). SalesPlus “could be located in the library’s catalog by a member of the
`
`public, and the book could be checked out by a member of the public,” no later
`
`than December 24, 1999. Id.
`
`Yu (Ex. 1006) was publicly accessible by August, 1998. Ex. 1010, ¶¶4-11.
`
`Yu is an article published in the IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications,
`
`vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 34-41, July-Aug. 1998, doi:10.1109/5254.708431; print
`
`ISSN:1094-7167, electronic ISSN:2374-9423.2 Cataloging dates extracted from
`
`
`2 The IEEE (“Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers”) is recognized as an
`
`established publisher. See Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures I, IPR2014-00527,
`
`Paper 41 at 10–11 (PTAB May 18, 2015) (“IEEE is a well-known, reputable
`
`compiler and publisher of scientific and technical publications”); Hulu v. Sound
`
`View Innovations, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 19 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`library MARC records corroborate the public availability of Yu by August 1998, as
`
`
`
`does the ISSN identifier (1094-7167/98) and 1998 copyright date on its face. Id.
`
`(librarian sponsoring and explaining evidence of Yu’s public availability); Ex.
`
`1006 at 1 (copyright and ISSN at bottom).
`
`Memon (Ex. 1007) was publicly accessible by November 14, 2000. Ex.
`
`1010, ¶¶4-6 & 12-16. Memon was published by the ACM at pages 30-39 of the
`
`Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Foundation of Software
`
`Engineering, San Diego, CA, Nov. 6, 2000, ISBN:978-1-58113-205-2.3
`
`Cataloging dates extracted from library MARC records corroborate the public
`
`availability of Memon by November 14, 2000, as does the ISBN identifier and
`
`2000 copyright date on its face. Id. (librarian sponsoring and explaining evidence
`
`of Memon’s public availability); Ex. 1007 at 1 (copyright and ISBN at bottom).
`
`
`(precedential) (finding reasonable likelihood of public accessibility where, inter
`
`alia, the reference was in a series from an established publisher”).
`
`3 The ACM (“Association for Computing Machinery”) is also a prolific and well-
`
`known publisher. See Microsoft v. IPA Technologies, IPR2019-00811, Paper 12 at
`
`85 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019) (“Like IEEE publications, ACM publications, such as the
`
`one in which [the reference] appeared, are distributed widely and intended to be
`
`accessible to the public.”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
` NOTE ON EMPHASIS
`All emphasis in quotations is added unless otherwise indicated.
`
` SUMMARY OF THE ’766 PATENT
`The ’766 patent (“Rule Based Configuration Engine for a Database”) issued
`
`from an application that was filed on January 31, 2001. Ex. 1001, 1. The patent’s
`
`purported “invention provides the ability to test rules in a rule-based system for
`
`configuring a product.” Id., Abstract.
`
`The method claims challenged in this Petition generally relate to entering a
`
`test case with data to change a product configuration, processing that test case with
`
`rules to determine if the change caused configuration errors, and generating
`
`explanation data to explain any detected configuration errors. Id., 12:30-50. The
`
`challenged dependent claims generally focus on variations in the processing of the
`
`test case or the generation of explanation data. Id., 12:51-13:4 & 13:21-62.
`
`The ’766 patent includes 71 claims, of which claims 1, 20, 34, and 64 are
`
`independent. Claims 1-5 and 9-19 are challenged in this Petition.
`
` PROSECUTION HISTORY:
`THE ’766 PATENT WAS NOT TESTED AGAINST PRIOR ART
`The ’766 patent was filed as U.S. Appl. No. 09/773,101 with a total of 76
`
`claims presented for examination. Ex. 1011, 24-34. The applicants did not submit
`
`any prior art to the application. Id., 1-95. The examiner also issued no prior art
`
`rejections. Instead, the examiner recorded a single search query for three specific
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`patents that had no apparent connection to the application. Id., 120 (showing
`
`
`
`single query below) & 172-173 (describing three references “not relied upon”
`
`during examination):
`
`
`
`The sole rejection during prosecution was an “unpatentable subject matter”
`
`rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 & 112, id., 165-72. In response the applicants
`
`amended their claims and traversed the unpatentable matter rejection. Id., 177-99.
`
`The examiner then allowed all pending claims without any further prior art
`
`search. Id., 200-206. The examiner’s notice of allowance in full read:
`
`Id., 205. Notably, the supposed “closest prior art of Dai et al [sic: 5,452,239]” is
`
`about “gated clocks” in “reprogrammable logic circuits” and has no apparent
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`connection to the ’766 patent subject matter. See Ex. 1042. Similarly, the ’766
`
`
`
`patent has nothing do with—and does not mention—an “implementation of a
`
`netlist.” For whatever reason, the Examiner does not appear to have understood
`
`the relevant art of the ’766 patent.
`
`
`
`In sum, the applicants disclosed no relevant prior art. The examiner
`
`identified no relevant prior art. The ’766 patent claims issued without a single
`
`prior art rejection. The patent emerged from the patent office untested against the
`
`prior art, including the art below.
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
` Qualifications of the POSITA
`
`The person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’766 patent would have been a person with a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`Computer Science, Computer or Electrical Engineering, Engineering Science, an
`
`engineering major with a significant computational component, or a similar
`
`discipline, or with at least two years of research or experience in configurable
`
`systems including testing. Ex. 1002 ¶¶53-55.
`
` Using a Computer System to Test a Product Configuration
`for Configuration Errors As Claimed Was Well Known to
`the POSITA Prior to the ’766 Patent
`
`The ’766 patent concerns testing in a “product configurator,” which is
`
`software that allows a user to customize a product for manufacture or purchase.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`Ex. 1002 ¶32.4 Such software had been used since the 1980s to allow users to
`
`
`
`customize the components of computers, automobiles, elevators, and many other
`
`types of products. Ex. 1002 ¶¶33-34 (citing Exs. 1005, 1006, 1024, 1026, 1029,
`
`1030, 1032, 1037, 1038, 1041, 1043, 1045).
`
`Ex. 1006, 6 (showing product configurator for 1992 model year Saab automobiles)
`
`
`
`In each of these systems, configuration rules ensured that users properly
`
`configured a product. For example, when configuring an car, rules ensured that a
`
`user selected exactly one “engine” option (to avoid building a car with zero or two
`
`engines), and prevented the user from selecting incompatible components, such as
`
`a “sunroof” part when the car is a (roofless) convertible. Ex. 1002 ¶¶35-36.
`
`
`4 Configit’s expert Dr. Wood provides an introduction to this technology area and
`
`art, from which this background section is taken. Ex. 1002 ¶¶31-52.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`A configurator was only as good as its configuration rules. A “bug” in a rule
`
`would allow a customer to create invalid products or prevent them from creating
`
`valid ones. Ex. 1002 ¶¶40-41. Not surprisingly, “the ability to test rules in a rule-
`
`based system for configuring a product”—as the ’766 patent describes its
`
`purported invention, Ex. 1001, Abstract—was well known before the ’766 patent’s
`
`January 31, 2001 priority date. One paper from 1992 described the “typical
`
`configurator verification process of today’s configurators,” Ex. 1035, 1, including
`
`entering a “test case” into a configurator to detect product configuration errors:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1035, 3.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`It was well known to use test cases to change the product configuration to
`
`determine if the change produced configuration errors when processed by the rules.
`
`Id., 3 (1992 paper describing “testing of ripple effects of ‘what-if’ conditions (e.g.,
`
`adding or deleting a feature)”); Ex. 1002 ¶49 (citing Exs. 1032, 1035).
`
`It was also well known that a configurator should generate explanations of
`
`errors detected in the product configurations to identify problems in the
`
`configurator rules. Ex. 1002 ¶¶45-48 (citing Exs. 1027, 1032, 1033, 1036).
`
`In fact, each of the challenged ’766 patent claims were obvious in view of
`
`the prior art. But the inventors of the ’766 patent did not disclose any of this art to
`
`the Patent Office. Had they done so, the challenged claims would not have issued.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For this proceeding, Configit submits that no express construction is needed
`
`and that all terms should be accorded their “ordinary and customary meaning… 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).5
`
`
`
`
`5 Configit has not received infringement contentions or an identification of
`
`disputed terms in a co-pending district court litigation. Configit does not waive in
`
`that co-pending litigation Configit’s ability to seek construction of any term whose
`
`meaning appears to be in dispute, or for grounds that cannot be raised in IPR.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
` CLAIMS 1-5 & 9-19 ARE UNPATENTABLE
` Ground 1: Oracle1 in view of Oracle2
`Renders Claims 1, 9-10, 14, 19 Obvious
`
` Overview of Oracle1
`
`Oracle1 (Ex. 1003), titled the “Oracle Configurator Developer 11i User’s
`
`Guide” is a manual for the Oracle Configurator product that was sold in 2000.
`
`Oracle1 teaches configuring products that are made up of components, or parts.
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶63-70. The relationships between these parts are governed by rules:
`
`A configurator is a tool for configuring part or all of your products
`and services…. A configurator enables end users to access the parts
`that make up your product and the rules that govern how those
`parts go together. With a configurator, end users can generate any
`custom product configuration that the rules allow.
`
`Ex. 1003, 17. Oracle1 describes “implementation” of a product configurator as a
`
`process including “defining test cases, designing the application, constructing and
`
`testing the application.” Id., 143.
`
`The “Test/Debug” section of Oracle1 describes a process for testing a
`
`product configuration for configuration errors. Id., 25, 95-99. In this process, a
`
`user enters a test case to change a product configuration. The system processes the
`
`change against the rules and generates explanatory messages if it detects a
`
`configuration error in the tested product configuration:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
`…
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, 97-98. Oracle1 also provides examples of some of the various
`
`“message[s] describing the violation” generated for different types of product
`
`configuration errors. Ex. 1003, 49-51:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`
` Overview of Oracle2
`
`Oracle2 (Ex. 1004), titled the “Oracle Configurator Configuration Interface
`
`Object (CIO) Developer’s Guide” is also a manual for the Oracle Configurator
`
`product. As relevant to this ground, Oracle2 describes how product configurations
`
`are stored in the computer system. Ex. 1004, 42-43; Ex. 1002 ¶¶71-75.
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`The Oracle1-Oracle2 Combination provides claim 1 as follows.
`
`[1.pre] A method of using a computer system to test a product configuration for
`configuration errors, wherein the product configuration is stored as electronic
`data in a computer system for generating product configurations, the computer
`system including at least one rule defining a relationship between at least two
`parts, the product configuration including a plurality of parts, the method
`comprising:
`
`i.
`
` “A method of using a computer system to test a
`product configuration for configuration errors…”
`
`Oracle1 describes using a computer system to test a product configuration
`
`
`
`for configuration errors to verify the functionality of the configurator. See Ex.
`
`1003, 25 (describing process “to test the functionality… in the Test/Debug
`
`module.”); Ex. 1002 ¶137. A product configuration results from making product
`
`and part selections. In its “Test/Debug” section, Oracle1 explains a method for
`
`testing a product configuration for configuration errors:
`
`As you make selections, they are automatically validated against the
`rules that have been defined for the model or item that you are
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 49335-0002IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,766
`configuring…. If you make a selection that violates a configuration
`rule, the configuration window displays a messag