`
`Paper No. 1
`
`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
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,949,752
`
`TITLE: NETWORK SYSTEM EXTENSIBLE BY USERS
`
`Issue Date: May 24, 2011
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312
`
`
`27071698.1
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 1 of 77
`
`

`

`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,949,752 (“‘752 Patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. James L. Olivier (“Olivier Declaration”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,029,175 (“Chow”)
`
`T. Goddard and V. S. Sunderam, “WebVector: Agents with
`URLs,” Proc. IEEE Workshop on Enabling Technologies for
`Collaborative Environments, Boston, MA, pp. 100-105, May
`1997 (“Goddard”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,367,635 (“Bauer”)
`
`Prosecution history for the ‘752 Patent (“File History”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 2 of 77
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................ 1 
`A.  Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................ 1 
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ........................................ 1 
`B. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ..................... 1 
`C. 
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ................................. 2 
`D. 
`Payment of Fees ............................................................................... 2 
`E. 
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 104(A)) .............................. 2 
`IV.  STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED ........................................................................... 3 
`A.  Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(1)) .................................................................................... 3 
`V.  REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.22(A)(2) AND 42.104(B)(4) ........................................................... 5 
`A.  Overview of the ‘752 Patent ............................................................ 5 
`Prosecution History of the ‘752 Patent ............................................ 8 
`B. 
`C.  Overview of Pending IPR Proceedings and Reexaminations
`on Patents Related to the ‘752 Patent ............................................ 10 
`D.  Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ............................ 10 
`E.  Overview of the Prior Art .............................................................. 14 
`1. 
`Chow ..................................................................................... 14 
`
`27071698.1
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 3 of 77
`
`

`

`F. 
`
`
`Goddard ................................................................................ 22 
`2. 
`Bauer ..................................................................................... 25 
`3. 
`There Is a Reasonable Likelihood that the Challenged
`Claims Are Invalid ......................................................................... 27 
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 21, and 24-27 are obvious
`1. 
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chow .................................. 27 
`(a)  Claim 1 ............................................................................ 27 
`(b)  Claim 7 ............................................................................ 36 
`(c)  Claim 9 ............................................................................ 40 
`(d)  Claim 10 .......................................................................... 41 
`(e)  Claim 21 .......................................................................... 42 
`(f) 
`Claim 24 .......................................................................... 43 
`(g)  Claim 25 .......................................................................... 45 
`(h)  Claim 26 .......................................................................... 45 
`(i) 
`Claim 27 .......................................................................... 46 
`Ground 2: Claims 6, 8, and 23 Are Obvious Over Chow
`in View of Bauer .................................................................. 47 
`(a)  Claim 6 ............................................................................ 47 
`(b)  Claim 8 ............................................................................ 50 
`(a)  Claim 23 .......................................................................... 50 
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 6-10, and 23-27 Are Obvious Over
`Goddard ................................................................................ 51 
`(a)  Claim 1 ............................................................................ 51 
`
`3. 
`
`2. 
`
`27071698.1
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 4 of 77
`
`

`

`
`(b)  Claim 6 ............................................................................ 56 
`(c)  Claim 7 ............................................................................ 57 
`(d)  Claim 8 ............................................................................ 61 
`(e)  Claim 9 ............................................................................ 61 
`(f) 
`Claim 10 .......................................................................... 63 
`(g)  Claim 23 .......................................................................... 63 
`(h)  Claim 24 .......................................................................... 64 
`(i) 
`Claim 25 .......................................................................... 66 
`(j) 
`Claim 26 .......................................................................... 66 
`(k)  Claim 27 .......................................................................... 67 
`Ground 4: Claims 21 is Obvious Over Goddard in View
`of Bauer ................................................................................ 67 
`
`4. 
`
`27071698.1
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 5 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Michelle K. Lee,
`579 U.S. ___ (2016) ............................................................................................ 10
`
`Intellectual ventures I LLC, and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. HCC
`Insurance Holdings, Inc., et al.,
`E.D. Texas, Case No. 6:15-CV-000660 ............................................................... 1
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................... 3, 4, 27, 69
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 CFR § 102(b) ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 CFR § 102(e) ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................... 1, 10
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................................... 11
`
`
`
`27071698.1
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 6 of 77
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., HCC Insurance
`
`Holdings, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1, 6-10, 21 and
`
`23-27 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,949,752 (“the ’752 Patent,”
`
`Ex. 1001), which issued on May 24, 2011.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., HCC Life Insurance Company, HCC
`
`Specialty Insurance Company, HCC Specialty Underwriters, Inc., Houston
`
`Casualty Company, Professional Indemnity Agency, Inc., Illium, Inc., Avemco
`
`Corporation, Avemco Insurance Company, HCC Acquisition Sub, Inc., Tokio
`
`Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., and Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. are
`
`the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ‘752 Patent or its related patents are involved in the following
`
`proceedings that may affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. HCC
`
`Insurance Holdings, Inc., et al., E.D. Texas, Case No. 6:15-CV-000660.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead counsel: Nathan Rees (Reg. No. 63,820); Back-up counsel: Allan
`27071698.1
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 7 of 77
`
`

`

`
`Braxdale (Reg. No. 64,276) and Eric Hall (Reg. No. 46,751).
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Email: HCC-IV-IPR@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Post: 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600, Dallas, Texas 75201-7932
`
`ATTN: Nathan Rees
`
`Phone: (214) 855-7164 Fax: (214) 855-8200
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`E.
`
`Payment of Fees
`
`The fees for this petition have been paid by credit card. The Board is
`
`authorized to deduct any underpayment of fees associated with this petition and
`
`any related fees from Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP Deposit Account No. 06-
`
`2380, under Order No. 11601311.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 104(A))
`
`This petition has been filed within one year of the earliest date Petitioner
`
`was served with a complaint in the Litigation (6:15-CV-000660). Petitioner
`
`certifies that the ‘752 Patent is available for inter partes review, and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting this inter partes review on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition.
`
`27071698.1
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 8 of 77
`
`

`

`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1))
`
`Petitioner requests review and the cancellation as invalid of claims 1, 6-10,
`
`21 and 23-27 of the ‘752 Patent (the “Challenged Claims”).
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2))
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of Challenged Claims 1, 6-10, 21, and
`
`23-27 of the ‘752 Patent on the grounds set forth below and requests that each of
`
`the Challenged Claims be found unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims
`
`are unpatentable under the statutory identified grounds is provided in the form of
`
`detailed description that follows, indicating where each of the claim elements can
`
`be found and the relevance of the prior art. Additional explanation and support for
`
`each ground of rejection is set forth in the Declaration of Dr. James L. Olivier
`
`(“Olivier Declaration”), referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`Chow as Primary Reference
`
`Ground
`
`‘752 Patent Claims
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 1 1, 7, 9, 10, 21, 24-27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chow
`
`Ground 2 6, 8, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chow in view of
`Bauer
`
`27071698.1
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 9 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`Goddard as Primary Reference
`
`Ground
`
`‘752 Patent Claims
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 3 1, 6-10, and 23-27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Goddard
`
`Ground 4 21
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Goddard in view
`of Bauer
`
`The ‘752 Patent issued May 24, 2011 from U.S. Application No. 10/995,159
`
`(“’159 App.”), filed November 24, 2004. The ’159 App. is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Application No. 09/712,712, filed November 14, 2000, which is a continuation of
`
`U.S. Application No. 09/178,366, filed October 23, 1998. Accordingly, the earliest
`
`date to which the ‘752 Patent could claim priority (hereinafter the “earliest
`
`effective filing date”) is October 23, 1998. Petitioner does not concede that the
`
`‘752 Patent is entitled to this priority date, but has not argued the issue in the
`
`Petition because all prior art references in the Grounds pre-date the earliest
`
`possible priority date for the ‘752 Patent. Petitioner reserves the right to present
`
`such an argument.
`
`Chow was filed on June 7, 1996 and is prior art under § 102(e). Ex. 1003.
`
`Goddard was published in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE) in May of 1997 and is prior art under § 102(b). Ex. 1004. Bauer was
`
`issued on November 22, 1994 and is prior art under § 102(b). Ex. 1005.
`27071698.1
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 10 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`The phrase “a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)” is used
`
`throughout this Petition, and refers to the knowledge and understanding of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art prior to and during the period in which the ‘752 Patent was
`
`allegedly invented.
`
`V. REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.22(A)(2) AND 42.104(B)(4)
`
`A. Overview of the ‘752 Patent
`
`The ‘752 Patent describes a computer system including an agent server
`
`and one or more agents, as shown in FIG. 1 of the ‘752 Patent, reproduced
`
`below. ‘752 Patent, FIG. 1, Abstract, 5:23-30; Olivier Declaration at 20.
`
`27071698.1
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 11 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The agents provided by the system are extensible (e.g., programmable) by “end-
`
`users” (i.e., entities capable of logging into the system). ‘752 Patent, 2:5-64;
`
`Olivier Declaration at 21. The agents perform operations using conventional
`
`computer components, such as a central processing unit (CPU) or processor, and
`
`memory storage devices. ‘752 Patent, 4:53-67; Olivier Declaration at 21. A
`
`communication line couples a user device to the agent server to facilitate
`
`exchanges of data between the user device and the agent server. ‘752 Patent,
`
`14:48-57; Olivier Declaration at 21. The user device presents a graphical user
`
`interface (GUI) to the user that enables the user to interact with the agent server,
`27071698.1
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 12 of 77
`
`

`

`
`such as to provide data to, and view data received from, the agent server. ‘752
`
`Patent, 6:16-48; Olivier Declaration at 21. The ‘752 Patent teaches that the GUI is
`
`implemented as a forms-capable browser capable of interpreting hypertext markup
`
`language (HTML) code that can provide forms including fill-in text boxes, portion
`
`buttons, dropdown lists, radio buttons, and the like, which can be utilized by the
`
`user to provide inputs to the system. ‘752 Patent, 6:16-48; Olivier Declaration at
`
`21.
`
`During operation, the user provides commands to the agent server via the
`
`GUI, which are used to interact with, execute, modify, and select agents provided
`
`by the agent server. ‘752 Patent, FIGs. 9-12; 18:62-22:11; Olivier Declaration at
`
`22. The commands include agent commands (e.g., commands to run an agent),
`
`agent template commands (e.g., commands to modify an agent template), and
`
`selection commands (e.g., commands instructing the network system to focus on a
`
`particular template or a particular agent in order to provide a context for any
`
`subsequent template or agent command). ‘752 Patent, 8:1-6, 19:12-25; Olivier
`
`Declaration at 22. The ‘752 Patent teaches that agent templates are classes from
`
`which agents can be created by instantiating the class/template. ‘752 Patent, 8:1-6,
`
`19:12-25; Olivier Declaration at 22. The commands are issued by the user to: 1)
`
`provide services to the user, such as by issuing agent commands; 2) modify the
`
`agents, such as by issuing template commands; and 3) select an agent, such as by
`27071698.1
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 13 of 77
`
`

`

`
`issuing a select template command, which can then be run (e.g., by subsequently
`
`issuing an agent command for the selected agent) or modified (e.g., by
`
`subsequently issuing a template command for the selected agent). ‘752 Patent,
`
`FIGs. 9-12; 18:62-22:11; Olivier Declaration at 22.
`
`During provisioning of a service to the user, the agents perform various tasks
`
`that consume computational resources (e.g., processing time, memory storage
`
`space, elapsed time, and the like) and service resources (e.g., disk space, Internet
`
`connections, online data access time). ‘752 Patent, FIGs. 1, 2, 8:15-23, 9:31-33,
`
`10:59-11:5, 12:45-14:24, 15:54-16:4, 18:1-21, 22:17-21; Olivier Declaration at 23.
`
`A service resource may comprise discrete units which are consumed by agents.
`
`‘752 Patent, 11:6-16. For example, the ‘752 Patent teaches that on-line data
`
`retrieval may comprise units of data-access time or inquiry consumed as an agent
`
`retrieves data (e.g., information or files relating to stock quotes, newspaper
`
`articles). ‘752 Patent, 11:6-16; Olivier Declaration at 23.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘752 Patent
`
`The ‘752 Patent was filed on November 24, 2004 and assigned U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 10/995,159. The ‘752 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 09/712,712, now U.S. Patent No. 6,839,733, which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/178,366, filed on October 23, 1998,
`
`now U.S. Patent No. 6,163,794. The ‘159 App., as originally filed, included 76
`27071698.1
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 14 of 77
`
`

`

`
`claims, which were canceled and replaced by new claims 77-97 in a preliminary
`
`amendment. File History November 24, 2004 Preliminary Amendment at 3-6. In
`
`response to the Restriction Requirement mailed December 15, 2008, restricting
`
`claims 77-97 into Group I (claims 77-85) and Group II (claims 86-97), Applicant
`
`canceled the claims of Group I, elected the claims of Group II, and added new
`
`claims 98-106. File History December 15, 2008 Restriction Requirement at 2;
`
`March 16, 2009 Response to Restriction Requirement at 2-7.
`
`Following the response filed on March 16, 2009, several Office Actions
`
`were issued, and responses including amendments were filed attempting to
`
`distinguish the claims over various aspects pertaining to claim features directed to
`
`service resources and service resources being consumed and/or exhausted. File
`
`History May 5, 2009 Office Action; August 5, 2009 Response to Office Action;
`
`October 30, 2009 Office Action; November 13, 2009 Response to Office Action;
`
`December 9, 2009 Supplemental Amendment and Reply; May 25, 2010 Office
`
`Action; October 20, 2010 Response to Office Action.
`
`On November 8, 2010, an Office Action was mailed, finally rejecting claims
`
`86-93, 107-112, and 120-140 of the ‘159 App. File History November 8, 2010
`
`Final Office Action. The Final Office Action indicated that claim 135, which
`
`recited “identifying the predetermined event by a URL, wherein the URL defines a
`
`type of the predetermined event and a recipient network based agent,” was
`27071698.1
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 15 of 77
`
`

`

`
`objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable
`
`if rewritten in independent form. File History November 8, 2010 Final Office
`
`Action at 5. The independent claims were subsequently amended to include the
`
`subject matter of claim 135. File History January 4, 2011 Response to Final Office
`
`Action at 2-12.
`
`Nowhere in the prosecution history of the ‘159 App. did the Examiner
`
`appear to be aware of using uniform resource locators (URLs) to identify an event
`
`or a recipient, such as an agent. However, using URLs to identify an event or a
`
`recipient was well known to POSITA at the time the ‘159 App. was filed. Olivier
`
`Declaration at 27. As an example, Goddard, which was published in May of 1997,
`
`teaches techniques for using URLs to identify events and agents, as described in
`
`more detail below. Olivier Declaration at 27.
`
`C. Overview of Pending IPR Proceedings and Reexaminations on
`Patents Related to the ‘752 Patent
`
`Petitioner is unaware of any pending IPR proceedings and Reexaminations
`
`on Patents related to the ‘752 Patent.
`
`D. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`
`In an inter partes review, a claim in an unexpired patent is given the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Michelle K.
`
`27071698.1
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 16 of 77
`
`

`

`
`Lee, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) (concluding that the Patent Office’s use of the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard during inter partes review proceedings is
`
`reasonable). Petitioner therefore requests that the claim terms be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”), as understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art and consistent with the disclosure. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012). Because a district court
`
`applies a different standard, the claim constructions presented in this petition do
`
`not necessarily reflect the constructions that Petitioner believes should be adopted
`
`by a district court, and Petitioner does not concede that constructions offered in
`
`this petition should be adopted by a district court under a non-BRI standard.
`
`Petitioner does not concede that these constructions or the underlying claims
`
`satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`The following summarizes how certain claim phrases of the ‘752 Patent
`
`should be construed for purposes of inter partes review:
`
`“event handler” – The ‘752 Patent teaches that event handlers comprise a
`
`routine which includes data and instructions for handling a particular event. ‘752
`
`Patent, 18: 22-28. The ‘752 Patent teaches that the event handler is part of the
`
`agent. See 26:27-31, 27:22-28, 28:12-20. Therefore, when given its BRI, the term
`
`“event handler” should be construed as “a software routine in an agent for
`
`handling an occurrence of an event comprising instructions and data.” Olivier
`27071698.1
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 17 of 77
`
`

`

`
`Declaration at 31.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘752 Patent recites “means for receiving data for creating a
`
`network-based agent.” This term is a means-plus-function element. The function
`
`is “receiving data for creating a network-based agent.” Olivier Declaration at 32.
`
`The ‘752 Patent discloses that a communication line enables communication via
`
`the interconnection of computers via the Internet. ‘752 Patent, 6:16-27, 14:48-57;
`
`Olivier Declaration at 32. Thus, the means for carrying out the above-identified
`
`function is a computing device operable
`
`to receive
`
`information over a
`
`communication line. Olivier Declaration at 32.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘752 Patent further recites “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.” This term is a means-plus-
`
`function element. The function is “invoking an execution of the network-based
`
`agent in response to receiving a URL defining a type of event and identifying the
`
`network-based agent.” Olivier Declaration at 33. The ‘752 Patent states “agent
`
`server 20 may invoke, initiate, or execute various routines, processes, objects, and
`
`the like. For example, when a user wishes to interact with network system 2 via
`
`graphical user interface 12, agent server 20 may cause web pages to be
`
`downloaded to an electronic user device. . . . Additional functionality of agent
`
`server 20 includes, but is not limited to, executing agent objects, identifying
`27071698.1
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 18 of 77
`
`

`

`
`computational and service permissions, and controlling the consumption of
`
`computational and service resources.” ‘752 Patent, 7:47-65; Olivier Declaration at
`
`33. Further, the ‘752 Patent states “This allows a web server providing a graphical
`
`user interface to network system 10 to receive HyperText Transfer Protocol
`
`(HTTP) requests for the web page at the URL so that agent server 20 can relay the
`
`event to the particular agent 22. ” ‘752 Patent, 18:34-38; Olivier Declaration at 33.
`
`Thus, the means for carrying out the above-identified function is an agent server.
`
`Olivier Declaration at 33.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘752 Patent further recites “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.” This term
`
`is a means-plus-function element. The function is “using a service and a service
`
`resource configured to be consumed by the network-based agent for performing the
`
`operation.” Olivier Declaration at 34. The corresponding structure is an agent.
`
`Olivier Declaration at 34. For example, the ‘752 Patent states “agents 22 may also
`
`use or consume various service resources (described below in more detail) during
`
`the performance of their respective tasks.” ‘752 Patent, 9:26-39. Olivier
`
`Declaration at 34. Thus, the means for carrying out the above-identified function
`
`is an agent. Olivier Declaration at 34.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘752 Patent further recites “means for communicating a
`27071698.1
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 19 of 77
`
`

`

`
`result of the operation over a network communications link.” This term is a
`
`means-plus-function element. The function is “communicating a result of the
`
`operation over a network communications link.” Olivier Declaration at 35. The
`
`corresponding structure is a communication line. Olivier Declaration at 35. The
`
`‘752 Patent discloses that a communication line enables communication via the
`
`interconnection of computers via the Internet. ‘752 Patent, 6:16-27, 14:48-57.
`
`Thus, the means for carrying out the above-identified function is a communication
`
`line. Olivier Declaration at 35.
`
`Claim 6 of the ‘752 Patent recites “means for allowing a user to modify the
`
`network-based agent.” This term is a means-plus-function element. The function
`
`is “allowing a user to modify the network-based agent.” Olivier Declaration at 36.
`
`The corresponding structure is a network system. Olivier Declaration at 36. For
`
`example, the ‘752 Patent states “network system 2 allows users (e.g., subscribers)
`
`to create, copy, modify, edit, or delete agents 22 and the associated templates as
`
`desired, thereby affording extensibility.” ‘752 Patent, 10:12-15; Olivier
`
`Declaration at 36. Thus, the means for carrying out the above-identified function
`
`is a network system. Olivier Declaration at 36.
`
`E. Overview of the Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Chow
`
`Chow teaches that data in a web-based system changes rapidly, and that,
`27071698.1
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 20 of 77
`
`

`

`
`when Chow was filed, a server could not contact a client device to inform the
`
`client that the data has been changed. Chow, 3:1-18; Olivier Declaration at 37.
`
`Chow discloses that a solution could be configuring the server to provide an
`
`interval for the data to be refreshed, such as indicating that the document will
`
`become stale (e.g., expire) at a specified time (e.g., Wednesday, Dec. 7, 1994
`
`22:03:39 GMT). Chow, 3:1-37; Olivier Declaration at 37. Chow teaches that this
`
`solution does not enable the server to automatically refresh the information without
`
`user intervention. Id.
`
`To solve these problems, Chow discloses a network agent, referred to as a
`
`Revision Manager (RM), that operates as an intermediary between a client (e.g., a
`
`browser of a client terminal) and a server (e.g., a local or remote network server) to
`
`automatically detect a change to a resource (e.g., a document, a web page, etc.), to
`
`notify the client of that the resource has changed, and to retrieve the changed
`
`resource from the server. Chow, FIGs. 3, 36, Abstract, 3:60-4:5, 26:18-27:51;
`
`Olivier Declaration at 38.
`
`The RM can be a dedicated computer programmed to implement the
`
`functions of the RM, or one of many different programs executed by a computer.
`
`Chow, 9:45-51; Olivier Declaration at 39. FIG. 34 of Chow, reproduced below,
`
`teaches that a computer programmed to implement the operations of the RM
`
`includes a processor, a disk storage, a random access memory (RAM), and a
`27071698.1
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 21 of 77
`
`

`

`
`network interface.
`
`
`
`Data structures for implementing the RM’s functionality are stored in the
`
`RM’s RAM, or in the disk storage, where the processor reads the data structures
`
`from the disk storage and writes them to the RAM as needed during the RM’s
`
`operations. Chow, FIG. 34, 25:15-47; Olivier Declaration at 40. The data
`
`27071698.1
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 22 of 77
`
`

`

`
`structures include: a directory of objects that is accessed to determine whether a
`
`specified object is recognized by the RM; a log of changes including information
`
`indicating changes to the objects in the cache of objects and providing an audit trail
`
`of changes in the objects over time; object’s interested client lists including
`
`information that identifies clients interested in receiving notifications of significant
`
`changes in an object and time stamps indicating when the clients were last notified
`
`of change in an object; significant change detection methods which are used to
`
`determine whether a change in an object of interest is significant enough for
`
`recording in a log of changes to objects, and for updating the version of the object
`
`that is stored in the cache of objects; a directory of clients that includes a list of
`
`clients being serviced by the RM; a client’s list of objects of interest; and a client’s
`
`significant change detection methods (e.g., predetermined procedures used to
`
`compute changes in altered objects of interest and to determine which changes
`
`should trigger a notification to the interested clients). Chow, FIG. 34, 25:15-26:60;
`
`Olivier Declaration at 40. A GUI provides users the ability to modify their
`
`significant change detection methods. Chow, FIGs. 23-30, 36, 26:18-27:51;
`
`Olivier Declaration at 40.
`
`The cache of objects stores copies of monitored resources (e.g., documents),
`
`and, the RM may serve a requested resource to an interested user from the cache of
`
`objects. Chow, 27:53-63; Olivier Declaration at 41. When the RM intercepts a
`27071698.1
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 23 of 77
`
`

`

`
`request for a resource, a CGI service (RM_route.pl) retrieves the resource from the
`
`remote server, and stores a copy in the RM’s cache of objects. Chow, 9:44-10:11;
`
`Olivier Declaration at 41. Chow teaches that the RM checks a time stamp in its
`
`directory of objects to determine when an object was last updated, and that, if more
`
`than a certain time has elapsed (e.g., 10 minutes) since the last update, the RM
`
`searches for a source for the object. Chow, FIG. 45, 2:31-41, 9:1-7, 25:48-26:17,
`
`29:20-30:57, 32:59-40:17; Olivier Declaration at 41. The RM checks costs, such
`
`as communication charges, server charges, and copyright holder charges,
`
`associated with retrieving the document from a source. Id.
`
`Users interact with the RM using a browser interface (e.g., a GUI) that
`
`receives inputs to designate a resource that the RM should monitor and/or retrieve,
`
`and a port number of the user’s local machine where notifications and copies of the
`
`resource can be provided to the browser. Chow, FIGs. 5, 6, 23-30, 3:54-64, 5:32-
`
`63, 15-6:15; Olivier Declaration at 42. FIG. 5 of Chow, reproduced below,
`
`illustrates an exemplary GUI for specifying resources to be monitored for changes
`
`by the RM.
`
`27071698.1
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`VMware - Exhibit 1006
`VMware v. IV I - IPR2020-00470
`Page 24 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`As illustrated in FIG. 5 above, the user specifies a resource for monitoring by the
`
`RM as a URL. Chow, FIGs. 23, 3:54-64, 5:32-63; Olivier Declaration at 43.
`
`To specify a resource for monit