Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 1 of 61 PageID #: 2217
`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 1 of 61 PageID #: 2217
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT F
`
`EXHIBIT F
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 2 of 61 PageID #: 2218
`
`I
`
`RECEIVED
`AU~ 1 .?r-2001.
`Technology Center 2100
`
`PATENT
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No,: 09/829,854
`Filed: April 10, 2001
`
`ConfinnationNo.: 9817
`Group Art Unit: 2155
`Exan1iner: Jean, Frantz B.
`
`For: METHODS, SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR
`LICENSE USE MANAGEMENT ON A NETWORK
`
`Date: August l, 2002
`
`Commissioner of Patents
`Washington; DC 20231
`
`Sir:
`
`AMENDMENT
`
`This Amendment is responsive to the Official Action mailed May 7, 2002. Applicants
`
`provide herewith a copy of the amended portion of the claims and the specification entitled
`
`"Version With Changes Indicated," whicl1 identifies the changes made to the claims and the
`
`specification.
`
`L
`
`/
`In the Specification:
`Please replace the paragraph on page 11, beginning at tine 10 with the following:
`
`I
`
`TivofiTM server 20 provides a means for software distribution and management in
`
`computer network system 10. Funhermorc, on-demand servers 22, 22r each provide an
`
`application management system for managing configurable application programs using both
`
`user and administrative preferences for various application programs. More particularly, as
`
`described in the embodiments herein, on-demand servers 22, 22 1 are configured to operate
`
`within the eNetwork™ environment available from International Business Machines
`
`Corporation (IBM). An on-demand server which may be 1nodified according to the present
`
`in\'ention is described in United States Paicnt .A.pplication No. 09/211,528 (attorney docket
`
`number 5577-130) which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. However, while the
`
`present invention may be impleti1ented in this environ1nent, it is also suitable for use with other
`
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0834
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 3 of 61 PageID #: 2219
`
`In re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No.: 09/829,854
`Filing Date: 4/10/0 I
`Page2
`
`Referring now to the flowchart of FIG. 2, operations for distribution of an application
`program having configurable preferences and implementing management of configurable
`application programs on a network according to an embodiment of the present invention will
`now be described. At block _50, an application program having a plurality of configurable
`preferences and a plurality of authorized users is installed on server 22 coupled to network 1011
`This may be accomplished, for example, by placing the application program compact disc (CD)
`in a compact disc read only memory (CD ROM) drive coupled to on-demand server 22.
`Alternatively, as is described in United States Patent Application No. 09/211,528 (Attorney
`Docket No. 5577-130) with reference to FIGS. 5-7, the application program may be provided to
`on-demand server 22 from a central location such as Tivoli™ server 20.
`
`•
`
`'
`
`/
`Please replacethe paragraph on page 18. beginning at line 3 with the followjng:
`While the description above \Vas generally provided for a particular sequence and
`distribution of operations between a server and a client, it is to be understood that functions may
`' .
`be divided differently and at different titnes according to the teachings of the present invention.
`Alternative preferied embodiments are described in United States Patent Application No.
`09/211,528 (Atton1ey Docket No. 5577-130) which has been incorporated herein by reference in
`its entirety. One of these alternatives will now be generally described again herein.
`
`/
`In The Claims:
`Please replace c_.'laim 19 \Vith the following:
`
`(Amended) A method for managen1ent of license use for a network comprising
`
`I yr.
`the steps of:
`maintaining license management policy information for a plurality of application
`programs at a license management server, the license management policy information including
`at least one of a user identity based policy, an administrator policy override definition or a useY.
`UNILOC_!BM_2016_0835
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 4 of 61 PageID #: 2220
`
`In re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No.: 09/829,854
`Filing Date: 4/10/01
`Page 3
`
`receiving at the license management server a request for a license availability of a
`selected one of the plurality of application programs from a user at a client;
`determining the license availability for the selected one of the plurality of application
`programs for the user based on the maintained license management policy information; and
`providing an unavailability indication to the client responsive to the selection if the
`license availability indicates that a license is not available for the user or an availability
`indication if the licensed availability indicates that a license is available for the user .
`../
`Please replace Claim 22 with the following:
`
`I"\ )'I.
`(Amended) A license use management system for-a network comprising:
`means for maintaining license 1nanagement policy information for a plurality of
`application programs at a license management server, the license management policy
`information including at lea<it one of a user identity based policy, an administrator policy
`override definition or a user policy override definition;
`means for receiving at the license management server a request for a license availability
`of a selected one of the plurality of application programs fron1 a user at a client~
`means for determining the license availability for the selected one of the plurality of
`application programs for the user based on the maintained license management policy
`infonnation; and
`means for providing an unavailability indication to the client responsive to the selection
`if the license availability indicates that a license is not available for the user or an availability
`indication if the licensed availability indicates that a license is available for the user.
`
`/
`Please replace Claim 25 with the following:
`
`. "
`
`'
`
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0836
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 5 of 61 PageID #: 2221
`
`In re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No.: 09/829,854
`Filing Date: 4/10/01
`Page 4
`
`computer readable program code means for maintaining license management policy
`information for a plurality of'applicat.ion programs at a license management serveri the license
`management policy information including at least one of a user identity based policy1 an
`administrator policy override definition or a user policy overrjde definition;
`computer readable program code means for receiving at the license management server a
`request for a license availability of a selected one of the plurality of application programs from a
`user at a client;
`computer readable program code means for determining the license availability for the
`selected one of the plurality of application programs for the user based on the maintained license
`management policy information; and
`computer readable program code means for providing an unavailability indication to the
`client responsive to the selection if the license availability indicates that a license is not available
`for the user or an availability indication if the licensed availability indicates that a license is
`available for the user.
`
`/
`Please add the following new-claims:
`
`\
`)ff:
`(New) A method according to Claim ;,Vwherein ones of the plurality of
`application programs have associated default policies and wherein the at least one of a user
`identity based policy, an administrator policy override definition or a user policy override
`definition comprises at least one of an administrator policy override definition or a user policy
`override definition that defines ones of the associated default policies that may be modified by
`an adn1inistrator or user.
`
`1
`~
`j( (New) A system according to Clain1Ywherein ones of the pltirality of
`application prograrns have associated default policies and wherein the at least one of a user
`ide~tity based policy, an administrator policy override definition or a user policy override
`...... _ --1: ... .
`..l-&:-~.:-- _____ : ___ ... ! ....... - - - _,r- __ -..1-!-: ............ --1: .......... -:..i .. ..1-&:-:.: __ -- -
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0837
`
`[
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 6 of 61 PageID #: 2222
`
`In re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No.: 091829,854
`Filing Date; 4/10/01
`Page 5
`
`3
`~
`,;:£.
`(Nev .. ·) A computer program product according to Claiu}ywherein ones of the
`plurality of application programs l1ave associated default policies and wherein the at least one of
`a user identity based policy, an administrator policy override definition or a user policy override
`definition comprises at least one of an administrator policy override definition or a user policy
`override definition that defines ones of the associated default policies that may be modified by
`an administrator or user.
`
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0838
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 7 of 61 PageID #: 2223
`
`In re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No.: 091829,854
`Filing Date: 4110/0 I
`Page 6
`
`REMARKS
`Applicants appreciate the thorough examination of the present application as evidenced
`by the Official Action of May 7, 2002, ,1\pplicants further appreciate the Examiner's
`observations on the specification. The specification has been amended to provide the
`information requested by the Examiner in the Official Action. All the pending claims stand
`rejected under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No.
`5,671,412 to Christiano (hereinafter "Christiano") or under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`unpatentable over Christiano in view of United States Patent No. 6, l 05,069 to Franklin et al.
`(hereinafter "Franklin"). Independent Claims 19, 22, and 25 have been amended to further
`distinguish certain embodiments of the present invention from the cited portions of Christiano.
`New Claims 30, 31, and 32 have also been added, which depend on amended Claims 19, 22, and
`25, respectively. Applicants submit that the claims, as a1nended~ are in condition for allowance
`for the reasons discussed below.
`
`The Objections to The Specification
`The specification has been amended as requested by the Exa1niner. Applicants Sl1bmit
`that the objection to the specification should be withdrawn.
`
`Claims 19, 22, and 25 Are Patentable Over the Cited Reference
`fndependent Claims 19, 22, and 25 stand rejected under35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
`unpatentable over Christiano. Claims 19, 22, and 25 have been amended to recite "the license
`management policy information including at least one of a user identity based policy, an
`administrator policy override definition or a user policy override definition". Applicants
`respectfully sub1nit that these amendments are fully supported by the speciftcation, for example,
`at pages 20-21.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § l 02, 11a claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth
`in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference."
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0839
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 8 of 61 PageID #: 2224
`
`ln re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No,: 09/829)854
`Filing Date: 4/l0/01
`Page 7
`
`To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence 'must make clear that the missing descriptive
`matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the-reference, and that it \.vould be so
`recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by
`probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
`circumstances is not sufficient."' M.P .E.P. § 2112 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
`A finding of anticipation further requires that there must be no difference between the
`claimed invention and the disclosure of the cited reference as viewed by one of ordinary skill in
`the art. See Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genenrech Inc., 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (Fed.
`Cir. 1991). Thus, anticipation requires tbat a single prior art reference disclose each and every
`element of the anticipated claim.
`Each recitation of Claims 19, 22 and 25 is not found, ~xpressly or inherently, in
`Christiano. Christiano describes license policies as follows:
`Commonly used license policies include "nodf:-locked 0 licenses, ''floating" or
`''concurrent usage" licenses, "site" licenses, and "metered" licenses, each of which
`utilizes a different \Vay of determining when or where a user can use a software program.
`The 1'node-locked'' license allows a program to be used only on a specific computer node
`in a network (or by a specific user). One 1nethod of assigning a unique identifier to a
`computer system is to use hardware means, such as a hardware key or other methods that
`are well known. The ''floating" or '1concurrent usage'' license allows only a
`predetermined nu1nber of copies of the software to run simultaneously on the network,
`regardless of the node on which the softv.:are is running. The "site' 1 license allows the
`licensed software to be used anywhere within a licensed company or other defined area
`or organization. Finally, the '1metered" license allows a predetermined number of
`activations or uses of the program, or a predetermined amount of time \.Vhich the program
`can be run oo a central processing unit (CPU) of a computer.
`(Christiano, Col 1,, lines 24-38). 'fhus, Christiano does not appear to disclose or suggest license
`policies that are user identity based, or policies that allow administrator or user overrides. As
`the cited reference fails to disclose aU recitations of the clain1s, Claims 19, 22, and 25 are not
`anticipated by Christiano. Also, Claims 20-21, 26-27, and 28-29 are patentable per the
`patentability of Claims 19, 22, and 25 from which they, respectively, depend. Allowance of all
`the oendine. claims is requested.
`
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0840
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 9 of 61 PageID #: 2225
`
`ln re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No.: 09/829,854
`Filing Date: 4/l 0/01
`Page 8
`
`The Dependent Claims Are Separately Patentable
`As discussed above, each of the dependent claims ls patentable based on its_ dependence
`on Independent Claims 19, 22, or 25. Tn addition, many of the dependent claims are separately
`patentable based on the recitations therein, which are not disclosed or suggested by the cited
`references.
`For example, Claims 21, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
`anticipated by Christiano. Applicants submit that these rejections should be -Withdrawn, as the
`cited reference fails to disclose or suggest at least an '1on demand server" as recited in Claims 21,
`27, and 29. As recited in Claim 21, the "on demand server ... provides an instance of the selected
`one of the application programs to the client" of the support members. The specification further
`defines an on demand server as follows;
`"on-demand" refers to a server delivering applications as needed responsive to user
`requests as requests are received.
`(Specification, Page 10,-lines 22-23). Thus 1 the on demand server of Claim 21 "provides an
`instance of the selected one of the application programs to the client" \Vhen requested.
`The Official Action asserts that Christiano discloses "a license management server that is
`an on demand server,. ,which provides an instance of the selected one of the application
`programs to the client for execution." (Official Action, p. 4). I-lo\vever, the passage in
`Christiano cited in the Official Action states:
`License server 16 stores licenses for software progran1s available to computer systems 12
`and assigns or 1'checks out" these Jicenscs to client computer systems 12 that request a
`license. Herein, the term "license 11 is used to designate permission or authorization
`for a client computer system to use or "i1nplernenti. (run) a single designated software
`product, such as a program,..
`(Christiano, Col. 6, lines 34~41 )(en1phasis added). Thus, the server recited in Christiano
`provides the client with peimission to use an application program that may be executing on the
`client, and does not appear to provide the client with an instance of the application program
`itself. (Christiano, Col. 6, lines 43-53). As Christiano does not appear to disclose or suggest an
`"on demand server" as recited in Claims 21, 27 1 and 29, the anticipation rejection should be
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0841
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 10 of 61 PageID #: 2226
`
`In re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No.: 09/829,854
`Filing Date: 4/10/01
`Page 9
`
`Claims 20, 26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U,S.C. § l 03(a) as being obvious over
`Christiano in view of Franklin. Applicants submit that Claims 20, 26, and 28 are separately
`patentable and these rejections should be withdrawn, as the cited references fail to disclose or
`suggest, either alone or in combination, 11receiving the request from an application launcher
`program 11 as recited in pending dependent Claims 20, 26 and 2&.
`To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the prior art reference or references when
`con1bined must teach or suggest all the recitations of the claim, and there must be some
`suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally
`available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the referen_ce or to combine reference
`teachings. M.P.E.P. § 2143. The mere fact that 'references can be combined or modified does
`not render the resultant combinati'on obvious unless the prior art also suggestS the desirability of
`the combination. M.P.E.P. § 2143.01, citing In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1430
`(Fed. Cir. 1990). To support combining references, evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or
`motivation to combine must be clear and particular, and this requirement for clear and
`particular evidence is not met by broad and conclusory statements about the teachings bf
`references. In re Dembiczak, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit has also stated that, to support combining or modifying references, there
`must be particular evidence from the prior art as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no
`knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these components for combination
`in the manner claimed. In re Kotzab, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`RespectfuHy, as will be discuss~d be1o\v, the Official Action fails to meet the requirements for a
`showing of obviousness under § l 03.
`The Official Action asserts that '1Christiano implicitly discusses receiving a request from
`an application launcher programn (Official Action, p, 7). However, the passage in Christiano
`cited in the Official Action states that "[tJhe license manager can receive requests from
`0 (r,hri<>fi::lnn C'nl 1 li:nr><: ')4.'i6)fr:mnhfl<:;i<: nddP.cl). Christiano also states
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0842
`
`vnmnutJ>r n.nrlP1<
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 11 of 61 PageID #: 2227
`
`in re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No.: 09/829,854
`Filing Date: 4110/01
`Page 10
`
`launcher program that obtains 11the application program's executable code ffom the server on(cid:173)
`demand." (Specification, p. 18, lines 13-14). In fact, Christiano appears to describe an
`environment in which the program's executable code is already on the client and the client
`obtains "authorization ... to use or 'implement' (run) a single designated software product."
`(Christiano, Col. 6, lines 38-40). Thus, "receiving the request from an application latmcher
`pr<=!gram'' is not disclosed in or suggested.by Christiano.
`Furthermore, Franklin does not provide the missing. teaching. The Official Action states
`that "Franklin is directed to a licensing controller ... which includes an application launcher
`program" (Officipl Action, pp, 7-8), l:lo\vever, the application launcher program disclosed in
`Franklin is not the same as the application launcher program recited in Claims 20, 26, and 28.
`Franklin discloses a net\vork application launcher that "provides computer-implemented
`methods and apparatus for consistently determining the nature and location of application
`program executable codes in a network" (Franklin, CoL 1, lines 45-46)(emphasis added).
`Franklin also discloses that "[a]n application is typically launched from a server" (Franklin,
`Col. l, line53)(emphasis added). Further, Franklin recites an application launcher capable of
`''centraJJv managing application programs in a computer network ... to make resources
`available on the netwdrk" (Franklin, Col. 2, lines l 7-24)(emphasis added). In other words, the
`launcher recited in Franklin is a server-based resource that merely accesses applications which
`are stored and launched from a server. Furthermore, Franklin recites only one launcher, which
`manages multiple application programs.
`By contrast, Claim 20 recites 11[t]he application launcher program ... is distributed for
`each authorized application program" (Specification, p. 18, lines 28-29)(emphasis added), Also,
`the launcher of Claim 20 "requests an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application
`programs ... from server system 22. The application launcher program then populates
`clicnts ••• '\Vith the instance of the selected application program" (Speciftcation, p. 19, lines
`28-29)(emphasis added). Thus, the launcher of Claim 20 "populates clients" with the
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0843
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 12 of 61 PageID #: 2228
`
`In re: David E. Cox et aL
`Serial No.: 09/829,854
`Filing Date: 4/10/01
`Page 11
`
`Thus, the application launcher program recited in Claim 20 is distinct from the
`application launcher discussed in Franklin. Accordingly, Claims 20, 26, and 28 are separately
`patentable for at least these additional reasons.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that, for the reasons discussed above, the references cited
`in the present rejections do not disclose or suggest the present invention as claimed.
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request allowance-of all the pending claims and passing
`this application to issue.
`
`(\'P(°tfu\ly sub')'\ittr,
`' ' \> _vr"11 \ :
`I "~Y)\ /jj L ·
`"'\
`Robert W. Glatz
`Registration No. 36,811
`'
`
`Customer Number;
`
`1111111111111111111111111111111111
`
`20792
`
`PATENT ThAOF.MAIU( OFFICfo
`
`Ccrlifieate of Mniling under 37 CFR 1.8
`
`l hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficicn1
`postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to: Commissioner for Patents, Washington, DC 20231 on
`Au~t·,1, 2002,
`
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0844
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 13 of 61 PageID #: 2229
`
`In re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No.: 09/829,854
`Filing Date: 4/10/01
`Page 12
`
`VERSION WITH CHANGES INDICATED
`
`In the Specification:
`Please replace the paragraph on page J l., beginning at line I 0 with the following:
`TivoiiTM server 20 provides a means for software distribution and management in
`co1nputer net\vork system 10. Furthemiore, on-demand servers 22, 22' e.ach provide an
`applicatio11 management system for managing configurable application programs using both
`user and administrative preferences for various application programs. More particularly, as
`described in the embodiments herein, on-demand servers 22, 22' are configured to operate
`within the eNetwork'l'M environment available from International Business Machines
`Corporation (IBM). An on-demand server which may be modified according to the present
`invention is described in United States Patent Application No. 09/211.528 ~---~
`(attorney docket number 5577-130) which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
`However, while the present inventinn may be implemented in this environment, it ls also
`suitable for use with other client/server and net\vork management environments.
`
`Please replace the paragraph on page 12, beginning at line 10 with the follov1ing:
`Referring now to the flowchart of FIG. 2, operations for distribution of an application
`program having configurable preferences and implementing management of configurable
`application programs on a net\vork according to an embodiment of the present invention will
`now be described. At block 50, an application program having a plurality of configurable
`preferences and a plurality of authorized users is installed on server22 coup!ed to net\vork 1011
`This may be accomplished, for example, by placing the application program compact disc (CD)
`in a compact disc r.cad only memory (CD ROM) drive coupled to on-demand server 22.
`Alternatively, as is described in United States Patent Application No. 09/211.528 ~---~
`(Attorney Docket No. 5577-130) with reference to FIGS. 5-7, the application program n1ay be
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0845
`
`•
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 14 of 61 PageID #: 2230
`
`In re: David E. Cox et al,
`Serial No.: 09/829,854
`Filing Date: 4/1010 l
`Page 13
`
`While the description above was generally provided for a particular sequence and
`distribution of operations between a server and a clientj it is to be understood that functions may
`be divided differently and at different times according to the teachings of the present invention.
`Alternative preferred embodiments are described in United States Patent Application No.
`(Attorney Docket No. 5577-130) which has been incorporated herein
`09/2.11.528
`by reference in its entirety. One of these alterna~ives will now be generally described again
`herein,
`
`In The Claims:
`Please replace Claim 19 with the following:
`
`19.
`
`(Amended) A met11od for management of license use for a network comprising
`
`the steps of:
`maintaining license management policy information for a plurality of application
`programs at a license management server, the license management policy infonuation including
`at least one of a user identity based policy, an administrator policy override definition or a user
`
`policy override definition;
`receiving at the license n1anagement server a request fo1 a Jlcense availability of a
`selected one of the plurality of application programs from a user at a client;
`determining the license availability for the selected one of the plurality of application
`programs fOr·thc user based on the maintained license management policy infonnation; and
`providing an unavailability indication to the client responsive to the selection if the
`license availability indicates that a license is not available for the user or an availability
`indication if the licensed availability indicates that a license is available for the user.
`
`Please replace Claim 22 with the following:
`
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0846
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 15 of 61 PageID #: 2231
`
`In re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No.: 09/829,854
`Filing Date: 4/\ 0/0 I
`Page 14
`
`information including at least one of a user identity based policy, an administrator policy
`override definition or a user policy override definition;
`means for receiving at the lii:ense management server a request for a license availability
`of a selected one of the plurality of application programs from a us_er at a client;,
`means for determining the license availability for the selected one of the plurality of
`application programs for the user based on the maintained license management policy
`information; and
`means for providing an unavailability indication to the client responsive to the selection
`if the license availability indicates that a license is not available for the user or an availability
`indication if the licensed availability indicates that a license is available for the user.
`
`Please replace Claim 25 with the following:
`
`(Amended) A- computer program product for license use managetnent for a
`25.
`network, the cbmputer program product comprising:
`a computer readable storage medium having coinputer-rcadable program code means
`embodied in said medium, said computer~readable program code means comprising;
`computer readable program code means for maintaining license management policy
`infonnation for a plurality of application programs at a license management server. the license
`management policy information including at least one of a user identity based policy, an
`administrator policy override def1nitlon or a user policy override definition;
`computer readable program code means for receiving at the license management server a
`request for a license availability of a selected one of the plurality of application programs from a
`user at a client;
`computer readable program code means for determining the license availability for the
`selected one of the plurality of application programs for the user based on the maintained license
`management nolicv information: and
`
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0847
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 16 of 61 PageID #: 2232
`
`In re: David E. Cox et al.
`Serial No.: 09/829,854
`Filing Date: 4/10101
`Page 15
`
`for the user or an availability indication if the licensed availability indicates that a license is
`available for the user.
`
`*END*
`
`UN!LOC_IBM_2016_0848
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 17 of 61 PageID #: 2233
`
`UNITED STA.TES Bo.TENT A.""lP 'IkADEMAl'l.K OFF'ICE
`
`<lN!'r~D fiTATE!> DEl'AllTilll':N'l' O~' (:Q~MERCI~
`<lnt....i e .... , ... ""'h>" """ 'l'•ada ....... om,,,,
`.. ,.,,... •• COMMlBfllON)".11- o~ ?ATl':N'l'fl AN!l"TRll!l"M"ARlrn
`...,..,,,,,..._
`w~'"""""'· o c. ·~•
`
`APrLlCATIONNO,
`
`W/829,854
`
`)'lllNOOATB
`
`04/ltl/2001
`
`J'IRST NAMf'.0 lNVEl'>iOR
`
`ATTORNflYDOCKETNO.
`
`CONl'IRMl\.TlON NO.
`
`Dnvl<l E,Cox
`
`5:i77-106DV
`
`9817
`
`I !/0112002
`Iv1yers Bigcl Sibley & Sajovcc
`P.O. Box37428
`Raleigh, NC 27627
`
`llXAM!NER
`
`JEAN. FRANTZ B
`
`ARTVNIT
`
`1155
`
`DATE. MAILED: ! J/01!2002
`
`PA~ERNt:MBER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concemi11g this application or proceeding.
`
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0849
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159-6 Filed 06/01/17 Page 18 of 61 PageID #: 2234
`
`I
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`091829,854
`
`Examiner
`
`Appllcant(s}
`
`COX ET AL
`
`Art Unit
`
`2155
`Frantz 8, Jean
`-- The MAfLING DATE of this communicatfon appears on the cover Shaal with the correspondence addr(Jss -·
`! Period for Reply
`R
`.
`E LY
`E D
`ASHD TENEDS ATU DRYP RID FDRR P
`T
`T
`THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Ext'>fl!licn~ ol !Ima m<1y b<1 DV11il11blD unrlartho prov\, ions cf 37 CFR 1, 136(11). In no avant howav.,,, rnoy" r"ply b<> fi111ely filed
`.. ner SIX (6) MONTHS !rom \ho miiiling d11te ol !his communlcotion.
`lltha po1iod for reply i)lOtifiod 11\>cve !s !D11a than thirty (3()) days, 11 roplywuhln th<> stalulory minimum aflhl!ty\30) day:s will ba ,conoldoro!<l timDly,
`ff NO po1lod fer 1op!y is spocmed abc~a, the mD:<imum 11tatulory ~oriod wili 11?Ply11nd wlll eJCf'iro SIX (BJ MONTHS from 1110 m11lling date ofthi~ cornmllnlcaUon.
`F11lluro t:;i roplywithln Ifie sr>I or 1>-.tcim:l11d par1od fer r11plywlll, by stat1.1la, co~i;.e 1he application \o become AllANOONEO (35 U,S.C, § 133),
`Any reply recr>i~nd ~thn Offico lalorthnn threr> mon\hs,nfl:<!r lhn m11lllng dr>t" ofthl' communicaUon, !IV en ii llrnelyfiled. may reduc., any
`"nmed ?n!ani tnrm adjustment. Sae 37 CFR 1.704(b}.
`Status
`
`ISSET DEXPRE_MDNTH(S)FRDM
`I
`T
`3
`
`Responsive to communlcation(s) filed on 01 August 2002.
`1)1Si
`2b)0 This action ls non-final.
`2a11Sl
`This action is FINAL.
`3)0 Since this application is In condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`Disposition of Claims
`4)[81 Claim{s) 19-22 and 25-32 is/are pending in the application,
`4a} Of the above c\aim(s) _ls/are withdrawn from consideration.
`5)0 Claim(s) __ is/are allowed.
`0)!2l Claim(s} 19-22 and 25-32 is/are rejected,
`7)0 Claim(s) __ is/are objected to.
`8)0 Claim(s) __ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`Appllcatlon Papers
`9)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`10)0 The drawing{s) filed on __ is/are: a){] accepted er bO objected to by the