DOCKET NO.: 43930-0005IP1
`Filed on behalf of Unified Patents, Inc.
`By: C. Eric Schulman, Reg. No. 43,350
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`David L. Holt, Reg. No. 65,161
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Tel: (650) 839-5070
`Email: schulman@fr.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
`Roshan Mansinghani, Reg. No. 62,429
`Unified Patents, Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, DC, 20003
`Tel: (202) 805-8931
`Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2018-00057
`U.S. Patent 6,110,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,110,228
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1, 6-7, 10, 18, 25-26, 29, 67-68, and 70-71
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest .................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Related Matters .............................................................................................. 1
`
`C. Counsel .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`D. Service Information ....................................................................................... 2
`
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing ............................................................... 3
`
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................................. 3
`
`A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications .................................................... 3
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge .................................................................................. 5
`
`IV. Overview Of the ’228 Patent ............................................................................ 5
`
`A. Summary of the Alleged Invention ............................................................... 5
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 7
`
`C. Prosecution History ....................................................................................... 7
`
`V. Claim Construction ............................................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“interactively receiving a request” ................................................................ 9
`
`“service” ......................................................................................................10
`
`“optional service incorporation instructions” ..............................................11
`
`VI. Specific Grounds for Petition .........................................................................13
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1, 6-7, 10, 18, 25-26, 29, 67-68, and 70-71 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Crawford in view of
`Reisman ................................................................................................................14
`
`1. Overview of Crawford .............................................................................14
`
`2. Overview of Reisman ...............................................................................17
`
`3. The Combination of Crawford and Reisman ...........................................19
`
`4. Reasons to Combine Crawford and Reisman ..........................................22
`
`5. Claim 1 is obvious over Crawford and Reisman .....................................23
`
`6. Claim 6 is obvious over Crawford and Reisman .....................................35
`
`7. Claim 7 is obvious over Crawford and Reisman .....................................39
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`8. Claim 10 is obvious over Crawford and Reisman ...................................41
`
`9. Claim 18 is obvious over Crawford and Reisman ...................................42
`
`10. Claim 25 is obvious over Crawford and Reisman ................................45
`
`11. Claim 26 is obvious over Crawford and Reisman ................................45
`
`12. Claim 29 is obvious over Crawford and Reisman ................................46
`
`13. Claim 67 is obvious over Crawford and Reisman ................................47
`
`14. Claims 68 and 70 are obvious over Crawford and Reisman ................48
`
`15. Claim 71 is obvious over Crawford and Reisman ................................48
`
`B. Ground II: Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`over Frye ..............................................................................................................49
`
`1. Overview of Frye .....................................................................................49
`
`2. The combination of the embodiment in the Frye Patent and the
`embodiment in the Frye User Manual .............................................................55
`
`3. Motivation to combine the Frye Patent and the Frye User Manual .......57
`
`4. Claim 1 is obvious over the Frye Patent and the Frye User Manual ......58
`
`VII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................69
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. (“Unified Patents” or “Petitioner”) certifies it is the real
`
`party-in-interest, and further certifies that no other party exercised or could exercise
`
`direction, funding, or control over its participation in this proceeding, the filing of
`
`this petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,110,228 (“the ’228 Patent” (EX1001)) is owned by UNILOC
`
`LUXEMBOURG S.A. (“Uniloc” or “Patent Owner”). The ’228 patent is the subject
`
`of at least 15 matters. A list of related actions involving the ’228 Patent as of the
`
`date of filing —to the extent related actions are identifiable through diligent
`
`searching— follows:
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Big Fish Games, Inc., 2:17-cv-00172 (TXED);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Box, Inc., 2:17-cv-00173 (TXED);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Nutanix, Inc., 2:17-cv-00174 (TXED);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Ubisoft, Inc., 2:17-cv-00175 (TXED);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Zendesk, Inc., 2:17-cv-00176 (TXED);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Riot Games, Inc., 2:17-cv-00275 (TXED);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Nexon America, Inc., 2:17-cv-00276 (TXED);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Square Enix, Inc., 2:17-cv-00302 (TXED);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 2:17-cv-00305 (TXED);
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Infor, Inc., 2-17-cv-00370 (TXED);
`
`Nutanix, Inc v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al, 4-17-cv-03181 (CAND);
`
`Riot Games, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al, 8-17-cv-01050 (CACD);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Big Fish Games, Inc., 2-17-cv-01183 (WAWD);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Infor, Inc., 3-17-cv-02119 (TXND);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Box, Inc., 1-17-cv-00754 (TXWD).
`
`C. Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: C. Eric Schulman (Reg. No. 43,350)
`
`First Backup Counsel: Jonathan Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518)
`
`Backup Counsel: Roshan Mansinghani, (Reg. No. 62,429)
`
`Backup Counsel: W. Karl Renner (Reg. No. 41,265)
`
`Backup Counsel: David L. Holt (Reg. No. 65,161)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`T: 202-783-5070
`
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`Petitioner consents
`
`to electronic service by email at
`
`IPR43930-
`
`0005IP1@fr.com
`
`(referencing
`
`No.
`
`43930-0005IP1
`
`and
`
`cc’ing
`
`PTABInbound@fr.com, schulman@fr.com, holt2@fr.com, axf-ptab@fr.com,
`
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com, and jonathan@unifiedpatents.com). C. Eric Schulman
`
`can be reached directly at 650-839-5149.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which review
`
`is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1, 6-7, 10, 18, 25-26, 29, 67-68, and 70-71 of the ’228 Patent (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”).
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:1
`
`
`1 The ’228 Patent issued from an application filed prior to enactment of the America
`
`Invents Act (“AIA”). The pre-AIA statutory framework applies.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`1. U.S. Patent 7,080,051 (earliest priority date is Nov. 4, 1993; published
`
`on July 18, 2006) (“Crawford” (EX1004)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`2. U.S. Patent 5,694,546 (filed on May 31, 1994; published on Dec. 2,
`
`1997) (“Reisman” (EX1005)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`3. U.S. Patent 6,038,586 (the “Frye Patent”) (earliest priority date Dec.
`
`30, 1993; published on May 14, 2000), incorporating by reference in its entirety2
`
`Appendix A, a user manual entitled “The Frye Utilities For Networks Software
`
`Update and Distribution System” (the “Frye User Manual”) (the Frye Patent and
`
`the Frye User Manual collectively “Frye” (EX1006)), which was filed
`
`simultaneously with the now-abandoned parent application on Dec. 30, 1993. Thus,
`
`the combined disclosure is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).3
`
`
`2 The Frye Patent states “Appendix A is a user manual for the program of the present
`
`invention, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.” Frye Patent
`
`(EX1006) at 3:9-11 (emphasis added).
`
`3 Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1335-1336 (Fed Cir. 2011) (holding that when
`
`material is incorporated by reference in its entirety that material is deemed to be part
`
`of the patent disclosure; see also Ultradent Products, Inc. v. Life-Like Cosmetics,
`
`Inc., 127 F.3d 1065, 1069 (Fed Cir. 1997) (holding that, in determining anticipation
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as being
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on at least two distinct sets of grounds.
`
`Ground I: Claims 1, 6-7, 10, 18, 25-26, 29, 67-68, and 70-71 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Crawford (EX1004) in
`
`view of Reisman (EX1005).
`
`Ground II: Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over a combination of embodiments in Frye (EX1006).
`
`This Petition, supported by the accompanying declaration of Dr. Ethan Miller
`
`(“Dr. Miller”) (“Miller Decl.” (EX1003)), demonstrates that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the Challenged Claims. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’228 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Alleged Invention
`
`The ’228 Patent relates to “software maintenance at remote nodes using
`
`facilities of a central site.” ’228 Patent at 1:6-9. (EX1001). More specifically, a
`
`customer at a location remote from a central site can request software service from
`
`a service facility at the central site and receive (in response to the request) updated,
`
`
`of a patent claim by a prior art patent, it is error to fail take into account the prior art
`
`patent’s incorporation by reference of another reference.)
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`executable software. Id. at Abstract. The customer makes the request through a
`
`local software interface. Id. The interface provides a front-end that permits the
`
`remote customer to specify a range of optional service incorporation instructions,
`
`including service research, requesting service, applying service, providing fixes, and
`
`installing serviced products or fixes at the remote location. Id. Following is an
`
`annotated version of Figure 1 of the ’228 Patent that highlights the remote location,
`
`central computer site, and service facility. EX1003, ¶¶ 34-38.
`
`Annotated Figure 1 of ’228 Patent
`
`
`
`As the prior art demonstrates, allowing a customer at a remote location to
`
`request computer program services and providing “optional service incorporation
`
`instructions” was well known prior to the filing date of the ’228 Patent. EX1003, ¶
`
`38.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art related to, and at the time of, the invention
`
`of the ’228 Patent (“POSITA”) would have been someone with a good working
`
`knowledge of computer science. The person would have a bachelor’s or master’s
`
`degree in computer science or a comparable field, and at least three years of related
`
`work experience or training. EX1003 ¶ 33.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’228 Patent issued from U.S. Pat. Appl. 08/365,269 (’269 Application),
`
`which was filed on December 28, 1994. File History (EX1002) at 4. In two
`
`consecutive Office Actions and during the appeal therefrom, the examiner rejected
`
`the claims of the ’269 Application over a combination of U.S. Patent 5,155,847 to
`
`Kirouac et al. (“Kirouac”) and U.S. Patent 5,361,358 to Cox et al. (“Cox”). See id.
`
`at 154, 180, 236. After the first Office Action, the applicant amended the
`
`independent claims to include the limitation that the claimed request for a computer
`
`program service is received at the central computer site “with optional service
`
`incorporation instructions of the remote location customer.” Id. at 170-72. This
`
`limitation was thereafter the focus of prosecution and the appeal.
`
`In its Decision on Appeal, the Board found that Kirouac teaches all of the
`
`limitations of the independent claims of the ’269 Application except “that the request
`
`is received ‘with optional service incorporation instructions of the remote location
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`customer.’” Id. at 254-55. While the Board recognized that the “Install,”
`
`“Configure,” “Remove,” “Exit,” and “Help” buttons taught in Figure 3 of Cox
`
`“clearly give the user ‘options,’” the Board ultimately held that these options did not
`
`satisfy its interpretation of the phrase “optional service incorporation instructions.”
`
`Id. at 255-57. The Board interpreted “optional service incorporation instructions”
`
`to mean that “the customer specifies a range of optional instructions including
`
`‘service research, requesting service, applying service, providing fixes, and
`
`installing serviced products or fixes at the remote location.’ [page 5 of the
`
`amendment or page 4 of the specification].” Id. at 255-57. Without further guidance
`
`on this claim interpretation or its relation to Cox, the Board reversed the examiner’s
`
`rejection. See id. Thereafter, the examiner allowed the application. Id. at 259-61.
`
`An inspection of the intrinsic record reveals that the applicant did not cite, nor
`
`did the examiner uncover or consider, any of the Crawford, Reisman or Frye patents
`
`upon which the grounds of this Petition are based. Importantly, Frye and the
`
`combination of Crawford and Reisman each independently disclose the “optional
`
`service incorporation instructions” feature identified by the Board as leading to
`
`allowability of the claims.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`According its face, the ‘228 Patent was filed December 28, 1994, and issued
`
`August 29, 2000. Thus, the ‘228 Patent is expired. See 35 U.S.C. 154(c). Expired
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`patent claims should be construed according to Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012).
`
`The following discussion proposes constructions and support for these
`
`constructions. Any claim terms not included in the following discussion need not
`
`be construed at this time. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`
`A.
`
`“interactively receiving a request”
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase “interactively receiving a
`
`request” in claims 1, 18, and 67 is receiving a request in the context of a potential
`
`two-way flow of information between a computer, e.g., the remote location
`
`computer, and a user of the remote location computer. EX1003, ¶¶ 41-43.
`
`The ’228 Patent does not define the term “interactively,” however the term is
`
`used in several places throughout the specification including regarding Figure 14:
`
`FIG. 14 illustrates the type of screen displayed by the front end
`
`so that appropriate information can be interactively gathered
`
`from the customer to permit the installation of serviced software
`
`product files.
`
`Id. at 14:23-28 (emphasis added). Further:
`
`As is apparent from the screen display illustrated in FIG. 14, two
`
`of the options presented to the customer are to press function
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`buttons to select between an Install (F7) and a History (F6)
`
`operation. A selection of Install results in the system validating
`
`the entered data, formatting an install request, and sending the
`
`install request on to the service facility.
`
`Id. at 14: 41-54.
`
`The proposed construction is also consistent with how a POSITA would have
`
`understood these term’s ordinary and customary meaning. EX1003, ¶ 43. For
`
`example, Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English (3d Ed., Victoria
`
`Neufeldt and David B. Guralnik eds., 1994) (“Dictionary”), a contemporaneous
`
`dictionary, defined the word “interactive” as “acting on one another; reciprocally
`
`active.” EX1007 at p. 703. In other words, two-way communication. 43.
`
`B.
`
`“service”
`
`Independent claims 1, 18, and 67 recite the term “service.” For example,
`
`independent claims 1 and 67 recite “a request for a computer program service.”
`
`EX1001, 25:43-44, 32:21-22. Independent claim 18 recites “a request for a service
`
`relating to the computer program.” Id. at 27:23-24. In each of these cases, the term
`
`service is associated with a computer program.
`
`Regarding the “service” of a computer program, the ’228 Patent describes
`
`that, “[w]hether the substitution method or replacement method is used, the updating
`
`of the program is referred to as the software ‘service’ and is a very important aspect
`
`of software maintenance.” Id. at 1:52-55. The substitution and replacement methods
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`are generally the “two different methods of propagating program changes throughout
`
`the distributed system.” Id. at 1:39-41. The substitute method completely
`
`substitutes an older program “with a new version of the same program,” and the
`
`replacement method “replace[s] only the lines of programming code that have
`
`actually changed between the old version and the new version.” Id. at 1:41-52.
`
`Though the ’228 Patent’s explanation of the term “service” is not written in
`
`exclusive language, its description is consistent with a POSITA’s understanding.
`
`EX1003, ¶ 46. For example, a contemporaneous dictionary defines the term
`
`“service” as “installation, maintenance, repairs, etc., provided by a dealer or
`
`manufacturer to purchasers of equipment,” which is consistent with the’228 Patent’s
`
`discussion of “updating” and “maintenance.” Dictionary (EX1007), p. 1226.
`
`Indeed, the title of the ’228 Patent is “Method and Apparatus for Software
`
`Maintenance at Remote Nodes.” EX1001, Title.
`
`For at least these reasons, the term “service” should be construed to be at least
`
`broad enough to encompass “updating in order to repair or maintain.” EX1003, ¶¶
`
`44-46.
`
`C.
`
`“optional service incorporation instructions”
`
`Independent claims 1, 18, and 67 recite the term “optional service
`
`incorporation instructions.” In each of these claims, these instructions are received
`
`with a request “from a customer at a remote location.” In the context of these claims
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`and read in light of the specification, the ordinary and customary meaning of the
`
`term “optional service incorporation instructions” should be “instructions arising
`
`from selection of an option by a customer related to updating a computer program
`
`to repair or maintain the computer program.”
`
`The ’228 Patent does not define the entire term “optional service incorporation
`
`instructions,” nor is the term used outside of the claim language. However, the ’228
`
`patent explains that “[a] customer initiates servicing of a program product by
`
`composing a service request through the front end, which provides a mechanism for
`
`the collection of information regarding the nature of the customer request.” EX1001,
`
`2:54-57. Figure 4 shows “a screen entitled ‘Main’ displayed on a video monitor
`
`screen 24a of the remote location customer 50 [shown in Figure 2]. The screen shows
`
`that the customer can select from options.” ‘228 Patent at 6:44-47 (EX1001)
`
`(emphasis added). “Part of the processing of the front end [interface] in receiving a
`
`customer service request is to permit the customer to . . . specify product information
`
`concerning the software program product that is to be updated, the identification of
`
`the customer, and options relating to the type of program updates that will be
`
`incorporated into the changed program product.” Id. at 3:11-16. While these
`
`passages from the ’228 Patent provide context for the term “optional service
`
`incorporation instructions,” they do not define it.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`As noted above, the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “service”
`
`should be “updating to repair or maintain.” Dictionary definitions of the other words
`
`of the term “optional service incorporation instructions” provide useful guidance that
`
`is consistent with the above-described context set forth in the ’228 Patent. For
`
`example, a contemporaneous dictionary defines the term “incorporation” as “to
`
`combine or join with something already, formed; make part of another thing;
`
`include; embody.” Dictionary (EX1007) at 684. This same contemporary dictionary
`
`defines the term “optional” to mean “left to one’s option, or choice; not compulsory;
`
`elective.” Id. at 951.
`
`Taken together and read with the specification, these definitions support an
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of the term “optional service incorporation
`
`instructions” as “instructions arising from selection of an option by a customer
`
`related to updating a computer program to repair or maintain the computer program.”
`
`EX1003, ¶¶ 47-49.
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the following sections (as confirmed in the
`
`Miller Decl. (EX1003) ¶¶ 50-105) demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses,
`
`teaches, and/or suggests each and every limitation of the Challenged Claims, and
`
`how these claims were obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1, 6-7, 10, 18, 25-26, 29, 67-68, and 70-71 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Crawford
`in view of Reisman
`
`1. Overview of Crawford
`
`Crawford discloses a system in which a “customer computer connects to an
`
`online service provider” via a network link that “gives the customer access to
`
`additional processing and storage resources such as virtual storage, processing
`
`power and/or additional software or data.” Crawford (EX1004), Abstract. As
`
`Crawford notes, “[t]he additional resources made available to the customer
`
`computer enhance the customers’ local needs through access to . . . online support
`
`services such as software rental, software sales, release update services, anti-viral
`
`services, data backup and recovery services, diagnostic services and/or repair
`
`services.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`Referencing Figure 3, Crawford’s system includes a customer computer 50
`
`interfacing with an on-line service system 100 via a data link 150 (i.e., network
`
`connection). See id. at 16:10-28, 16:49-62. The following is an annotated version
`
`of Figure 3 of Crawford that includes the names of certain components and how they
`
`relate to limitations of the claims of the ’228 Patent.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`
`
`The online service host processor 106 of online service system 100 executes
`
`on-line service control software that, among other things, includes the “main control
`
`process for customer access” (Figure 8A’s block 404 entitled “Interactive Customer
`
`Session Control Process” (emphasis added)). Id. at 28:50-51, 29:15-16. When a
`
`customer computer 50 sends a request to the online service system 100, the request
`
`is provided to the host processor 106 and is managed by the main control process for
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`customer access 404. Id. at 29:21-22. Interactive requests from the customer
`
`computer 50 are handled by the “Begin Process Request” routine 404E of the main
`
`control process for customer access 404. Id. at 29:30-32, 30:8-19.
`
`Regarding Figure 8B, the interactive requests received from customer
`
`computer 50 include, inter alia, (420) requests for anti-viral scans and (446) requests
`
`for release update service. See id. at 30:20-31:40. For anti-viral scan requests (block
`
`420 in Figure 8B), the host computer 104 copies anti-viral software to the customer
`
`computer, where it is executed. Id. at 14:60-64, 30:31-36. As part of this service,
`
`the online service system 100 provides “[a]nti-viral updates,” which “offer
`
`customers the latest anti-viral technologies.” Id. at 14:62-64. As a result, the online
`
`service system 100 can “set up and maintain a current antiviral environment on the
`
`customer's session that will run at all times (when on-line session is not active).” Id.
`
`at 33:37-43.
`
`
`
`A request for an update (block 446 in Figure 8B) to a computer program
`
`installed on a customer computer (referred to by Crawford as “release update
`
`services”) depends on whether a user of customer computer 50 “wants or needs” the
`
`update. Id. at 31:19-23. It is only after determining that “the customer is authorized
`
`to receive, [and] wants and needs the update” (block 450) that the host computer
`
`104 “copies and/or applies the updates to customer computer 50 (block 454).”
`
`Crawford (EX1004), 31:24-29 (emphasis added). To make this determination, it
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA that Crawford’s “Begin Process Request”
`
`routine 404E would include a mechanism to solicit or otherwise obtain direction
`
`from a user whether a user “wants” an update before installing the update. EX1003,
`
`¶ 61. Indeed, for similar reasons, the same would hold true for soliciting whether a
`
`user “wants” to request anti-viral services. Id.
`
`Beyond broad reference to “prompts,” “displays,” and “menus” (Crawford
`
`(EX1004), 24:64-66, 35:6-40, 45:58-61), Crawford does not limit how host
`
`computer 104 solicits or obtains input from a user of customer computer 50,
`
`particularly regarding a user’s “want” for an update. Indeed, as described below, it
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the interface through which
`
`the “Begin Process Request” routine 404E obtains such information from a user in
`
`a manner consistent with the claims of the ’228 Patent. EX1003, ¶¶ 70-78.
`
`2. Overview of Reisman
`
`Reisman identifies “electronic transfer from a central computer server to a
`
`subscriber’s computer over common carriers or wide area networks” as “an
`
`attractive proposition.” Reisman (EX1005), 1:45-47. Thus, like Crawford, Reisman
`
`proposes “a computer-implemented software component that can be used to
`
`facilitate the distribution of information objects from a remote source to a large
`
`number of customers or subscribers.” Id. at 1:14-17. Among a broad range of
`
`“information objects,” Reisman intends its invention to provide for “distribution of
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`software program updates.” See id. at 1:47-53, 6:20-24, 11:55-57. Specifically,
`
`Reisman teaches that its “invention is particularly suitable for importing updates of
`
`information or information processing products, such as . . . software upgrades.”
`
`Reisman (EX1005), 11:55-57.
`
`Though Reisman identifies the need to simplify user interaction with such an
`
`update system, Resiman notes that “most users will probably prefer an opportunity
`
`to confirm that the fetch transaction should proceed.” Id. at 11:39-54. In other
`
`words, like Crawford, Reisman recognizes the need to solicit an indication that a
`
`user “wants” a particular software update. In answer, Reisman describes a simple,
`
`easy-to-use interface through which a user may provide selections and receive
`
`notifications, without needing to have in-depth knowledge of how the underlying
`
`system operates. See id. at 18:13-57, 19:40-44.
`
`Reisman relies upon user-activated menus and other “simple, readily
`
`comprehensible, function-oriented, graphic or everyday language terms.” Id. at
`
`11:30-38, 13:6-9. In one example, Reisman describes that a user may be provided
`
`with “a menu of transport choices [i.e., options] such as ‘FETCH UPDATE’,
`
`‘FETCH CATALOG OF UPDATES’, ‘SEND DATA’ and the like, each of which
`
`then runs automatically upon selection.” Id. at 11:35-38. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that this allows a user to be presented with information about one or more
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`update options, and indicate that they want one or more of the options based on the
`
`information with which they are being presented. EX1003, ¶ 68.
`
`Beyond simply being able to select between multiple updates, Reisman
`
`describes providing the user with the option to initiate the update “immediately or at
`
`a subsequent date, or time.” Reisman (EX1005), 7:50-54. Additionally or
`
`alternatively, Reisman describes providing users the option to perform file
`
`maintenance functions relevant to the software update. Id. at 16:49-65. Thus, in
`
`addition to the selection of specific updates from the list of available updates, the
`
`user is given the option to perform, for example, “file purging to remove obsolete
`
`information files and preserve the user’s storage space.” Id. at 16:54-57.
`
`3.
`
`The Combination of Crawford and Reisman
`
`A POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate Reisman’s approach to
`
`obtaining user permission and selection of options regarding software updates into
`
`the interface provided by Crawford’s online service provider 100 to customer
`
`computers 50. EX1003, ¶¶ 70-71. In particular, a POSITA would have integrated
`
`the user-activated interfaces and other “simple, readily comprehensible” graphics
`
`and language described by Reisman for soliciting whether a user wants a particular
`
`update into Crawford’s “Begin Process Request” routine 404E (shown in Figure
`
`8B). EX1003, ¶ 71.
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00057
`Attorney Docket 43930-0005IP1
`
`As part of processing a request for a software update, Crawford’s “Begin
`
`Process Request” routine 404E “determines whether the customer is entitled to a
`
`release update and also whether this particular customer wants or needs the
`
`release update.” Crawford (EX1004), 31:19-23 (emphases added). Reisman’s user
`
`interfaces provide a known mechanism for making this determination. EX1003, ¶
`
`71. For example, Reisman describes a set of drop-down menus that include “choices
`
`such as ‘FETCH UPDATE’, ‘FETCH CATALOG OF UPDATES’, ‘SEND DATA’
`
`and the like, each of which then runs automatically upon selection.” Reisman
`
`(EX1005), 11:30-38. This integration would result in a “simple, readily
`
`comprehensible, funct