UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HCC INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01431
`Patent 7,949,752
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
`Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction. ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. The ’752 patent enables efficient customization of technology-driven
`services for individual users. .............................................................................. 3
`A. The significant disadvantages of the prior art techniques for providing
`technological services. .............................................................................. 3
`
`B. The ’752 patent overcame the issues of the prior art by providing a
`network system extensible by user. ........................................................... 4
`
`III. Claim construction. ............................................................................................ 8
`A.
`“event handler” (Claims 7, 25, 26, 27). .................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`“exhausted” (Claims 1, 7, 9, 24). ............................................................11
`
`C. Means-plus-function elements. ...............................................................12
`
`IV. The Board should reject Petitioner’s Grounds 1 and 2 because Petitioner has
`not met its burden of establishing a reasonable likelihood that the challenged
`claims are unpatentable. ...................................................................................14
`
`A. Chow operates differently than the claimed invention of the ’752 patent.
` .................................................................................................................14
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner has not established that Chow renders independent claims 1,
`7, 9, and 24 and their corresponding dependent claims obvious [Ground
`1]. .............................................................................................................18
`
`1. Petitioner fails to establish that Chow teaches or suggests the
`“invoking” elements of independent claims 1, 7, 9, and 24. ...........18
`
`2. Petitioner fails to meet its burden establishing that Chow teaches or
`suggests “wherein an amount of the service resource is exhausted
`upon being consumed by the network-based agent.” ......................27
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner fails to establish that the combination of Chow and Bauer
`renders claims 6, 8, and 23 obvious [Ground 2]. ....................................30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`V. The Board should reject Petitioner’s Grounds 3 and 4 based on Goddard
`because Petitioner has not met its burden of establishing a reasonable
`likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable. ..................................31
`
`A. Petitioner has not established that Goddard is a prior art printed
`publication. ..............................................................................................31
`
`B. Goddard provides simple execution of programs on remote hosts. ........33
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner has not established that Goddard renders independent claims
`1, 7, 9, and 24 and their corresponding dependent claims obvious
`[Ground 3]. ..............................................................................................36
`
`1. Petitioner has not established that Goddard teaches or suggests the
`“invoking” elements of independent claims 1, 7, 9, and 24. ...........36
`
`2. Petitioner did not meet its burden establishing that Goddard teaches
`or suggests “wherein an amount of the service resource is
`exhausted upon being consumed by the network-based agent.” .....39
`
`3. Petitioner did not meet its burden establishing that Goddard teaches
`or suggests an “event handler.” .......................................................43
`
`D. Petitioner fails to establish that the combination of Goddard and Bauer
`renders claim 21 obvious [Ground 4]. ....................................................46
`
`VI. Conclusion. .......................................................................................................47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. U.S. Philips Corp.,
`IPR2015-01506, Decision Denying Institution, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2016) ... 32
`
`Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-04910-JD, 2015 WL 4940798 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2015) ................... 32
`
`SRI Int’l v. Internet Sec. Sys.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................ 32
`
`Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00148, Final Written Decision, Paper 42 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2015) ............ 33
`
`Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00764, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 2, 2015) .......................................... 29, 40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`
`Description
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., Civil
`Action No. 6:15-CV-660-JRG, the Report and Recommendation of
`United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell
`Gourley, David et al., HTTP: The Definitive Guide (2002)
`Luotonen, Ari, “Web Proxy Servers” (1998)
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
`Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`The Board should deny the Petition and not institute trial because Petitioner
`
`has not met its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood that challenged claims 1,
`
`6-10, 21, and 23-27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,949,752 (“the ’752 patent”) are
`
`unpatentable. Petitioner’s failure is not surprising because the innovations of the
`
`’752 patent addressed serious inefficiencies in the way that technology-driven
`
`services at the time of invention tried to meet the needs of individual users. In
`
`those days, customizing services to meet user needs rarely occurred without
`
`demand from many users, and these customizations were costly and time
`
`consuming often requiring teams of software developers and testers. The ’752
`
`patent addressed these issues through a novel network that employed highly
`
`configurable and sophisticated network-based agents that could make use of the
`
`full capabilities of existing services in a manner that fit an individual’s
`
`requirements.
`
`The Petition presents two grounds of unpatentability against the challenged
`
`independent claims—one based on Chow (Ground 1) and one based on Goddard
`
`(Ground 3). Both of these Grounds fail because Petitioner did not establish that
`
`either Chow or Goddard teaches or suggests (i) “invoking, in response to receiving
`
`a URL defining a type of event and identifying the network-based agent, an
`
`execution of the network-based agent” (independent claims 1, 7, 9, and 24) and (ii)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`“wherein an amount of the service resource is exhausted upon being consumed by
`
`the network-based agent” (independent claims 1, 7, 9, and 24). Because of its
`
`failure to demonstrate invalidity of the independent claims, Petitioner’s challenge
`
`to the dependent claims in Grounds 1-4 necessarily also fails.
`
`Grounds 3 and 4 fail for an additional reason—Petitioner does not satisfy its
`
`burden to show that Goddard is a prior art publication. Other than Petitioner’s
`
`conclusory statement that Goddard published in May 1997, Petitioner provides no
`
`evidence that Goddard was actually published before the priority date of the ’752
`
`patent.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should not institute trial on the grounds of
`
`unpatentability set forth in the Petition for claims 1, 6–10, 21, and 23–27 of the
`
`‘752 patent because Petitioner does not come close to meeting its burden based on
`
`these applied references. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board should give the testimony
`
`of Petitioner’s expert little weight because Petitioner’s expert merely repeats,
`
`nearly verbatim, the statements from the Petition without providing any supporting
`
`analysis or evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`II. The ’752 patent enables efficient customization of technology-driven
`services for individual users.
`A. The significant disadvantages of the prior art techniques for
`providing technological services.
`
`At the time of ‘752 patent, technology-driven services, such as e-mail, voice
`
`mail, and on-line data retrieval, were increasing in popularity. (Ex. 1001, ’752
`
`patent, 1:56–63.) Providers commonly supplied these services over a computer
`
`network, such as the Internet, supported by one or more software applications.
`
`(’752 patent, 1:63–2:6.) A serious problem soon arose because those supporting
`
`software applications often were developed “with a broad spectrum of subscribers
`
`in mind” that addressed “the generalized needs of many subscribers, but not the
`
`specialized needs of any one particular subscriber or group of subscribers.” (’752
`
`patent, 2:6–11.)
`
`Because these generalized services were not customized to a particular
`
`user’s needs, when a subscriber desired an alteration, change modification or other
`
`customization “to suit his or her own specialized needs,” the subscriber had to
`
`contact the service provider. (’752 patent, 2:12–15.) If the service provider
`
`determined that there was sufficient demand, the provider “initiate[d] a
`
`modification of the supporting software application for the relevant service.” (’752
`
`patent, 2:15–18.) The provider then engaged programmers or developers to modify
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`and test the customized service. (Id.) This complicated and laborious process
`
`proved extraordinarily expensive because a service provider had to maintain a staff
`
`of developers and the requested modifications took substantial time and effort,
`
`often leading to dissatisfaction that might cause some users to look elsewhere to
`
`meet their individual needs. (’752 patent, 1:25–29, 2:29–35.)
`
`B.
`
`The ’752 patent overcame the issues of the prior art by providing
`a network system extensible by user.
`
`The ‘752 patent simplified the existing complex and time-consuming
`
`process by utilizing a unique network system that users could extend or customize
`
`according to their own particular needs. (’752 patent, 2:52–53.) The patent
`
`describes how this new approach works: the “[c]apabilities of the network system
`
`are programmatically exposed by means of one or more services, service resources,
`
`and service wrappers. Each service individually, or the network system as a whole,
`
`can be extended by adding agents (created by users).” (’752 patent, 2:55–59.)
`
`Figure 1 (reproduced below) illustrates the novel network system of the ’752
`
`patent, and Patent Owner will explain the system’s intricacies to better apprehend
`
`the inventive concept of the ’752 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`
`
`(’752 patent, Figure 1.) The network system of the ’752 patent enables users to
`
`customize agents to meet their particular needs, and the agents, in turn, use various
`
`services offered by service providers. This network system includes a
`
`programmable functionality component 4, implemented with an agent system that
`
`includes agent server 20, computational resources 21, agents 22, and service
`
`wrappers 26. (‘752 patent, 5:55–56, 7:47–48, 8:15–16, 8:25–26, 11:18–19.)
`
`Network system 2 may also include a graphical user interface that permits a user to
`
`communicate with the network system. (’752 patent, 6:5–6, 6:16–17, 6:49–52.)
`
`The agent server 20 “controls, coordinates, and otherwise manages
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`programmable functionality component 4.” (’752 patent, 7:51–53.) “A number of
`
`agents are in communication with the agent server 20” and “[e]ach agent is
`
`associated with a particular user.” (’752 patent, 7:25–29.) An agent, for example,
`
`“may be implemented as a software application, program, or process which
`
`autonomously, and possibly continuously runs on behalf of its principal.” (’752
`
`patent, 8:31–34.)
`
`Agents are tasked-based with each agent being responsible for performing
`
`tasks associated with a service on behalf of its respective principal user. (’752
`
`patent, 7:56–58.) For example, a particular agent may answer telephone calls, take
`
`voicemail messages, notify the user of received voicemails or e-mails, gather
`
`information for the user, or initiate an electronic transaction. (’752 patent, 7:58–
`
`64.)
`
`Users with particular needs can customize agents to meet those needs by
`
`editing an agent template or an already existing agent. (’752 patent, 20:55–67; see
`
`also Figure 11.) To manipulate agent templates and create new agents, the agent
`
`server receives commands from a user via a user interface coupled to the agent
`
`server, as illustrated in Figure 1 above. (’752 patent, 6:5–6, Figure 1.) The user
`
`interface may be a graphical user interface (GUI) or a voice user interface (VUI).
`
`(’752 patent, 6:28–31, 6:49–54.) Both the GUI and VUI include an agent area that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`“is dedicated to the activities of creating new agents and manipulating existing
`
`agents” as illustrated in Figures 3 and 4 of the ’752 patent (reproduced below).
`
`
`
`(’752 patent, Figures 3, 4.)
`
`The agent server responds to commands received from a user using the GUI
`
`or VUI, such as commands for manipulation and selection of agents or agent
`
`templates. (’752 patent, 7:65–8:4.) The services offered by the providers expose
`
`their various capabilities through service wrappers that “link services 24 and
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`respective service resources 25 to agent server 20.” (’752 patent, 11:18–19.) Each
`
`service wrapper mediates communication between a service and the agent server.
`
`(’752 patent, 11:21–44.) In addition, a service wrapper limits the grant of access
`
`“to a respective service 24, only to agents 22 which have been authorized to utilize
`
`such service.” (’752 patent, 11:28–30.) Service wrappers enable a provider to
`
`expose service functionality without focusing on how a particular user desires to
`
`use the service.
`
`Agents include event handlers, each “compris[ing] a routine for responding
`
`to an event of a particular type.” (’752 patent, 23:44–46.) The event handler
`
`routine includes instructions that are directed to the agent server and one or more
`
`service wrappers in order to make use of an available service. (’752 patent, 23:63–
`
`65.) The ’752 patent provides examples of events, such as “the lapse of a
`
`previously specified amount of time or the delivery of an e-mail message.” (’752
`
`patent, 18:27–28.) In this manner, the agent system of the ’752 patent enables
`
`autonomous execution of customized agents via predetermined events to perform
`
`tasks specific to a particular user’s needs.
`
`III. Claim construction.
`Petitioner proposes construction of the five means-plus-function elements of
`
`challenged claims 1 and 6. Solely for purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`does not dispute the function and structure presented by Petitioner. Petitioner also
`
`proposes the construction of one additional term—“event handler.” The Board
`
`should reject Petitioner’s proposed construction because it is overly narrow. Patent
`
`Owner’s construction for this term should be adopted because it is consistent with
`
`the specification. Additionally, Patent Owner proposes a construction for the term
`
`“exhausted.” The Board should adopt Patent Owner’s construction because it is
`
`consistent with the specification. (Ex. 2001, pp. 33–34.)
`
`A.
`
`“event handler” (Claims 7, 25, 26, 27).
`
`Patent Owner one or more executable instructions in an
`agent for handling an event.
`
`Petitioner
`
`a software routine in an agent for handling
`an occurrence of an event comprising
`instructions and data
`
`
`
`The term “event handler” appears in challenged independent claim 7 and
`
`dependent claims 25–27. For example, claim 7 recites that “the network-based
`
`agent has a plurality of executable instructions for performing an operation,
`
`wherein the instructions comprise an event handler defining a predetermined
`
`event to occur during execution of the service.” The plain language of the claim is
`
`clear—an event handler is one or more instructions in an agent for handling an
`
`event (e.g., a predetermined event). And, this construction is consistent with the
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`specification which describes that in an embodiment “agent server 20 determines
`
`whether agent 22 has a handler for responding to the event. Generally, an event
`
`handler comprises a routine for responding to an event of a particular type.” (’752
`
`patent, 23:43–46.)
`
`Petitioner asks the Board to restrict the claimed “event handler” to “a
`
`software routine in an agent for handling an occurrence of an event comprising
`
`instructions and data.” (Petition, p. 11.) The sole support Petitioner provides for
`
`limiting the claimed “event handler” to “a software routine … comprising
`
`instructions and data” is one paragraph from its expert, Dr. Olivier. (Ex. 1002,
`
`Olivier Decl., ¶ 31.) But, the Board should give Dr. Olivier’s declaration no weight
`
`because it merely repeats, verbatim, the same unsupported conclusion in the
`
`Petition. (Compare Olivier Declaration, ¶ 31 with Petition, p. 11, last paragraph.)
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s construction is inconsistent with the language of the claims.
`
`For example, claim 7 does not limit an event handler to a “software routine” or to
`
`comprising both instructions and data.
`
`Therefore, the proper construction of “event handler” under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation is “one or more executable instructions in an agent for
`
`handling an event.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`B.
`
` “exhausted” (Claims 1, 7, 9, 24).
`
`Patent Owner used up to the allotted or predetermined
`amount
`
`Petitioner
`
`No proposed construction
`
`Patent Owner’s construction for this term is the proper construction under
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation because it is consistent with the
`
`specification. Specifically, the ’752 patent indicates that “exhausting” a resource
`
`means reaching a predetermined maximum amount of allocated resources. The
`
`’752 patent teaches that service resources can have an allocated amount. (See ’752
`
`patent, 25:22–34 (“For example, while a predetermined maximum amount of
`
`memory space may be set aside to store any given voice mail message, the
`
`amount of storage space actually consumed depends on how long the caller
`
`speaks.”) (emphasis added).) As service resources are consumed through an
`
`appropriate operation, they use that resource up to an allocated amount. And when
`
`the service reaches that allocated amount, the resource is then “exhausted.” (’752
`
`patent, 25:31–34 (“[S]ervice wrapper 26 actively monitors service resource
`
`consumption and halts further consumption whenever the amount held by an
`
`agent 22 is exhausted.”) (emphasis added).) Thus, “exhaustion” in the context of
`
`the ’752 patent means reaching an allocated amount of consumed resources.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`This term was also proposed for construction in the co-pending District
`
`Court litigation. In that case, the Court recommended the same construction for the
`
`term “exhausted” stating that “the term should be construed consistent with the
`
`specification” and that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`‘exhausted’ means ‘used up to the allotted or pre-determined amount.’” (Ex. 2001,
`
`pp. 33–34.) To date, neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner has objected to this
`
`recommended construction.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`
`of “exhausted” as “used up to the allotted or predetermined amount.”
`
`C. Means-plus-function elements.
`Solely for purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute the
`
`function and structure these means-plus-function elements identified by the
`
`Petitioner and summarized below.
`
`MEANS FOR RECEIVING DATA
`FOR CREATING A NETWORK-BASED AGENT (claim 1)
`
`
`Function:
`
`receiving data for creating a network-based agent
`
`Structure:
`
`
`a communication line
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`MEANS FOR INVOKING, IN RESPONSE TO RECEIVING A URL DEFINING A TYPE OF
`EVENT AND IDENTIFYING THE NETWORK-BASED AGENT, AN EXECUTION OF THE
`NETWORK-BASED AGENT (claim 1)
`
`Function:
`
`invoking, in response to receiving a URL defining a type of
`event and identifying the network-based agent, an execution
`of the network-based agent
`
`an agent server
`
`Structure:
`
`MEANS, INCLUDING THE NETWORK-BASED AGENT, FOR USING A SERVICE AND A
`SERVICE RESOURCE CONFIGURED TO BE CONSUMED BY THE NETWORK-BASED
`AGENT FOR PERFORMING THE OPERATION (claim 1)
`
`Function:
`
`using a service and a service resource configured to be
`consumed by the network-based agent for performing the
`operation
`
`an agent
`
`Structure:
`
`MEANS FOR COMMUNICATING A RESULT OF THE OPERATION OVER A NETWORK
`COMMUNICATIONS LINK (claim 1)
`
`
`Function:
`
`communicating a result of the operation over a network
`communications link
`
`a communication line
`
`Structure:
`
`MEANS FOR ALLOWING A USER TO MODIFY THE NETWORK-BASED AGENT (claim 6)
`
`
`Function:
`
`allowing a user to modify the network-based agent
`
`Structure:
`
`
`a network system
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`MEANS, INCLUDING THE NETWORK-BASED AGENT, FOR USING A SERVICE AND A
`SERVICE RESOURCE CONFIGURED TO BE CONSUMED BY THE NETWORK-BASED
`AGENT FOR PERFORMING THE OPERATION (claim 1)
`
`Function:
`
`using a service and a service resource configured to be
`consumed by the network-based agent for performing the
`operation
`
`an agent
`
`Structure:
`
`IV. The Board should reject Petitioner’s Grounds 1 and 2 because
`Petitioner has not met its burden of establishing a reasonable likelihood
`that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`A. Chow operates differently than the claimed invention of the ’752
`patent.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Chow is misplaced because Chow operates
`
`differently than the claimed invention of the ’752 patent. Chow describes
`
`techniques for “automatically retrieving changed documents previously accessed
`
`from network and internetwork servers” via a Revision Manager. (Chow, 3:60–64.)
`
`The Revision Manager of Chow resides on a digital computer and executes as a
`
`process on that computer. (Chow, 9:33–44.) The Revision manager is made up of
`
`three components, as illustrated in Figure 2 of Chow (reproduced below): a
`
`Revision Manager Daemon (RM Daemon), a Polling Daemon, and a set of CGI
`
`scripts. (Chow, 9:45–51.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`
`
`(Chow, Figure 2.) Chow describes that the RM Daemon acts as an HTTP server
`
`mechanism, the Polling Daemon acts as a cache polling mechanism, and the CGI
`
`scripts act as services that support Revision Manager Forms. (Chow, 9:45–51.)
`
`These CGI scripts are called directly by the RM Daemon, as explained further
`
`below.
`
`The Revision Manager of Chow generally enables a user to automatically be
`
`provided with updates to a document of interest. (Chow, 9:59–60.) The user does
`
`this by filling in a form in a web browser to provide the URL of a document.
`
`(Chow, 9:61–63.) Thereafter, the Revision Manager calls a CGI script, which
`
`issues a command to the remote server containing the document of interest to
`
`retrieve the document. (Chow, 9:67–10:5.) When the document is returned, the
`
`CGI script concatenates a short form including the URL of the Revision Manager’s
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`host computer and the URL of the document of interest to the retrieved document,
`
`creating an altered document. (Chow, 10:5–11.) This altered document is then
`
`returned to the user’s client browser. (Chow, 10:25–26.)
`
`The RM Daemon process of the Revision Manager starts by reading
`
`command line arguments and a server configuration file in order to “customize
`
`itself to reflect the configuration of the host system and how it should act as a
`
`server.” (Chow, 11:35–40.) Chow does not elaborate on these command line
`
`arguments or configuration to explain how the RM Daemon is customized. After
`
`this initialization, the RM Daemon acts as a server process and spawns a child
`
`process, the Polling Daemon. (Chow, 11:43–45.)
`
`The RM Daemon maintains a listening loop for requests received from a
`
`client browser. (Chow, 11:49–52.) Chow describes two different types of requests
`
`received by the RM Daemon: (1) a request to get a local file, and (2) a request for a
`
`CGI script, for example an HTTP POST request received from a user requesting
`
`automatic updates of a document of interest, as described above. (Chow, 11:58–
`
`63.) Notably neither of these requests involve execution of the Polling Daemon,
`
`which acts as a separate process. When a request for a CGI script is received by the
`
`RM Daemon, the RM Daemon directly calls one of two CGI scripts: RM_route.pl
`
`or RM_cacheParse.pl. (Chow, 9:65–10:3.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`Chow explains that “[t]he function of ‘RM_route.pl’ is to issue an HTTP
`
`request, get the requested document from a remote server, save the document to the
`
`cache file if requested by the user, and then translate all hyperlinks contained
`
`within the document.” (Chow, 14:21–25.) RM_cacheParse.pl acts similarly to
`
`RM_route.pl, except that it gets the requested document from a cached file, rather
`
`than a remote server. (Chow, 10:33–36.)
`
`The Polling Daemon periodically checks for updates to documents of
`
`interest that the user has requested. Chow explains that “[p]olling starts with a
`
`network connection to a remote Web server (step 180 in FIG. 20).” (Chow, 19:21–
`
`22.) The Polling Daemon then sends “[a]n HTTP ‘GET’ command with an “If-
`
`Modified-Since” header is sent to the remote web server” and “a temporary file is
`
`opened to save the incoming data from the remote web server.” (Chow, 19:22–26.)
`
`Then, the response from the remote web server is read into the temporary file, and
`
`a response status code 200 indicates that an updated document is attached. (Chow,
`
`19:26–32.) Following the response, “the temporary file holding the new document
`
`is saved as a permanent cache file and the original cache file is deleted.” (Chow,
`
`19:38–40.) This updated document is then available to the RM Daemon and CGI
`
`scripts in the cache.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner has not established that Chow renders independent
`claims 1, 7, 9, and 24 and their corresponding dependent claims
`obvious [Ground 1].
`1. Petitioner fails to establish that Chow teaches or suggests the
`“invoking” elements of independent claims 1, 7, 9, and 24.
`Each of independent claims 1, 7, 9, and 24 recites the function of “invoking,
`
`[using the computing device, and] in response to receiving a URL defining a type
`
`of event and identifying the network-based agent, an execution of the network-
`
`based agent.” Thus, the claims recite that the received URL (1) defines a type of
`
`event; and (2) identifies the network-based agent and in response to the receipt of
`
`this URL, execution of the network-based agent is invoked. Petitioner contends
`
`that the URL included in Chow’s HTTP POST message is the recited “URL”:
`
`“Chow teaches that the URL of the resource of interest is specified using a form
`
`(e.g., the GUI illustrated in FIG. 5), and that, when the user submits the form, the
`
`client workstation sends a POST command to the RM that includes the URL and
`
`the IP address of the RM.” (Petition, p. 32.) Petitioner’s argument fails for one
`
`fundamental reason—the URL included in an HTTP POST message, as used in
`
`Chow, does not define a type of event or identify the network-based agent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`a) Chow’s HTTP POST message does not include a URL that
`“defin[es] a type of event.”
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner argues that the client workstation of Chow “sends
`
`a POST command to the RM that includes the URL and the IP address of the RM”
`
`and that “[w]hen the POST command is received, a child process of the RM
`
`Daemon reads a data field of the request to obtain RM-specific name value pairs,
`
`such as ‘url_poll,’ ‘url_get,’ ‘port_number,’ and ‘update_interval.’” (Petition, p. 32
`
`(emphasis added).) Petitioner then concludes that “the request for receiving the
`
`updating service provided by the RM is identified in a URL (e.g., by at least the
`
`‘url_get’ and ‘update_interval’ parameters).” (Petition, p. 32.) Thus, Petitioner
`
`contends that the “url_get” and/or “update_interval” parameters included in the
`
`data field of Chow’s HTTP POST message meet the recited “URL defining a type
`
`of event” element of the independent claims. Petitioner is incorrect—parameters
`
`are not included in a URL in an HTTP POST message.
`
`i.
`
`The URL of an HTTP POST message does not include
`or define parameters.
`Web traffic is typically transmitted over the Internet using a protocol known
`
`as Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). Under the HTTP protocol, clients make
`
`requests in the form of HTTP requests to HTTP servers. An HTTP request
`
`typically includes various components as shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`
`<method> <request-URL> <version>
`<headers>
`
`<entity-body>
`
`(Ex. 2002, Gourley, p. 46.) The first word in the HTTP request is the “method”
`
`indicating the action of the request. (Ex. 2003, Luotonen, p. 64.) For example, one
`
`method is a POST method which is a request to send information to the web server
`
`(i.e., POST). (Luotonen, pp. 65–67.) The POST method, such as used by Chow and
`
`relied on by Petitioner, “is for submitting HTML forms, annotating existing
`
`resources, posting messages and articles, and extending databases.” (Luotonen,
`
`p. 65.) In a POST request, the “data being posted is sent in the entity section of the
`
`request” meaning that the encoded name-value pairs are “placed in the body part of
`
`the POST request.” (Luotonen, p. 65.) HTTP headers “are used to include
`
`additional information to requests and responses.” (Luotonen, p. 69.) Finally, the
`
`“URL in POST requests refers to the data handling process of the posted data (for
`
`form submissions), or an association between that URL and the posted data.”
`
`(Luotonen, pp. 66–67.)
`
`Figure 3-10 of Gourley (reproduced below) illustrates an example POST
`
`request. As highlighted by this figure, a POST request sends parameters (e.g.,
`
`“item=bandsaw 2647”) as part of the message body, also referred to as the entity
`
`body. (Gourley, pp. 55–56.) The message body contains raw data and “[a]ny other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`descriptive information is contained in the headers” of the message request.
`
`(Gourley, p. 320.) The URL does not include or define any parameters.
`
`
`
`(Gourley, pp. 55–56.)
`
`ii.
`
`Chow confirms that the HTTP POST URL does not
`define the “url_get” and “update_interval” parameters.
`As described above, Petitioner relies on name value pairs included in the
`
`HTTP POST request as identifying the recited “type of event”: “One of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the ’752 Patent was filed would understand that the
`
`request for receiving the updating service provided by the RM is an event, which is
`
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01431
` Patent No. 7,949,752
`
`
`identified in a URL (e.g., by at least the ‘url_get’ and ‘update_interval’
`
`parameters.” (Petition, p. 32.) But, Petitioner incorrectly states that “url_get” and
`
`“update_interval” pa