UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner. Hewlett Packard Company Patent Owner

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner v. Hewlett Packard Company Patent Owner Filing Date: May 14, 2003 Issue Date: May 17, 2011 TITLE: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,945,860 Inter Partes Review No

2 Table of Contents Page I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.8(A)(1)... 1 A. Real Party ln lnterest under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1)... 1 B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2)... 1 C. Lead and Back Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3)... 1 D. Service Information... 2 E. Power of Attorney... 2 II. PAYMENT OF FEES 37 C.F.R III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R AND A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R (a)... 2 B. Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R (b) and Statement of Precise Relief Requested... 3 C. Requirements for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R (c)... 4 IV. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY... 5 A. Early History of Conducting Business over the Web... 5 B. Modern Web Services... 6 V. SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER... 7 A. The Specification of the 860 Patent... 7 B. The Challenged Claims of the 860 Patent... 9 VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R (B)(3) A. Web service B. conversation C. managed object and conversation managed object managed object conversation managed object D. manager i

3 Table of Contents (continued) Page VII. E. Interface, Managed Object Interface, Service Interface interface managed object interface conversation interface CLAIMS 1, 5, 7 10, 12, 15 AND OF THE 860 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE A. Ground 1 Claims 1 and 24 Are Obvious Over the Collaborate References in view of Fox Prior Art and Date Qualification for Ground Brief Summary of the Prior Art Applied in Ground The Collaborate References Are Properly Combinable Claim a. a computer processor (Claim 1[a]) b. "a conversation managed object executable on the computer processor" (Claim 1[b]) c. the conversation managed object includes at least one interface configured to provide management information about the conversation to at least one manager (Claim 1[c]) d. the at least one interface is configured to provide information regarding the Web service that contains the conversation (Claim 1[d]) Claim a. conversation interface limitations (Claims 24[a], 24[b]) i. a conversation interface (Claim 24[a]) ii

4 Table of Contents (continued) Page iiiii. iii. wherein the conversation interface includes information for monitoring messages in a conversation (Claim 24[b]) including at least one of the number of failed messages; the number of successful messages; the total number of messages; the last message received by a resource; (Claim 24[b1]) iv. and; at least one of the identity of resources participating in the conversation; the number of resources participating in the conversation; an identifier of the conversation; and an identifier of the resource that contains the conversation interface. (Claim 24[b2]) b. a managed object interface associated with the conversation interface (Claim 24[b]) B. Ground 2 Claims 5, 7 9, 12, 15 and 25 Are Obvious Over the Collaborate References in view of Fox and Staub Claims 5, 15 and 25 ( Fault Message Claims) Claims 7 9 and 12 ( Number of Messages Claims) C. Ground 3 Claims 10 and 26 Are Obvious Over the Collaborate References in view of Fox, Staub and Scribner VIII. CONCLUSION... 60

5 List of Exhibits Ex. No Description of Document 1001 to Guillaume N. Vambenepe et al Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981 to M. Homayoun Pourheidari et al Introducing BEA WebLogic Collaborate, BEA Systems, Inc., July Administering BEA WebLogic Collaborate, BEA Systems, Inc., July Programming BEA WebLogic Collaborate Management Applications, BEA Systems, Inc., July Excerpts from David A. Chappell et al., Java Web Services (2002), pp Excerpts from David Fox et al., Web Publisher s Construction Kit with HTML 3.2 (1996), pp Excerpts from Kenn Scribner et al., Applied SOAP: Implementing.NET XML Web Services (2001), pp Excerpts from Elliotte Rusty Harold et al., XML in a Nutshell (2001), pp. xi xvi, BEA Unveils Comprehensive Web Services Strategy and Support For Widest Range of Web Services Standards in the Industry, PR Newswire, Feb. 26, Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002), pp BEA and Gauss Interprise Announce Strategic Relationship, Canadian Corporate Newswire, Aug. 27, Affidavit of Christopher Butler, dated January 15, U.S. Patent No. 6,891,930 to David B. Staub et al. iv

6 Petitioner ServiceNow, Inc. ( Petitioner ) respectfully submits this Petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 5, 7 10, 12, 15 and of U.S. Patent No. 7,945,860 [Ex. 1001] ( the 860 patent ). I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.8(A)(1) A. Real Party ln lnterest under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1) The Petitioner, ServiceNow, Inc. is the real party in interest. B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2) The 860 patent is the subject of one pending litigation involving the Petitioner: Hewlett Packard Company v. ServiceNow, Inc., Case No. 14 CV BLF (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 6, 2014), in which the patent owner contends that the Petitioner infringes the claims of the 860 patent challenged in this Petition. The Petitioner was served with the Complaint in that action on February 7, C. Lead and Back Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel. LEAD COUNSEL Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673) hkeefe@cooley.com zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com COOLEY LLP ATTN: Patent Group 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC Tel: (650) Fax: (650) BACK UP COUNSEL Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342) amace@cooley.com zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com COOLEY LLP ATTN: Patent Group 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC Tel: (650) Fax: (650)

7 D. Service Information This Petition is being personally served at the current correspondence address for the 860 patent, HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, Intellectual Property Administration, 3404 E. Harmony Rd., Mail Stop 35, Fort Collins, CO The Petitioner may be served at the addresses provided above for lead and back up counsel, and consents to electronic service at those addresses. E. Power of Attorney Filed concurrently with this Petition in accordance with 37 C.F.R (b). II. PAYMENT OF FEES 37 C.F.R This Petition requests review of eleven (11) claims of the 860 patent. Accordingly, a payment of $23,000 is submitted herewith. This payment is calculated based on a $9,000 request fee (for up to 20 claims), and a postinstitution fee of $14,000 (for up to 15 claims). See 37 C.F.R (a). This Petition meets the fee requirements of 35 U.S.C. 312(a)(1). III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R AND A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R (a) The Petitioner certifies that the 860 patent is available for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred or otherwise estopped from requesting inter partes review on the grounds identified in the present Petition. The Petitioner is unaware of any previous petition for inter partes review with 2

8 respect to the 860 patent. B. Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R (b) and Statement of Precise Relief Requested The Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board initiate inter partes review of claims 1, 5, 7 10, 12, 15 and based on the following prior art: Ex. No. Description of Document 1003 BEA Systems, Inc., Introducing BEA WebLogic Collaborate (July 2001) 1004 BEA Systems, Inc., Administering BEA WebLogic Collaborate (July 2001) 1005 BEA Systems, Inc., Programming BEA WebLogic Collaborate Management Applications (July 2001) 1008 David Fox et al., Web Publisher s Construction Kit with HTML 3.2 (1996) 1009 Kenn Scribner et al., Applied SOAP: Implementing.NET XML Web Services (2001) 1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,891,930 to David B. Staub et al. The first five references listed above (Exs , 1008, 1009) qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) (pre AIA) because each reference was published more than one year before May 14, 2003, the filing date of the 860 patent. The sixth reference (Ex. 1015) qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (pre AIA) because it issued from an application filed on December 17, The grounds on which this Petition is based are listed in the table below. 3

9 Ground Claims Basis for Challenge 1 1, 24 Unpatentable over the Collaborate References in view of Fox, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 2 5, 7 9, 12, 15, 25 Unpatentable over the Collaborate References in view of Fox and Staub, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 3 10, 26 Unpatentable over the Collaborate References in view of Fox, Staub and Scribner under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Part VII below provides a detailed explanation as to why each challenged claim is unpatentable based on the ground identified above. This Petition also cites additional prior art materials for purposes of providing a technology background and describing the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention. These materials are also cited in the accompanying Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. ( Lavian Decl. ) [Ex. 1002], a technical expert with more than 25 years of technical experience in the networking, communications, Internet, and software fields. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 6 15, Ex. A.) C. Requirements for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R (c) The Board should institute inter partes review of claims 1, 5, 7 10, 12, 15 and because this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to each challenged claim. Each limitation of each challenged claim is disclosed and/or suggested by the prior art, as explained in detail in Part VII. 4

10 IV. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY A. Early History of Conducting Business over the Web Web services were not an invention of the 860 patent, but were an outgrowth of the World Wide Web and the explosion of its popularity that began in the 1990s. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 23.) During that time, business could be conducted on the web using straightforward and simple web technologies. For example, a web server could receive a request from a web browser using the HyperText Transfer Protocol ( HTTP ) and process the request using the Common Gateway Interface ( CGI ). CGI provided an interface for a web server to access an application program or resource, such as a database. (Id.) The web server could then return a response to the web browser in the form of a HyperText Markup Language ( HTML ) web page. (Id.; see also Fox, Ex. 1008, at p ) But industry realized that as web based businesses grew, especially larger enterprises such as airlines, systems would need to support coordination among a potentially large number of distributed systems. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 24; Chappell, Ex. 1007, at p.7.) Web services were one of a number of technologies that attempted to address that issue. (Chappell, Ex. 1007, at p.1; see also id. at p.9 ( [T]he base [web services technologies] are not themselves very exciting; they are just new dressing for the same old distributed computing model. ).) 5

11 B. Modern Web Services The Background section of the 860 patent states that web services are an approach to distributed computing in which interactions are carried out through the exchange of extensible Markup Language (XML) messages. ( 860, Ex. 1001, 1:32 34.) The term XML, like web services generally, was not an invention of the 860 patent. XML is an industry standard set of rules for creating documents that contain information. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 25, 26.) As explained in XML in a Nutshell (2001), XML provides a standard format for computer documents, and is flexible enough to be customized for domains as diverse as web sites, electronic data interchange, vector graphics, genealogy, realestate listings, object serialization, remote procedure calls, and voice mail systems, and more. (Harold, Ex. 1010, at p.3.) XML was particularly desirable because it promised a document format that could be shared between computer systems and application programs. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 25, 26.) By 2001, it was recognized that XML is one of the most important developments in document syntax in the history of computing, and had become the syntax of choice for newly designed document formats across almost all computer applications. (Harold, Ex. 1010, Preface, xi.) The specification of the 860 patent acknowledges that web services were 6

12 already being deployed commercially before the alleged invention. ( 860, Ex. 1001, 2:20 22 ( Enterprises are adopting Web services technology to address their business integration needs[.] ).) One such commercial system was WebLogic Collaborate by BEA Systems, Inc. As discussed in great detail in Part VII.A below, the prior art references in this petition describing WebLogic Collaborate describe features to monitor and manage web services. V. SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER A. The Specification of the 860 Patent The 860 patent, entitled Systems and Methods for Managing Conversations Between Information Technology Resources, generally describes a web service management system for monitoring a conversation. The specification defines a conversation as a set of related messages sent and received by a particular conversation. ( 860, 4:45 46.) Figure 1A provides a general overview of the conversation management system: 7

13 ( 860, Fig. 1A.) The management system in Figure 1A has a conversation managed object (110) that has an interface for exposing management features of an associated conversation (106) to a manager (102). The 860 patent describes the conversation managed object as follows: Conversation managed objects 108, 110 represent the management features of resource(s) that conduct conversations 104, 106. Interfaces in one or more categories can be included in conversation interfaces 112, 114 for each conversation managed object 108, 110. Conversation interfaces 112, 114 allow manager 102 to access information regarding the state of messages related to corresponding conversations 104, 106. ( 860, 4:26 33 (underlining added).) 8

14 Conversation managed objects can be considered managed objects. ( 860, 6:61 62.) The specification explains that a [m]anaged object 148 implements managed object interfaces 150 to provide a common set of basic management capabilities to monitor and/or control the underlying resource(s) represented by managed object 148 through various features such as attributes, operations, and event notifications. ( 860, 6:63 67.) B. The Challenged Claims of the 860 Patent The two independent claims addressed in this Petition claims 1 and 24 purport to recite a system and computer program product for managing a conversation in a web service. Representative claim 1 recites: 1. A system for managing a conversation in a Web service, comprising: [a] [b] [c] [d] a computer processor; a conversation managed object executable on the computer processor, wherein: the conversation managed object includes at least one interface configured to provide management information about the conversation to at least one manager; and the at least one interface is configured to provide information regarding the Web service that contains the conversation ( 860, 10:30 41 (Claim 1).) The bracketed notations (e.g., [a], [b], [c], etc.) 9

15 were added to facilitate identification of these limitations in this Petition. The second independent claim addressed in this Petition is claim 24: 24. A computer program product tangibly embodied in a computer [a] [b] storage readable medium, comprising: a conversation interface; a managed object interface associated with the conversation interface, wherein the conversation interface includes information for monitoring messages in a conversation, including: [b1] at least one of: [b2] at least one of: the number of failed messages; the number of successful messages; the total number of messages; the last message received by a resource; the last fault message received by the resource; and the identity of resources participating in the conversation; the number of resources participating in the conversation; an identifier of the conversation; and an identifier of the resource that contains the conversation interface. ( 860, 12:16 36 (Claim 24).) The other claims addressed in this Petition i.e., claims 5, 7 10, 12, 15, 25 and 26 depend from claims 1 or 24. This Petition will address those claims in more detail in Part VII.B and VII.C below. 10

16 VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R (B)(3) A claim subject to inter partes review must be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R (b). The broadest reasonable construction standard is fundamentally different from the manner in which the scope of a claim is determined in litigation. See, e.g., In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, (Fed. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the constructions proposed below represent the broadest reasonable construction that one of ordinary skill in the art would assign and not necessarily an appropriate construction in litigation. A. Web service The term Web service appears in both of the independent claims (i.e., claims 1 and 24) addressed in this Petition. The term is discussed in the Background section of the specification, which states: The term Web services describes an approach to distributed computing in which interactions are carried out through the exchange of extensible Markup Language (XML) messages.... Essentially any transaction or bit of business logic can become a Web service if it can be accessed and used by another system over a network such as the Internet. ( 860, Ex. 1001, 1:32 34, 1:40 43 (underlining added).) 11

17 As explained by Dr. Lavian, the above quoted statement in the Background section is generally consistent with how one of ordinary skill in the art understood Web service as of May (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 37.) Accordingly, Web service under its broadest reasonable construction should be interpreted as a service or system that interacts with another system through the exchange of extensible Markup Language (XML) messages. B. conversation Independent claims 1 and 24 both recite a conversation in a Web service. The specification provides the following (somewhat circular) definition of this term: The term conversation is a set of related messages sent and received by a particular conversation. ( 860, Ex. 1001, 4:45 46 (underlining added).) Based on this description, the term conversation should be understood to mean a set of related messages for exchange of information. C. managed object and conversation managed object The term managed object is recited in a number of ways in the claims. Claim 1 recites a conversation managed object, while independent claim 24 recites a managed object interface. This Petition will therefore separately address managed object and conversation managed object. 12

18 1. managed object The term managed object generally refers to an object (such as a software program, process or system) that is responsible for managing a resource. The broadest reasonable construction of managed object is an object for managing a resource. This definition is supported by the following passage: Referring to FIG.1B, an embodiment of managed object 148 with managed object interfaces 150 is shown. Managed object 148 is a management representation of a resource. For example, conversation managed objects 108, 110 in FIG. 1A can each be considered managed objects 148. Managed object 148 implements managed object interfaces 150 to provide a common set of basic management capabilities to monitor and/or control the underlying resource(s) represented by managed object 148 through various features such as attributes, operations, and event notifications. ( 860, Ex. 1001, 6:58 67 (underlining added).) This is consistent with an earlier passage in the specification stating that [c]onversation managed objects 108, 110 represent the management features of resource(s) that conduct conversations 104, 106. (Id., 4:26 28 (underlining added).) The specification describes resources broadly as including documents, images, downloadable files, services, electronic mailboxes, and other resources. 13

19 (Id., 5:58 60.) The specification also describes management capabilities as including monitoring, discovery, control, performance, configuration, and security. (Id., 5:1 4.) Based on these disclosures, the broadest reasonable construction of managed object is an object for managing a resource. 2. conversation managed object A conversation managed object is simply a managed object with one additional feature it is associated with a conversation. The term conversation managed object under its broadest reasonable interpretation is an object for managing a resource that is associated with a conversation. The specification makes clear that conversation managed objects can be considered managed objects. ( 860, Ex. 1001, 6:61 62.) The key distinction between the two types of objects is that a conversation managed object, according to the specification, conducts a conversation and has an interface to allow a manager to access management features for the conversation: Conversation managed objects 108, 110 represent the management features of resource(s) that conduct conversations 104, 106. Interfaces in one or more categories can be included in conversation interfaces 14

20 112, 114 for each conversation managed object 108, 110. Conversation interfaces 112, 114 allow manager 102 to access information regarding the state of messages related to corresponding conversations 104, 106. (Id., 4:26 33 (underlining added), Fig. 1A (excerpt).) The specification also makes clear that although a conversation managed object is associated with a conversation, the term requires no particular physical relationship between the conversation managed object and the resource and conversation with which the object is associated. Conversation managed objects, according to the specification, can be implemented as part of the implementation for conversations 104, 106, such as shown for conversation managed object 108 [in Fig. 1A], or in a layer external to conversations 104, 106, as shown for conversation managed object 110. (Id., 4:40 44.) In light of the specification and claim language, the term conversation managed object under its broadest reasonable construction to mean an object for managing a resource that is associated with a conversation. D. manager Claim 1 states that the conversation managed object includes at least one interface configured to provide management information about the conversation to at least one manager. As shown below, a manager is a software process 15

21 or system for accessing management features. The specification of the 860 patent does not provide specific detail regarding the implementation of the claimed manager, but instead describes it using almost entirely functional language. In Figure 1A (excerpted at right), the manager is depicted as box 102 on the left. Referring to FIG 1A, an embodiment of a conversation management system 100 that allows manager 102 to monitor and control one or more conversations 104, 106 is shown. ( 860, Ex. 1001, 4:23 26 (underlining added).) This indicates that the manager (102) is used for accessing management features. The term manager does not refer to a human being, but rather, to a software process or system. The specification makes clear that the manager is software based. (Id., 8:57 62 ( In the embodiments shown, manager [is] implemented in computer processing systems 160 through 168, respectively. ) (underlining added).) Accordingly, based on the description in the specification, the broadest reasonable construction of manager is a software process or system for accessing management features. 16

22 E. Interface, Managed Object Interface, Service Interface Claim 1 recites an interface while claim 24 recites a conversation interface and an associated managed object interface. This Petition will therefore first address interface, then turn to the terms that incorporate it. 1. interface The specification does not expressly define interface. As explained by Dr. Lavian, the term interface is broadly used by persons of ordinary skill in the art to describe something that connects two systems, processes or actors together. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 52.) For example, a graphical user interface, a term familiar to many computer users, generally describes a way in which a computer makes its features available to a user through icons, windows, buttons and other visual indicators. (Id.) A graphical user interface is an interface because it facilitates interaction between the computer and its human operator. (Id.) Another common use of interface is the term application programming interface (API), which refers to a concept that is well known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an API generally provides a way for a set of software services to be accessed by another software system. (Id., 53.) APIs exist at many levels of computer software design and usually take the form of a set of defined software routines, procedures, functions or methods 17

23 that invoke the software services they represent. (Id.) For example, operating systems such as Microsoft Windows and UNIX provide APIs to allow user applications to interact with the operating system to perform tasks such as creating and opening files, sending and receiving information over a network, and receiving user input from a keyboard, mouse or other input device. An API is an interface because it facilitates interaction between two different software programs or processes. (Id.) Both of these examples are consistent with the definition of interface found in the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002) [Ex. 1012] which defines interface as [t]he point at which a connection is made between two elements so that they can work with each other or exchange information. (Ex. 1012, at p. 279.) The patent specification uses the term interface in a way that is consistent with this definition. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 54.) For example, the specification explains that a conversation managed object includes one or more interfaces configured to provide management information about the conversation to a manager. ( 860, Ex. 1001, 3:26 29 (underlining added).) These conversation interfaces allow the manager to access information such as the number of successful and failed messages and the identity of the services participating in the conversation. (Id., 3:51 60.) Thus, interface under its 18

24 broadest reasonable construction should be interpreted as a connection point for communication and/or exchange of information. 2. managed object interface Claim 24 recites a managed object interface. The specification generally describes a managed object interface as an interface associated with a managed object. For example, it states that: FIG. 1A also shows managed object interfaces 122 associated with conversation managed object 108, and managed object interfaces 124 associated with conversation managed object 110. Referring to FIG.1B, an embodiment of managed object 148 with managed object interfaces 150 is shown. ( 860, 6:55 59.) Thus, consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification, managed object interface is an interface associated with a managed object (i.e., an object for managing a resource). 3. conversation interface Claim 24 also recites a conversation Interface. As with managed object interface discussed above, the specification describes a conversation interface as an interface associated with a conversation. For example, it states that: Conversation interfaces 112, 114 allow manager 102 to access information regarding the state of messages related to corresponding conversations 104, 106. ( 860, 4:30 33 (underlining added).) The broadest reasonable construction 19

25 of conversation interface is an interface associated with a conversation. VII. CLAIMS 1, 5, 7 10, 12, 15 AND OF THE 860 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE A. Ground 1 Claims 1 and 24 Are Obvious Over the Collaborate References in view of Fox 1. Prior Art and Date Qualification for Ground 1 Each limitation of claims 1 and 24 is disclosed or suggested by (1) Introducing BEA WebLogic Collaborate ( Introducing Collaborate ) [Ex. 1004]; (2) Administering BEA WebLogic Collaborate ( Administering Collaborate ) [Ex. 1005]; and (3) Programming BEA WebLogic Collaborate Management Applications ( Programming Collaborate ) [Ex. 1006]. This Petition refers to these references collectively as the Collaborate References. This Petition also relies on certain disclosures from David Fox et al., Web Publisher s Construction Kit with HTML 3.2 (1996) ( Fox ) [Ex. 1008] for certain claim limitations. The Collaborate References and Fox qualify as prior art to the 860 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(b) (pre AIA) because they were published more than one year before the filing date of the 860 patent. The Collaborate References are properly considered printed publications because they were disseminated or otherwise made available so persons of ordinary skill in the art, exercising reasonable diligence, could locate them. They were part of a collection of product manuals and documentation for a commercial 20

26 product called BEA WebLogic, offered by BEA Systems, Inc. They show a date of July 2011 on their face and copyright pages. As explained by Dr. Lavian and in the accompanying Affidavit of Christopher Butler from the Internet Archive, the Collaborate References were publicly available for download from BEA s website no later than August (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, ; Butler Affidavit, Ex ) The Internet Archive includes a service known as the Wayback Machine that has archived more than 400 billion web pages that were available on the Web, preserving them as they existed at the time of capture. (Ex. 1014, 2 4.) The Wayback Machine records the date and time of capture and encodes it into the document s Internet Archive URL. (Id. 5; Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 204, 205.) In this case, the Internet Archive captured a webpage entitled BEA WebLogic Collaborate 2.0: PDF that includes download links to various documents (in PDF form), including the Collaborate References cited in this Petition. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 206, 207; Butler Aff., Ex. 1014, Ex. A (BEA download page).) Based on the date of capture recorded by the Internet Archive, the page was publicly accessible through the web by no later than August 29, (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 205.) The download page was part of what BEA called its e docs Web Site (edocs.bea.com), which the Collaborate References identify as a central source of 21

27 documentation about BEA s products. (See Ex. 1004, at vi ( The WebLogic Collaborate product documentation is available on the BEA Systems, Inc. corporate Web site. ); Ex. 1005, at x ( From the BEA Home page, click on Product Documentation or go directly to the e docs Product Documentation page at docs.bea.com. ); id. at xi ( A PDF version of this document is available from the BEA WebLogic Collaborate documentation Home page... at ).) There is no indication that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experienced any difficulties downloading the Collaborate References from BEA s website. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 208.) Finally, BEA Systems, Inc., the company that produced the Collaborate References, was a well known web services product provider in the early 2000s, claiming more than 11,000 customers worldwide by (Id. 209 (citing Ex. 1013).) Accordingly, the Collaborate References qualify as printed publications. 2. Brief Summary of the Prior Art Applied in Ground 1 The Collaborate References collectively describe certain management features of a software program called WebLogic Collaborate, Release 2.0, from BEA Systems, Inc. In broad overview, WebLogic Collaborate was a program designed to facilitate an exchange of messages (e.g., through conversations ) between an entities and their trading partners. The trading partners of an 22

28 entity include other entities with which it conducts business, such as customers and suppliers. (Introducing Collaborate, Ex. 1004, at 1 4, 1 6 (Fig. 1 1), 1 7 (Fig. 1 2).) Business partners in an e commerce community can range in size from large enterprises to small divisions within an enterprise. (Id. at 1 4.) As explained in Introducing Collaborate, the term trading partner refers to an entity that has an agreement with another entity to participate in a specific business exchange, or conversation, in a specific role that is defined for the conversation. (Id. at 1 5.) For example, an organization could set up a community for inventory management in which its trading partners consisted of corporate departments within the organization. (Id. at 1 4.) The trading partners involved run the WebLogic Collaborate software (or compatible collaboration software provided by a third party) to form an e community. An example of such an e community is shown in Figure 1 2 below, which shows use of the WebLogic Collaborate for an auction service: 23

29 (Id. at 1 7 (Fig. 1 2).) Figure 1 2 above shows use of WebLogic Collaborate for an auction service in which a Net Market (the center box) serves as an auction broker between a Buyer and Sellers. (Id.) Once joined into an e community, these trading partners may participate in a conversation. Within WebLogic Collaborate, a conversation is a series of business messages exchanged between trading partners. (Id. at 1 7 to 1 8; see also id. ( The business messages that can be exchanged between participants in the conversation are determined by the roles the trading partners play in the conversation. ) A conversation [m]ay be complex and long running, or short lived. (Id.) WebLogic Collaborate operates as a Web service in that messages exchanged between trading partners take the form of extensible Markup Language (XML) 24

30 messages using standard Web protocols such as HTTP. (Id. at 1 13 ( A business message is the basic unit of communication among trading partners and is exchanged as part of a conversation. A business message contains one or more XML business documents, one or more attachments, or a combination of both. (underlining added)), 1 1 ( WebLogic Collaborate supports HTTP because the World Wide Web is the ubiquitous communication medium for e business. ).) Finally, WebLogic Collaborate provides an Administration Console accessible through a web browser that allows a user to manage various aspects of the collaboration system. (Id. at 1 30 to 1 31.) Additional detail regarding the disclosures of the Collaborate References is provided below. Fox is a 1996 web programming textbook describing various well known Web technologies such as using the Common Gateway Interface (CGI). This Petition relies on Fox in combination with the Collaborate References for the interface limitations of the challenged claims. A further discussion of Fox is provided below in the discussion of the claim limitations for which it is cited. 3. The Collaborate References Are Properly Combinable Each of the Collaborate References cited in this Petition describes some aspect of the WebLogic Collaborate features used to show the claim limitations. As explained by Dr. Lavian, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the 25

31 Collaborate References to be combinable. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, ) It is hard to imagine an easier case for combinability than the Collaborate References. All three documents describe aspects of the same software program, BEA WebLogic Collaborate, and even the same version of that software (Release 2.0). They were all produced by the same company and bear the same date. One of ordinary skill in the art would naturally have treated the Collaborate References as a group of related documents and consulted them together to ascertain the various features of WebLogic Collaborate. (Id. 74, 75.) In fact, the Collaborate References cite and make express references to each other. For example, Introducing Collaborate includes a section entitled Document Roadmap for WebLogic Collaborate that lists other documents that the reader can consult to find more detailed information about various features of your WebLogic Collaborate. (Ex. 1004, at 1 32.) That section specifically lists the other two Collaborate References. (Id. at 1 32 (listing Administering Collaborate), 1 34 (listing Programming Collaborate).) The Collaborate References are replete with other examples of specific citations and crossreferences to each other. (See, for example, Introducing Collaborate, Ex. 1004, at 1 14 and 1 31.) The Collaborate References, in fact, specifically encourage the reader to consult each other. (See, for example, Administering Collaborate, Ex. 26

32 1005, at x ( Before reading this document, we recommend that you read the Introducing BEA WebLogic Collaborate document. ).) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been amply motivated to combine and would have considered them part and parcel of a single disclosure. (Lavian Decl. 78.) With respect to some claim limitations relating to interfaces, this Petition applies the teachings of the Fox reference (Ex. 1008) in combination with the Collaborate References. Because this Petition cites Fox only with respect to certain limitations, it will address the rationale and motivation to combine in the claim limitations where Fox has been applied. 4. Claim 1 The preamble of claim 1 recites, [a] system for managing a conversation in a Web service. As explained above, Web service should be understood as a service or system that interacts with another system through the exchange of extensible Markup Language (XML) messages. The term conversation refers to a set of related messages for exchange of information. The Web service in the Collaborate References takes the form of the WebLogic Collaborate system: The BEA WebLogic Collaborate product is an XML and Javabased e commerce platform that enables you to implement 27

33 complex e commerce systems on the Web... XML is used as a standard format for documents exchanged by business partners. WebLogic Collaborate supports HTTP because the World Wide Web is the ubiquitous communication medium for e business. (Introducing Collaborate, Ex. 1004, at 1 1 (emphasis added).) The WebLogic Collaborate system therefore clearly qualifies as a Web service. The Collaborate References also disclose a system for managing a conversation in a Web service. According to the Collaborate References, [w]hen trading partners join other trading partners to form an e community with a specific purpose, they participate in a conversation. (Introducing Collaborate, Ex. 1004, at 1 7 (under Defining Conversations and Roles ) (italics in original).) In WebLogic Collaborate, a conversation... [i]s a series of business messages exchanged between trading partners... (Id. (underlining added).) The Collaborate references therefore disclose a conversation in a web service. They also disclose a system for managing such a conversation. As noted previously, monitoring is one example of managing under the 860 patent. ( 860, 5:1 4.) The Collaborate References provide a system for managing conversations, for example, by providing management features: 28

34 Managing Conversations Critical to managing successful relationships between trading partners is the ability to provide robust services to ensure the integrity of business messages while they are being exchanged in various types of trading partner collaborations. WebLogic Collaborate provides a messaging service and a conversation coordination service, as described in the following sections. (Introducing Collaborate, Ex. 1004, at 1 26 (under Managing Conversations ) (boldface type in original; underlining added).) For example, as described in more detail in subsequent claim limitations, the Collaborate References describe specific features for monitoring and listing conversations. (Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 6 10 (under Monitoring Conversations ).) The Collaborate References therefore clearly disclose a system for managing a conversation in a Web service, as recited in the preamble. a. a computer processor (Claim 1[a]) The first limitation of claim 1 recites a computer processor. The Collaborate References explain that BEA WebLogic Collaborate is a software product that runs, for example, on the Microsoft Windows and UNIX operating systems. (See Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 1 5 ( On a Windows system, you can start WebLogic Collaborate with the program icons or from the 29

35 command line. ); id. at 1 7 (describing starting WebLogic Collaborate in UNIX).) Additionally, the Collaborate References explain that WebLogic Collaborate is implemented entirely in Java and leverages the J2EE standard APIs. (Introducing Collaborate, Ex. 1004, at 1 1.) The term Java and J2EE generally refer to an object oriented programming language and platform originally developed by Sun Microsystems. (Lavian Decl. 90.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that executing WebLogic Collaborate on a Microsoft Windows or Unix system, or to run a Java based program required at least one computer processor. (Id.) b. "a conversation managed object executable on the computer processor" (Claim 1[b]) The claimed conversation managed object in the Collaborate References takes the form of a collection of software programs known as the BEA WebLogic Collaborate Managed Beans, also referred as MBeans. These Managed Beans or MBeans are what is known as JavaBeans. Java, as mentioned earlier, refers a programming language and software development platform. The basic unit of Java program is known as a Java class. (Lavian Decl., 92.) The term JavaBean describes a particular way to encapsulate a Java class that, generally speaking, was intended to make software components in Java more 30

36 reusable from one program to another. (Id.) Accordingly, the Managed Beans or MBeans in the Collaborate References describe software functionality encapsulated as Java Beans that, when executed by a processor in a computer, perform certain functions. (Id.) The collection of these Managed Beans corresponds to the conversation managed object recited in the claim. The term conversation managed object, as explained in Part VI.C.2 above, means an object for managing a resource that is associated with a conversation. Here, the resource being managed is an aspect of the WebLogic Collaborate service, such as a trading partner session or delivery channel. (Programming Collaborate, Ex. 1006, at 2 3 to 2 4, Table 2 1 (listing WebLogic resources managed by MBeans).) The Collaborate References confirm that these resources may be associated with a conversation. (Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 6 4 to 6 5, Table 6 1.) For example, the Administration Console in WebLogic Collaborate allows users to monitor a run time instance, trading partner session or delivery channel and list the conversations associated with these resources. (Id. at 6 4 ( Trading partner page [:] Sessions... From the detail of a selected session, link to a list of the conversations or a list of the outstanding messages. ); id. ( Trading partner page [:] Delivery Channels... View the details of a selected delivery 31

37 channel (status, trading partner sessions, conversations, collaboration agreements, messages sent). (underlining added to both).) These resource monitoring features are provided by the MBeans, the claimed conversation managed object. The Collaborate References describe at least six different MBeans that are associated with WebLogic Collaborate. (Id. at 2 3, Table 2 1.) For example, the MBean called WLCMBean is [u]sed for monitoring a WebLogic Collaborate instance at run time. (Id. (first item in Table 2 1; underlining added).) Another MBean described in the Collaborate References, DeliveryChannelMBean, is [u]sed for monitoring delivery channels on WebLogic Collaborate at run time. (Id. (second item in Table 2 1).) The other MBeans perform other management tasks for WebLogic Collaborate such as monitoring trading partners, monitoring messages for WebLogic Collaborate and so forth. (Id. at 2 3 to 2 4, Table 2 1.) As noted previously, the specification of the 860 patent expressly lists monitoring as an example of managing a resource. ( 860, Ex. 1001, 5:1 4.) These MBeans, individually or as a group, clearly qualify as an object for managing a resource that is associated with a conversation. The Collaborate References therefore disclose a conversation managed object executable on the computer processor, as recited in the claim. 32

38 c. the conversation managed object includes at least one interface configured to provide management information about the conversation to at least one manager (Claim 1[c]) The Collaborate References also disclose that the Managed Beans (the conversation managed object ) include at least one interface configured to provide management information about the conversation to at least one manager. Because the claimed interface provides management information to a manager, this Petition will first address the manager. The manager in the Collaborate References takes the form of an Administration Console, a web based user interface that can be accessed by an administrator using a web browser. (See Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 1 8 to 1 9, Figure 1 1.) The Administration Console provides access to management features of the Web service, i.e., WebLogic Collaborate: You can use the WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console to: Configure WebLogic Collaborate preferences, trading partners, conversation definitions, collaboration agreements, business protocol definitions, and logic plug ins Export and import configured elements Monitor and control WebLogic Collaborate, trading partner sessions, conversations, and collaboration agreements (Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 1 7 (underlining added).) Having 33

39 addressed the manager, this Petition will now turn to the claimed interface. The Collaborate References also disclose at least one interface configured to provide management information about the conversation to the Administration Console ( manager ). There are at least two separate and independent ways in which the prior art discloses this interface. First, the interface can take the form of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) provided by the Managed Beans or MBeans, which provide management information to the Administration Console. The Collaborate References plainly state, in fact, that the Administration Console (the claimed manager ) uses these MBeans APIs to access this management information: WebLogic Collaborate provides the application programming interfaces (APIs) needed to create custom management applications that monitor run time activity on WebLogic Collaborate nodes. The WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console tools also use these APIs to provide real time monitoring information. These APIs consist of sets of Java Management Extensions (JMX) Managed Beans, or MBeans, which are special JavaBeans with attributes and methods for management operations. (Programming Collaborate, Ex. 1006, at 2 2 (under MBeans and the MBean Server ) (underlining added); see also id. at 2 5 ( The WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console uses the JMX API and WebLogic Collaborate MBeans to 34

40 monitor running WebLogic Collaborate instances. ) (underlining added).) An Application Programming Interface or API, including the MBeans API discussed above, satisfies the interface claim limitation, as explained in Part VI.E above, because it provides the connection point for communication and/or exchange of information between the Administration Console and the MBeans. As explained in Part VI.B, a conversation is a set of related messages for exchange of information. These Managed Beans or MBeans ( interface ) provide management information about the conversation. In particular, one those MBeans APIs, called getactiveconversations, provides a list of the conversations in a WebLogic Collaborate session: MBeans that are logically related have accessor methods to retrieve references to each other. These methods are strongly typed and return exact MBean types. For example, the WLCMBean.getActiveDeliveryChannels() method returns an array of type DeliveryChannelMBean that represents all the active delivery channels in the system. Similarly, the TradingPartnerSessionMBean.getActiveConversations() method returns an array of type ConversationMBean that represents all the active conversations in this session. (Programming Collaborate, Ex at 2 10 (under Step 6: Navigate Across MBeans ) (underlining added).) As explained by Dr. Lavian, who has translated the above paragraph into 35

41 plain English, the above quoted paragraph describes services provided by MBean APIs referred to above as accessor methods. (Lavian Decl. 106.) A method in Java (and in object oriented programming in general) refers to software or instructions that can be invoked (or called ) from another software process by using the method s name. An accessor method generally refers to a method that retrieves ( gets ) data from an object. (Id.) The accessor method getactiveconversations() in the text above is an accessor method that can be invoked by an application such as the Administration Console to retrieve a list of active conversations in the WebLogic Collaborate session. As explained above, this method returns an array of type ConversationMBean that represents all the active conversations in this session. (Id. at 2 10 (underlining added).) This accessor method is part of the MBeans API (the claimed interface ) as previously mentioned. The Collaborate References further disclose that the Administration Console uses the MBeans APIs to provide the list of conversations. (Id. at 2 2 ( The WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console tools also use these APIs to provide real time monitoring information. ) (under MBeans and the MBean Server ), 2 5 ( The WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console uses the JMX API and WebLogic Collaborate MBeans to monitor running WebLogic 36

42 Collaborate instances. ).) The Collaborate References therefore disclose that the Managed Beans or MBeans (the conversation managed object ) include at least one interface configured to provide management information about the conversation, as recited in claim 1[c]. As noted previously, there is a second way in which the prior art discloses the claimed interface. The Administration Console, is a web based user interface that allows an administrator to access management features. (See Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 1 8 to 1 9, Figure 1 1.) One of these features allows the user to bring up a list of conversations. (Id. at 6 10 (under Monitoring Conversations ).) Selecting a conversation from the conversation list will bring up a web page showing information about the selected conversation such as its conversation identifier, start time of the conversation, and other information. (Id. at 6 11 (Figure 6 5).) One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the web server that provides web pages for the Administration Console including pages that provide management information about the conversation would have included an interface to receive user selections through the Administration Console and then use that input to interact with other software (e.g., MBeans) to, for example, retrieve requested conversation information. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 111.) 37

43 These web server interfaces were well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art by May (Id. 112.) One example is the Common Gateway Interface (CGI) disclosed in Fox (Ex. 1008). Fox, which was published more than six years before the 860 filing date, explains that CGI allows a web server to communicate with other software programs: The Common Gateway Interface or CGI is a method that lets you access external programs on a Web server and usually send the results to a Web browser... These programs can be any executable code, script or program supported by the operating system that runs your server. (Fox, Ex. 1008, at 482 (under Lesson #1: What is CGI? ) (underlining added).) These programs that can be accessed using CGI are called CGI scripts, and they can be written in any programming language supported by the server. (Id.) CGI scripts could be used for various purposes including accessing databases: Why is it called the Common Gateway Interface? Well, the answer is simple: The Common Gateway Interface was originally intended as a gateway between WWW clients and other programs that could be run remotely on your server. Many CGI scripts, especially those that access databases, simply execute another application on the server and redirect its output with whatever formatting changes are required to the HTTP server, and then to the client that requested the script. 38

44 (Id. at 490 (under Lesson #4: How to Use a Script to Access Other Applications ) (underlining added).) Fox further explains that a program accessed through the CGI interface can perform a wide range of tasks. It can access other programs, open files, read from files, create graphics, dial your modem, call your mother, do database searches, send e mail, you name it. (Id. at 484 (under What Can I Do with a CGI Script? ) (underlining added).) Although the MBeans in the Collaborate References alone satisfy the claimed interface, the claimed interface would also have been obvious over the Collaborate References in view of the web server interface teachings in Fox. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Fox s teachings about web server interfaces such as the Common Gateway Interface (CGI) to the Collaborate References, with no change in their respective functions. This would have predictably resulted in the Administration Console (the claimed manager ) using a web server interface such CGI as an interface between the server that receives the user s input and external programs (such as the Managed Beans or MBeans) that provide functionality in response to that user input. (Lavian Decl. 117.) This would have allowed the Administration Console (the manager ) to provide management information about the conversation through its web based user interface. (Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 3 2 ( The 39

45 WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console is used to... [m]onitor WebLogic Collaborate, trading partner sessions, [and] conversations.... ).) As explained by Dr. Lavian, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had many motivations to combine. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, 119.) The technology was not complex, and web server interfaces (CGI being one example) were part of the basic repertoire of knowledge possessed by persons of ordinary skill in the art well before May (Id.) As explained in Fox in 1996, [a]s you read this, CGI scripts are coming to life all over the world. (Fox, Ex. 1008, at 485.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that one could employ an interface such as CGI to facilitate interaction with external programs. (Lavian Decl. 120.) d. the at least one interface is configured to provide information regarding the Web service that contains the conversation (Claim 1[d]) As explained above for claim 1[a], the claimed Web service in the prior art corresponds to the WebLogic Collaborate system. As noted for the preceding claim limitation (1[c]), there are at least independent two ways in which the prior art discloses the claimed interface of claim 1: (1) application programming interfaces (APIs) provided by the Managed Beans or MBeans; and (2) a web server interface such as the Common Gateway Interface (CGI) in Fox. Both theories also satisfy all aspects of claim 1[d]. 40

46 With respect to the first theory in which the interface takes the form of MBeans APIs, the Collaborate References specifically disclose that the APIs provide information regarding WebLogic Collaborate (the Web service ): WebLogic Collaborate provides the application programming interfaces (APIs) needed to create custom management applications that monitor run time activity on WebLogic Collaborate nodes. The WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console tools also use these APIs to provide real time monitoring information. These APIs consist of sets of Java Management Extensions (JMX) Managed Beans, or MBeans, which are special JavaBeans with attributes and methods for management operations. (Programming Collaborate, Ex. 1006, at 2 2 (under MBeans and the MBean Server ) (underlining added).) The Collaborate References further state: The WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console uses the JMX API and WebLogic Collaborate MBeans to monitor running WebLogic Collaborate instances. ) (Id. at 2 5 (underlining added).) As explained previously, the WebLogic Collaborate service contains the claimed conversation. The MBeans API (the claimed interface ) is therefore configured to provide information regarding the Web service that contains the conversation, as recited in claim 1[d]. With respect to the second theory outlined above in which the claimed 41

47 interface takes the form of a web server interface (such as CGI disclosed in Fox), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an interface such as CGI could also have been configured to provide information regarding the Web service that contains the conversation. This is because information about the WebLogic Collaborate service is reported to the user through the Administration Console, as explained above. (See also Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 6 5 to 6 6 (Fig. 6 1) (showing current status of WebLogic Collaborate).) The ability to dynamically generate a web page in response to user input, such as an Administration Console page showing the current status of the WebLogic Collaborate service, is a key reason to use a web server interface such as the Common Gateway Interface (CGI). (Lavian Decl. 126.) Under either theory, the prior art discloses that the at least one interface is configured to provide information regarding the Web service that contains the conversation, as recited in the claim. For all of these reasons, therefore, the Collaborate References and Fox disclose each element of claim Claim 24 Claim 24 is similar in many respects to claim 1, but lists the elements in slightly different order and adds limitations relating to conversation monitoring information (e.g., number of failed messages ). The Collaborate References 42

48 disclose all limitations of claim 24 for many of the same reasons as claim 1. The preamble of claim 24 recites, [a] computer program product tangibly embodied in a computer readable storage medium. As explained in connection with claim 1[a] above, BEA WebLogic Collaborate is a Java based computer program product that runs on a Windows or UNIX based computer system. The software is also stored on a computer readable storage medium. For example, the Collaborate References explain that the WebLogic Collaborate software is installed in particular file directories on the user s computer. (See Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 1 6.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this shows a computer readable storage medium such as a hard disk drive or other type of digital storage device. (Lavian Decl. 131.) a. conversation interface limitations (Claims 24[a], 24[b]) Claim 24 recites a conversation interface, followed by a managed object interface, and then concludes with a lengthy wherein clause that refers back to the conversation interface. For convenience, therefore, this Petition will first address the conversation interface limitations and then the managed object. i. a conversation interface (Claim 24[a]) A conversation interface is an interface associated with a conversation. (See Part VI.E.3, above.) The conversation interface recited in claim 24 is 43

49 substantially similar, for purposes of this Petition, to the interface of claim 1. Accordingly, the same teachings identified for the interface in claim 1 are also applicable to the conversation interface in claim 24. In particular, as with claim 1, there are at least two separate and independent ways in which the prior art discloses the claimed conversation interface. First, the Collaborate References disclose a conversation interface in the form of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) provided by the Managed Beans or MBeans, which provide management features. (Programming Collaborate, Ex. 1006, at 2 2 and 2 5.) These Managed Beans or MBeans ( conversation interface ) are associated with a conversation. In particular, one those MBeans APIs, called getactiveconversations, can be invoked by an application to provide a list of the conversations in a WebLogic Collaborate session. (Id. at 2 10 (discussion under Step 6: Navigate Across MBeans ); see also discussion in Part VI.A.4.) The MBeans API ( conversation interface ), therefore, is associated with a conversation. Under the second theory discussed above, the conversation interface takes the form of a web interface such as the Common Gateway Interface (CGI) disclosed in Fox. This interface, as discussed previously, provides a gateway in which a web server (such as the one providing the Administration Console) can 44

50 interact with another application program to perform certain tasks, such as querying databases. (Fox, Ex. 1008, at 482 (under Lesson #1: What is CGI? ); id. at 490 (under Lesson #4: How to Use a Script to Access Other Applications ); id. at 494 (under What Can I Do with a CGI Script? ).) As explained for claim 1[c] above and by Dr. Lavian, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Fox s teachings about the Common Gateway Interface (CGI) to the Collaborate References. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, , 138, 139.) This would have predictably allowed the Administration Console to provide a web server interface such as CGI as an interface associated with a conversation. (Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 3 2 ( The WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console is used to... [m]onitor WebLogic Collaborate, trading partner sessions, conversations.... ) (underlining added).) As discussed in detail above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had many motivations to combine. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, , 138, 139.) ii. wherein the conversation interface includes information for monitoring messages in a conversation (Claim 24[b]) Both interfaces described above for the claimed conversation interface, i.e. the MBeans API and the web server interface (such as CGI), include information for monitoring messages in a conversation. With respect to the 45

51 MBeans APIs, as explained for claim 1[c] above, the Managed Beans or MBeans provide information for monitoring messages in WebLogic Collaborate conversations. For example, the MBeans can produce lists of conversations for display in the WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console. (See Part VI.C.1 above; see also Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 6 10 (under Monitoring Conversations ).) The getactiveconversations() method discussed above, for example, will return[] an array of type ConversationMBean that represents all the active conversations in this session. (Programming Collaborate, Ex at 2 10 (under Step 6: Navigate Across MBeans ) (underlining added).) This lets the user monitor a conversation using the Administration Console. (Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 6 11, Figure 6 5 ( Monitoring a Conversation ).) With respect to the second theory outlined above in which the claimed conversation interface comprises a web server interface such as the Common Gateway Interface (CGI), as explained in great detail for claim 1[d], an interface such as CGI could also have included information for monitoring messages in a conversation. This is because the conversation monitoring information is reported back to the user through a web page accessible through the Administration Console, as explained above. (Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 6 11, Figure 6 5 ( Monitoring a Conversation ).) 46

52 The web server interface would have included information for monitoring messages in a conversation because, as noted previously, that interface was used to obtain and deliver the web page for the Administrative Console showing the monitoring information. (Fox, Ex. 1008, at 490 (under Lesson #4: How to Use a Script to Access Other Applications ).) As explained previously, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had ample motivation to combine the Collaborate References with Fox. Therefore, the Collaborate References alone, or in combination with Fox, disclose that the conversation interface includes information for monitoring messages in a conversation. iii. including at least one of the number of failed messages; the number of successful messages; the total number of messages; the last message received by a resource; (Claim 24[b1]) Claim 24[b1] continues by requiring that the information for monitoring messages in a conversation include at least one of several pieces of information including the last message received by a resource and the total number of messages. The Collaborate References disclose both of these. In particular, the Collaborate References disclose message information for various WebLogic Collaborate resources, including a trading partner session or WebLogic runtime instance. (Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 6 4 to

53 (Table 6 1).) For example, the system maintains, for a trading partner session, time of last sent and received message and number of messages sent. (Id. at 6 4 (in Trading partner page, Sessions column, second bullet point); id. (showing same information for WebLogic instance).) Figure 6 4 shows this information to a user through a web page in Administration Console: (Administering Collaborate, Ex at 6 8.) The screen above shows (among other things) the total number of messages and the date and time of the last message received. Another figure (Figure 6 2) lists the number of Messages Sent and Messages Received, further disclosing a total message count. (Id. at 6 2 (Fig. 6 2 ( Server Statistics ).) It would have been known and obvious to one of ordinary skill that the MBeans APIs (the conversation interface ) provide this monitoring information to the Administration Console. (See Programming Collaborate, Ex. 1006, at 2 2 ( The WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console tools also use these APIs to provide 48

54 real time monitoring information. ) (under MBeans and the MBean Server ).) This limitation would also have been trivially obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. As explained by Dr. Lavian, the count of successful, failed and total messages, and information about the last message received, are basic pieces of statistical information that any management system could have tracked, for example, using basic server communication logs. (Lavian Decl ) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found this limitation obvious over the teachings of Collaborate References. iv. and; at least one of the identity of resources participating in the conversation; the number of resources participating in the conversation; an identifier of the conversation; and an identifier of the resource that contains the conversation interface. (Claim 24[b2]) The monitoring information in claim 24[b2] could include an identifier of the conversation. This is shown in Figure 6 5 below (Administering Collaborate, Ex at 6 11.) 49

55 The text following the label Conversation: provides an identifier of the conversation. (Id. ( Identifying information, start time, self initiated indicator, time of last message, and identity of last sender are displayed. ) (underlining added).) It also shows the identity of resources participating in the conversation, as recited in claim 24[b2]. This is shown in the Last Sender: field, which identifies the trading partner that sent the last message to the conversation. The Collaborate References therefore disclose claim 24[b2]. b. a managed object interface associated with the conversation interface (Claim 24[b]) The second limitation of claim 24 recites a managed object interface associated with the conversation interface. There is no further mention of this interface in claim 24. The claim does not expressly recite any particular function this interface must perform, it simply requires that it exist. The Collaborate References disclose this limitation. As noted in Part VI.E.2 above, a managed object interface is an interface associated with a managed object (i.e., an object for managing a resource). For purposes of claim 24, the managed object takes the form of a repository service that manages a resource, e.g., configuration and other information for WebLogic Collaborate. (Introducing Collaborate, Ex. 1004, at 1 29 ( The repository service stores data 50

56 into the repository. ); Administering Collaborate, Ex. 1005, at 7 1 ( The repository is a database that stores configuration information for WebLogic Collaborate. ) (under Working with the Repository ).) The repository offers data importing and exporting and other features through the Administration Console. (Introducing Collaborate, Ex. 1004, at 1 29 to 1 30, 2 19 to 2 21.) As with the conversation interface of this claim discussed above, there are at least two ways in which the prior art discloses the claimed managed object interface. First, the managed object interface takes the form of the interface that facilitates the connection between the repository services and the Administration Console. The relationship between these components is shown in Figure 1 9 of Introducing Collaborate at right. (Ex. 1004, at 1 29 (Figure 1 9: WebLogic Collaborate Services ).) As shown in Figure 1 29, the Repository Services (middle row) interface with the WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console (top right) through the Administration Services. (Id. at 1 28 ( WebLogic Collaborate system components are configured and managed primarily through the WebLogic Collaborate Administration Console, which works together with a repository service. ) (underlining added).) The presence of this 51