throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 39
`
`
` Entered: April 18, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE GROUP, INC.; OLD
`REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC TITLE
`INSURANCE GROUP, INC.; and OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE
`INSURANCE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OWNER1 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,519,581 B12,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`____________
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`1 The Federal Circuit determined that Intellectual Ventures I LLC is not the
`owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,519,581 B1 (“the ’581 patent”) because of a
`defective assignment in the chain of title. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie
`Indem. Co., Case No. 2016-1128, 2017 WL 900018, at *1–*5 (Fed. Cir.
`Mar. 7, 2017). At the Federal Circuit, there was no dispute that
`AllAdvantage.com was the last known assignee of the ’581 patent. Id. After
`its agent for service of process was notified, AllAdvantage.com did not
`made an appearance as patent owner in these proceedings. See Ex. 3003.
`2 The caption for this proceeding has been changed to remove Intellectual
`Ventures I LLC as the Patent Owner. See Paper 38.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Old Republic General Insurance Group, Inc.; Old Republic Insurance
`Company; Old Republic Title Insurance Group, Inc.; and Old Republic
`National Title Insurance Company (collectively “Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`on September 28, 2015, requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–10
`and 20–38 of U.S. Patent No. 6,519,581 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’581 patent”).
`(Paper 1, “Pet.”). Petitioner supports its challenge with a Declaration from
`Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher (Ex. 1003) and a Reply (Paper 27, “Reply”). On
`April 18, 2016, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–10 and 20–
`38 of the ’581 patent. Paper 20 (“Dec. on Inst.”). An oral hearing was held
`on December 19, 2016, and a transcript of the oral hearing is of record.
`Paper 35 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Decision is a final
`written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the
`challenged claims. For the reasons that follow, we determine Petitioner has
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10 and 20–38 of
`the ’581 patent are unpatentable.
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner indicates that the ’581 patent is involved in the following
`United States District Court proceedings:
`• Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Old Republic General
`Insurance Group, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-01130 (W.D. Pa.);
`• Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Highmark, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-
`01131 (W.D. Pa.); and
`• Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., No. 1:14-
`cv-00220 (W.D. Pa.).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`Pet. 2. In these above-referenced cases, the district court dismissed
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC’s (“IV”) patent infringement claims based on
`the ’581 patent for lack of standing. Ex. 1017, 24. IV appealed the district
`court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., Case Nos.
`2016-1128, -1129, -1132, 2017 WL 900018, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017).
`On March 18, 2016, in email correspondence to the Board, Petitioner
`indicated that IV settled its matter with Highmark, Inc. Further, in
`Petitioner’s updated mandatory notices, we are informed that the Federal
`Circuit issued a decision on March 7, 2017 in IV’s consolidated Appeal Nos.
`2016-1128, -1129, and -1132, affirming the district court’s dismissal of IV’s
`patent infringement suit against Petitioner based on a lack of standing.
`Paper 37, 1; see Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 2017 WL 900018, at *1–*5.
`The ’581 patent is also the subject of another inter partes review
`petition filed by Petitioner in IPR2015-01957.
`B. Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`During the course of this proceeding, IV has participated as the
`purported Patent Owner of the ’581 patent. See Dec. on Inst. 3–6. IV has
`maintained that it is the patent owner of the ’581 patent through a series
`assignments including an assignment between AllAdvantage.com and Alset,
`Inc. (“the Alset Agreement”). Id. As discussed in greater detail in our Order
`(Paper 38) filed concurrently herewith, on March 7, 2017, the Federal
`Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of IV’s patent infringement
`claims for lack of standing. In doing so, the Federal Circuit determined that
`the Alset Agreement did not convey any rights to the ’581 patent.
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 2017 WL 900018, at *1–*5. IV has maintained
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`that it was entitled to ownership rights arising from a series of assignments
`after the Alset Agreement. See Ex. 1017, 5–24. However, because the
`Federal Circuit has determined that the Alset Agreement did not convey any
`rights to the ’581 patent to Alset, Inc., we are not persuaded that IV received
`any ownership rights to the ’581 patent from subsequent assignments. See
`Paper 38, 4–5; see also 37 C.F.R. § 3.54 (“[w]hen necessary, the Office will
`determine what effect a document has, including whether a party has the
`authority to take an action in a matter pending before the Office.” ).
`Accordingly, for the purposes of this Final Written Decision, we do
`not consider IV to be the Patent Owner of the ’581 patent, and further do not
`consider the filings, arguments, and evidence submitted by IV in this record
`as the Patent Owner for this proceeding. Additionally, as discussed in
`greater detail in our Order, an agent for service of process for
`AllAdvantage.com was provided notice of this proceeding. Paper 38, 7–9.
`However, AllAdvantage.com has not made an appearance as Patent Owner
`in this proceeding, and has declined to participate in this inter partes review
`Therefore, we proceed to Final Written Decision without a substitute Patent
`Owner.
`
`C. The ’581 Patent
`The ’581 patent is directed to systems and methods for collecting
`information about a computer system or user. Ex. 1001, Abstract. Figure 1
`of the ’581 patent is reproduced below.
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows client 10 coupled to server 12 via communication link
`22, such as a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), or the
`Internet. Ex. 1001, 4:8–9, 5:19–25. As shown, client 10 may include one or
`more discovery agents 14a–d that are coupled to discovery engine 16. Id. at
`4:10–14. Each of discovery agents 14a–d collects client and/or user
`information (e.g., hardware and software configurations of client 10 and the
`user’s interests), and communicates this information to discovery engine 16.
`Id. at 4:16–25. Discovery engine 16 receives information collected by one
`or more discovery agents 14a–d and uses the received data to execute one or
`more discovery rules 18a–d. Id. at 4:39–42. The discovery rules determine
`what, if any, action is to be taken based on the collected data. Id. at 3:17–18.
`Discovery rules may be a series of Boolean operations, mathematical
`equations, or other comparisons or evaluations of the collected data. Id. at
`3:18–21. Discovery agents are separate programs from the discovery rules
`and there is no particular relationship between the discovery agents and the
`discovery rules. Id. at 3:22–25.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 further shows server 12 as including discovery agents 24 and
`discovery rules 26. Ex. 1001, 5:25–26. Server 12 may store various
`discovery agents 24 and discovery rules 26 for transmission to one or more
`clients, which are then activated or executed by the discovery engine
`contained in the client. Id. at 5:30–33. Storage device 28 in server 12 can
`be used to store various information regarding the clients coupled to the
`server and the various discovery rules and discovery agents already installed
`on each client. Id. at 5:34–37.
`The result of a particular discovery rule may store the received data,
`invoke another discovery rule, or combine the received data with previously
`stored data (e.g., performing data averaging). Id. at 4:50–53. The result
`may trigger one or more activities or events, or generate a warning to the
`user, e.g., that the available disk space or available memory on the user
`device falls below a particular threshold. Id. at 4:63–67.
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 20, and 29 are independent.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter of the ’581
`patent:
`
`1. A method of collecting information, the method
`comprising:
`transmitting a discovery rule across a communication
`link to a computer system, wherein the discovery rule is to be
`applied to data about the computer system or a user to generate
`information, and wherein the data is collected by a discovery
`agent located in the computer system, and
`receiving the information from the computer system.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–10 and 20–38 on the
`following grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Dec. on Inst.
`36):
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Graf3 and Desai4
`Graf, Desai, and Wahlquist5
`
`Basis Claim(s) Challenged
`§ 103
`1, 8–10, 29, and 36–38
`§ 103
`2–7, 20–28 and 30–35
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`We construe claim terms of an unexpired patent according to their
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patent specification.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`2144–46 (2016). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we
`assign claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire patent disclosure.
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “We
`have recognized ‘only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a
`patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when
`the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the
`specification or during prosecution.’” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`829 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Thorner v. Sony Comput.
`
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,619,656, issued Apr. 8, 1997 (Ex. 1005, “Graf”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,781,703, issued July 14, 1998 (Ex. 1006, “Desai”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,367,667, issued Nov. 22, 1994 (Ex. 1007, “Wahlquist”).
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Any special
`definition for a claim term must be set forth in the Specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`We determine that the following claim terms require explicit
`construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See, e.g., Wellman,
`Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim
`terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy.’”) (citation omitted).
`1. Discovery Agent (claims 1, 20, and 29)
`For the purposes of the Decision on Institution, we adopted
`Petitioner’s proposed construction and construed the term “discovery agent”
`as “code that collects data.” Dec. on Inst. 10–12. In its Petition, Petitioner
`submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim term
`“discovery agent” to mean “code that collects data.” Pet. 9.
`Based on our review of the Specification of the ’581 patent,
`Petitioner’s arguments are persuasive. As Petitioner discerns, its proposed
`construction is consistent with the ’581 patent, which discloses that
`discovery agents are “implemented using individual programs or code
`sequences” and “[d]iscovery agents 14a-14d collect information about the
`client or the user of client 10.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:65–66, 3:7–10,
`4:16–20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–80).
`We note that the ’581 patent further discloses that the “discovery
`agents themselves have no intelligence regarding how to interpret or act on
`the collected data.” Ex. 1001, 3:10–12. Considering this description in the
`context of the ’581 patent as a whole, we do not consider this statement to
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`ascribe a special definition of “discovery agent” or a disavowal of claim
`scope. First, the literal language of the claims themselves does not expressly
`provide for individual programs or code, and the absence of intelligence.
`See Ex. 1001, Claims 1 and 29. Second, the ’581 patent, itself, states that
`the disclosed embodiments are not intended to limit the scope of the
`invention. Ex. 1001, 2:35–38, 2:64–3:1, 10:56–64. For example, the ’581
`patent states, in the lines preceding lines 10 through 12 of column 3, that
`“those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the invention may be
`practiced without these specific details.” Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:1. Additionally,
`the ’581 patent indicates that
`it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the
`particular embodiments shown and described are for purposes
`of illustration only and are not intended to limit the scope of the
`invention. Those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that
`the invention may be embodied in other specific forms without
`departing from its spirit or essential characteristics. References
`to details of particular embodiments are not intended to limit
`the scope of the claims.
`Ex. 1001, 10:56–64.
`Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we construe the term
`“discovery agent” as “code that collects data.”
`2. Other Claim Terms
`Petitioner proposes additional constructions for “discovery rule” and
`“passively collects.” Pet. 8–11. On this record and for purposes of our Final
`Written Decision, we determine that no other claim terms need explicit
`construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in
`controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`
`B. Claims 1, 8–10, 29, and 36–38 — Asserted Obviousness over Graf
`(Ex. 1005) and Desai (Ex. 1006)
`1. Summary of Graf (Ex. 1005)
`Graf describes automated management of a group of computers and
`associated hardware and software. Ex. 1005, 10–13, Abstract (“The system
`and method of this invention automatically manages a group of computers
`by automatically gathering data, storing the data, analyzing the stored data to
`identify specified conditions, and initiating automated actions to respond to
`the detected conditions.”). Figure 1 of Graf is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows a group of managed computers 1 and a group of monitoring
`computers 6. Id. at 4:14–16, 27. The group of managed computers 2
`includes computers 2–5 that may include CPU 9, disks 14, communications
`interface 16, and SYSTEMWatch AI-L client 13. Id. at 4:16–21. Data is
`gathered from and stored on a managed computer. Id. at 4:22–24. Graf
`teaches that a managed computer may send data to a monitoring computer 8,
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`shown in Figure 1 as part of the group of monitoring computers 6. Id. at
`4:23–26.
`Graf further teaches that the group of monitoring computers 6
`includes computers that may have a CPU, memory, disks, communications
`interface, and SYSTEMWatch AI-L console 21. Id. at 4:27–31. Graf
`further provides that a monitoring computer may request data from a
`managed computer, and data that is received by the monitoring computer
`from the managed computer is stored on the monitoring computer. Id. at 4:
`33–39. Graf also teaches that a monitoring computer can receive data from
`several managed computers, and the monitoring computer can perform post-
`processing on data received from several managed computers and/or
`perform additional data gathering itself, in which case the data is stored on
`the monitoring computer. Id. at 4:39–45.
`Additionally, Graf discloses that the SYSTEMWatch AI-L client
`provides a means for the computer to automatically detect and respond to
`problems. Id. at 4:61–64. Graf provides that the SYSTEMWatch AI-L
`client also accepts and responds to commands issued by a SYSTEMWatch
`console. Id. at 4:64–67. Graf adds that a computer is a managed computer
`if it runs the SYSTEMWatch AI-L client, and a computer is a monitoring
`computer if it runs the SYSTEMWatch AI-L console. Id. at 4:61–63, 5:1–3.
`Graf further teaches that the SYSTEMWatch AI-L client is tasked with
`managing a computer and providing notification of management actions to
`the SYSTEMWatch AI-L console. Id. at 5:39–41. Graf provides that the
`SYSTEMWatch AI-L client is bifurcated into a “core layer” for detecting
`and responding to problems, and an “application layer” that configures the
`client to operate in a useful manner. Id. at 5:45–49. The core layer includes
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`a database for storing gathered data, intermediate results, and other
`information. Id. at 5:65–67. The core layer further includes an expert system
`that is used for problem detection and action initiation. Id. at 7:53–54.
`Graf further discloses that the expert system is a forward chaining rule
`based expert system using a rule specificity algorithm. Id. at 7:55–56.
`When SYSTEMWatch AI-L client, 13, is started, the expert system contains
`no rules. Id. at 7:56–57. Rules are declared and incorporated into the core
`layer. Rules support both the IF-THEN rules as well as IF-THEN-ELSE
`rules. Id. at 7:58–60. The rules used in SYSTEMWatch AI-L permit
`assignments and function calls within the condition of the rule. Id. at 7:60–
`62.
`
`2. Summary of Desai (Ex. 1006)
`Desai discloses a network monitoring system that includes an
`intelligent remote agent for collecting performance data on the agent’s
`associated computer. Ex. 1006, Abstract. Figure 1 of Desai is reproduced
`below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows network monitoring system 10 that includes a plurality
`of interconnected computer systems 12. Id. at 2:45–52. Referring to Figure
`1, Desai teaches that Intelligent Remote Agents 18 communicate with Proxy
`Controller 16, and through it to Data Server 14, for the collection of
`performance data from the computer systems 12. Id. at 3:66–4:2. Intelligent
`Remote Agent 18 receives commands from Proxy Controller 16 associated
`with Data Server 14, and in response to such commands, Intelligent Remote
`Agent 18 initiates data collection operations on its respective computer
`system 12 and then returns the collected data to Proxy Controller 16 for
`forwarding to Data Server 14. Id. at 4:5–11.
`Desai further teaches that there are two ways to collect performance
`data from Intelligent Remote Agents 18: (1) transmitting commands for a
`situation monitoring request to a particular Intelligent Remote Agent 18 on a
`particular computer system 12; or (2) transmitting commands for a report
`request to a particular Intelligent Remote Agent 18 on a particular computer
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`system 12. Ex. 1006, 5:66–6:5. In both cases, the commands are
`transmitted from the Proxy Controller 16 to the Intelligent Remote Agent 18
`and the response is returned by the Intelligent Remote Agent 18 to the Proxy
`Controller 16 and Data Server 14. Id. at 6:5–9.
`Desai adds that Data Server 14 may include predefined automatically
`initiated situation monitoring requests that are transmitted to Proxy
`Controller 16 upon initialization of Data Server 14 and Proxy Controller 18.
`Ex. 1006, 6:10–13. Proxy Controller 16 analyzes the situation monitoring
`request extracts predicates and sampling intervals or event occurrences
`therefrom and generates one or more command sequences for Intelligent
`Remote Agents 18. Id. at 6:13–17. The predicates, which are analogous to
`SQL predicates, indicate the specific items of performance data to be
`collected. Id. at 6:18–19. The sampling intervals, which are analogous to
`timers, indicate the specific time periods for collecting the items of
`performance data. Id. at 6:19–22. The event occurrences, which are
`analogous to interrupts, indicate the specific event indication or occurrence
`that triggers the collection of performance data. Id. at 6:22–24. The
`command sequences are then transmitted to the specified Intelligent Remote
`Agents 18. Id. at 6:24–26.
`Intelligent Remote Agent 18 collects the desired data at the specified
`sampling interval or event occurrence and determines whether the collected
`data satisfies any of the situation predicates. Ex. 1006, 6:43–46. Any
`collected data that satisfies the situation predicates is returned to Proxy
`Controller 16 and is then transmitted to Data Server14 for storage. Id. at
`6:46–48.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`
`3. Analysis
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 8–10, 29, and 36–38 under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 based on Graf and Desai. Pet. 45–49. For this challenge, Petitioner
`relies on unpatentability arguments it presents earlier in its Petition based on
`Graf alone pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See id. We have
`considered the arguments and evidence presented, and are persuaded that
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1,
`8–10, 29, and 36–38 are unpatentable over Graf and Desai.
`a. Claims 1 and 29
`With respect to claims 1 and 29, we discuss independent claim 1
`below, which also is illustrative of the subject matter claimed in independent
`claim 29.
`Claim 1 is directed to a method of collecting information that includes
`the step of “transmitting a discovery rule across a communication link to a
`computer system.”
`For this limitation, Petitioner asserts that Graf discloses a
`“communication link to a computer system,” as recited in claim 1, because a
`group of managed computers are shown linked to a group of monitoring
`computers over a network. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 1). Petitioner
`further asserts that Graf describes the use of a “modem using a
`telecommunications network” as an example of a communication means
`between all the computers on the network. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 at 4:54–57).
`Petitioner further relies on the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Mitzenmacher,
`which provides that computers communicating over a computer network or
`via a modem necessarily employ a “communication link” in order to carry
`out the communication. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116).
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`
`Petitioner further asserts Graf discloses a “discovery rule” because
`Graf describes a rule based expert system in the core layer of the
`SYSTEMWatch AI-L client that contains several rules, including an
`“EXCEPT” rule used to perform problem detection and action initiation
`based on data collected by the “DATA2” and “DATA” rules. Pet. 16–17
`(citing Ex. 1005, 7:52–61, 8:40–54, 53:7–13).
`Additionally, Petitioner argues that Desai teaches “transmitting a
`discovery rule across a communication link to a computer system,” because
`Desai’s remote agents receive commands to collect performance data, which
`include “predicates” against which the collected data is to be tested. Pet. 46;
`Ex. 1006, 6:17–19, 43:46. Petitioner asserts that Desai’s predicates are
`“discovery rules” that are transmitted to a user computer system across
`Desai’s computer network. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:2–57, 5:65–6:9–46;
`and Fig. 1).
`Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious to one of
`ordinary skill in the art to “combine the rule-transmission functionality of
`Desai with the system of Graf in order to install the rule files disclosed in
`Graf onto the managed computers to ‘respond to additional problems.’” Pet.
`47 (citing Ex. 1005 at 12:9–11). Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan
`“would have been motivated to employ such a combination given the
`efficiency that such a method would have provided to the Graf system
`administrator in installing the rule files on remote managed computers.” Id.
`at 47 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:21–22). Petitioner adds that Desai teaches “the
`transmission of discovery rules over computer or telecommunications
`networks, for the purpose of monitoring a remote computer, was known
`(see, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 1:23–27), so to employ such functionality in Graf
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`would have been the use of a known technique for its ordinary purpose,
`achieving a predictable result [with a reasonable expectation of success].
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 130.” Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1006 at 2:2–11, 2:45–57, 5:65–6:9).
`Petitioner’s arguments and evidence discussed above are persuasive.
`As Petitioner observes, Graf teaches that the SYSTEMWatch AI-L includes
`a communication mechanism in the core layer that is based on mailboxes.
`Ex. 1005, 10:28–31. Graf further provides that the mailboxes allow a
`SYSTEMWatch AI-L client and a SYSTEMWatch AI-L console to deliver
`and receive messages/files from one another. Id. at 10:33–36. Graf also
`discloses that the communication mechanism can operate a communication
`daemon through which messages between modules are passed. Id. at 10:40–
`47. Graf does not disclose explicitly that a discovery rule is transmitted over
`the communication mechanism. See Pet. 46 (“To the extent one might argue
`that this claim element is not disclosed or suggested by Graf, the claim as a
`whole would still have been obvious because Desai does disclose this
`functionality and its combination with Graf would have been obvious.”).
`Nonetheless, we agree with Petitioner that Graf contemplated that its
`described system would manage “1 to several thousand” computers, (Ex.
`1005, 4:21–22), and that in doing so “additional problems” would arise,
`requiring a system administrator to “add additional modules to detect,
`analyze, and respond to additional problems,” (id. at 12:9–12).
`With this in mind, we are further persuaded that Petitioner has offered
`sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the
`conclusion of obviousness. In particular, we find persuasive Petitioner’s
`explanation that a skilled artisan would have considered it more efficient to
`utilize Graf’s existing communication mechanism to deliver rules or files,
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`especially in light of Desai’s teaching that rules in the form of commands
`and predicates are transmitted to remote agents. See Pet. 47. For example,
`referring to Figure 1, Desai teaches Data Server 14 collects and stores
`performance data from one or more computer systems 12 in network 10. Ex.
`1006, 3:13–14. Desai further provides that in operation,
`Data Server 14 may include predefined, automatically-initiated,
`situation monitoring requests that are transmitted to the Proxy
`Controller 18 upon initialization of Data Server 14 and the
`Proxy Controller 16. The Proxy Controller 16 analyzes the
`situation monitoring request, extracts predicates and sampling
`intervals or event occurrences therefrom, and generates one or
`more command sequences for the Intelligent Remote Agents
`18. . . . The command sequences are then transmitted to the
`specified Intelligent Remote Agents 18.
`
`Ex. 1006, 6:10–26 (emphasis added). Desai further teaches that the
`“Intelligent Remote Agents receive commands instructing them to collect
`performance data on the Agent’s associated computer system ‘wherein the
`commands comprise predicates for filtering the performance data.’” Ex.
`1006, 2:6–10. Thus, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of
`showing, through Petitioner’s submitted explanations and evidence, that
`Graf and Desai teach “transmitting a discovery rule across a communication
`link to a computer system” as recited in claim 1.
`Claim 1 further includes the limitation: “wherein the discovery rule is
`to be applied to data about the computer system or a user to generate
`information.” Petitioner argues Graf teaches this limitation because
`(1) DATA2 rules generate information using the raw data gathered by the
`DATA rules; and (2) EXCEPT rules apply their conditions to collected data
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`to determine what, if any, action should be taken. Pet. 17, 21–22 (citing Ex.
`1005, 8:39–47, 53:7–13).
`Petitioner’s arguments and evidence are persuasive. In particular, we
`note Graf discloses that a DATA state is assigned to rules which gather raw
`data from the computer system; a DATA2 state is assigned to rules that
`perform computations based on data collected by the rules in the DATA
`state; and the EXCEPT state is assigned to rules that perform problem
`detection and action initiation. Ex. 1001, 8:30–57. This disclosure is
`consistent with Petitioner’s position that Graf’s DATA2 or EXCEPT state
`rules teach or suggest discovery rules that are applied to data about the
`computer system to generate information. See Pet. 21 (“The DATA2 rules
`of Graf generate information about a given computer system by computing
`intermediate data using the raw data gathered by the lower level DATA rules
`[, and] ‘EXCEPT’ discovery rules are also applied to the DATA or DATA2
`generated information to generate additional information about the managed
`computer, such as an alert.”) (citing Ex. 1005, 8:39–47, 8:52–54).
`Additionally, Claim 1 also requires “wherein the data is collected by a
`discovery agent located in the computer system.”
`For this limitation, Petitioner argues that the SYSTEMWatch AI-L
`client program is a “discovery agent” because Graf describes it as a separate
`program that collects data and runs on a managed computer. Pet. 22–23
`(citing Ex. 1005, 3:15–25, 4:33–36, 4:58–63, 5:38–41, 5:65–67, and 10:64–
`67). As an example of data collection, Petitioner refers to Graf’s teaching
`that the SYSTEMWatch AI-L client includes a DATA rule that causes the
`client to collect data. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:30–58).
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`
`Petitioner’s argument is consistent with Graf’s distinction between a
`SYSTEMWatch AI-L client and a SYSTEMWatch AI-L console, whereby
`the SYSTEMWatch AI-L client is run on a managed computer to provide
`the managed computer with a means to automatically detect and respond to
`problems. Ex. 1005, 4:58–67. Further, Graf teaches that the core layer of
`the SYSTEMWatch AI-L client contains an “expert system” with DATA
`state rules that “gather raw data from the computer system.” Ex. 1005,
`7:52–54, 8:29–31. Thus, we are persuaded that Petitioner has explained
`sufficiently how Graf discloses this limitation.
`Claim 1 further recites the step of “receiving the information from the
`computer system.” Petitioner asserts that Graf teaches that the monitoring
`computer receives the generated information sent to it by the managed
`computers. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:37–45).
`We agree with Petitioner’s argument above because Graf provides
`that “[a] monitoring computer can also explicitly request data from a
`managed computer. Data which is received by a monitoring computer from
`a managed computer is stored on the monitoring computer.” Ex. 1005,
`4:36–39.
`Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’581 patent is unpatentable
`over Graf and Desai. We also have reviewed Petitioner’s analysis and
`supporting evidence with respect to independent claim 29, which rely largely
`on Petitioner’s arguments presented for claim 1. Pet. 31–32, 46–48. For the
`same reasons discussed above, we are persuaded Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 29 of the ’581 patent is
`unpatentable over Graf and Desai.
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01956
`Patent 6,519,581 B1
`
`
`b. Claims 8–10 and 36–38
`Petitioner further asserts that claims 8 and 36 of the ’581 patent are
`unpatentable over Graf and Desai. Claim 8 de

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket