Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 1 of 90
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 1 of 90
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`EXHIBIT 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 2 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`2014-1602, -1603, -1604, -1605, -1606, -1607
`
`IN THE
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Appellant,
`
`
`v.
`
`EMC CORPORATION,
`
`Appellee.
`_______________________________________________________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2013-00082, IPR2013-00083, IPR2013-00084,
`IPR2013-00085, IPR2013-00086, and IPR2013-00087.
`______________________________________________________________
`CORRECTED BRIEF OF APPELLANT
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`
`Pierre J. Hubert
`Joel L. Thollander
`McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 692-8700
`
`Daniel L. Geyser
`McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 978-4000
`
`Attorneys for Appellant
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`
`Roderick G. Dorman
`Principal Counsel
`Lawrence M. Hadley
`McKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C.
`865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2900
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 694-1200
`
`
`
`
`
`
`November 12, 2014
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 3 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC certifies the following:
`
`1.
`
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`
`
`
`2.
`
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not
`the real party in interest) represented by me is:
`
`
`
`N/A
`
`3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent
`or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
`
`N/A
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for
`the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are
`expected to appear in this court are:
`
`McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C.: Roderick G. Dorman; Lawrence M.
`Hadley; Courtland L. Reichman
`
`McKool Smith, P.C.: Pierre J. Hubert; Joel L. Thollander; Daniel L. Geyser
`
`Nixon & Vanderhye: Joseph A. Rhoa; Updeep (Mickey) S. Gill
`
`i
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 4 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ................................................................. viii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`Preliminary Statement ........................................................................... 2
`
`The True Name Patents Provide a Vital Solution for
`Identifying and Managing Data in Complex Computer
`Networks. .............................................................................................. 3
`
`The PTAB Focuses on Prior-Art References That Provide
`Different Solutions to Different Problems. ......................................... 10
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`
`5.
`
`
`The Woodhill “distributed storage” patent. .............................. 10
`
`The Langer “file descriptions” newsgroup posting. ................. 18
`
`The Kantor “contents signature” user manual. ......................... 20
`
`The Fischer “integrity check” patent. ....................................... 21
`
`The Satyanarayanan “file system” articles. .............................. 22
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................ 23
`
`V. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 28
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Standard of Review. ............................................................................ 28
`
`The PTAB Erred in Claim Construction. ............................................ 29
`
`1.
`
`
`The PTAB misconstrued the structure for “identity
`means” in the ’791 patent. ........................................................ 29
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 5 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The corresponding structure for a means-
`plus-function term must be drawn from the
`specification. ................................................................... 30
`
`The PTAB failed to draw the corresponding
`structure for the claimed function from the
`specification. ................................................................... 31
`
`c.
`
`The PTAB’s error was harmful. ..................................... 38
`
`2.
`
`
`for
`function
`the
`The PTAB misconstrued
`“existence means” in the ’791 patent. ....................................... 39
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The function for a means-plus-function term
`cannot be different from that explicitly
`recited in the claim. ........................................................ 39
`
`The PTAB erroneously rewrote the function
`explicitly recited in the claim. ........................................ 40
`
`The PTAB’s error was harmful. ..................................... 43
`
`3.
`
`
`The PTAB misconstrued “sequence of non-
`overlapping parts” in the ’096 patent. ....................................... 46
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`in an O2 Micro
`The PTAB engaged
`construction. .................................................................... 46
`
`that a
`The PTAB erroneously held
`“sequence of [parts] need only look at the
`[parts].” ........................................................................... 48
`
`c.
`
`The PTAB’s error was harmful. ..................................... 52
`
`C.
`
`
`
`The PTAB Misapplied the Law of Anticipation. ................................ 52
`
`1.
`
`
`The PTAB repeatedly contravened Net MoneyIN
`by combining separate protocols, not arranged as
`in the claims, to find anticipation. ............................................. 52
`
`a.
`
`combined
`erroneously
`PTAB
`The
`Woodhill’s audit and backup protocols. ......................... 55
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 6 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 5 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`combined
`erroneously
`PTAB
`The
`Woodhill’s backup and granularization
`protocols. ........................................................................ 58
`
`The PTAB erroneously combined Langer’s
`package and standalone protocols. ................................. 62
`
`2.
`
`
`The PTAB repeatedly contravened Arkley and
`Therasense by crediting hypothetical embodiments
`to find anticipation. ................................................................... 65
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`the PTAB’s hypothesizing,
`to
`Contrary
`Woodhill does not access (or provide)
`Binary Objects using the Binary Object
`Identifier. ........................................................................ 65
`
`the PTAB’s hypothesizing,
`to
`Contrary
`Woodhill does not confirm the absence of a
`Binary Object on the remote backup server. .................. 69
`
`the PTAB’s hypothesizing,
`to
`Contrary
`Kantor does not separate a zip file and hash
`its parts. ........................................................................... 72
`
`D.
`
`
`
`The PTAB Erred in Holding the Challenged Claims
`Obvious. .............................................................................................. 73
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The PTAB’s obviousness determinations were
`premised on incorrect claim constructions and
`other legal errors. ...................................................................... 73
`
`The PTAB failed to properly apply the Graham
`factors. ....................................................................................... 76
`
`VI. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................. 79
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 7 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 6 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .............................................................. 30, 32, 39
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................... 30, 37
`
`CardSoft (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC v. VeriFone, Inc.,
`No. 14-1135, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19976 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2014) ............. 76
`
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................ 29, 74-79
`
`E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp.,
`473 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 58
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 75
`
`Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion,
`470 U.S. 729 (1985) ............................................................................................ 79
`
`Gechter v. Davidson,
`116 F.3d 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................... 75, 79
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 76
`
`Holmer v. Harari,
`681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 47
`
`Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc.,
`639 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 73, 74
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 28
`
`In re Arkley,
`455 F.2d 586 (C.C.P.A. 1972) .....................................................................passim
`v
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 8 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 7 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`In re Bond,
`910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ 79
`
`In re Donaldson Co.,
`16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................................................ 30, 31, 40
`
`In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien,
`747 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 40, 42
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 28, 29
`
`Jones v. Hardy,
`727 F.2d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .............................................................. 27, 29, 77
`
`Lebron v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp.,
`513 U.S. 374 (1995) ............................................................................................ 47
`
`Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal, Ltd.,
`781 F.2d 861 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ...................................................................... 77, 79
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..................................................30, 35, 36, 40, 42
`
`Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................passim
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 46
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 28, 50
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`234 F.3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...................................................................... 78, 79
`
`Serrano v. Telular Corp.,
`111 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................. 30, 35, 37
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 9 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 8 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co.,
`749 F.2d 707 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................ 53, 61, 64
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`593 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................passim
`
`Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc.,
`290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 68
`
`Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l Inc.,
`212 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 50
`
`Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC,
`683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 54
`
`STATUTES & RULES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1295 ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................... 30, 32, 37, 40
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ...................................................................................................... 1, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ........................................................................................................ 53
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ................................................................................................... 41
`
`IPR RULE 42.104 .................................................................................... 23, 31, 33, 37
`
`MPEP 2173.05 ......................................................................................................... 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 10 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 9 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`Pursuant to FED. CIR. R. 47.5, Appellant PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`
`respectfully states that, aside from the six related Inter Partes Review proceedings
`
`consolidated in this single appeal:
`
`(a) there have been no other appeals in or from the same proceedings in the
`
`lower tribunal before this or any other appellate court; and,
`
`(b) the pending cases and proceedings that may be directly affected by this
`
`Court’s decision in the pending appeal are as follows: PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v.
`
`EMC Corp., No. 5-13-cv-1358 (N.D. Cal.); PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Facebook
`
`Inc., No. 5-13-cv-1356 (N.D. Cal.); PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. NetApp, Inc., No.
`
`5-13-cv-1359 (N.D. Cal.); PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 5-13-cv-
`
`1317 (N.D. Cal.); PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., No. 6-12-
`
`cv-661 (E.D. Tex.); PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. GitHub, No. 6-12-cv-659 (E.D.
`
`Tex.); PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6-12-cv-660 (N.D. Cal.); Patent
`
`Trial and Appellate Board, No. IPR2013-00596, U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 11 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 10 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had jurisdiction over these Inter
`
`Partes Review (IPR) proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314, and issued its final
`
`written decisions on May 15, 2014. A36; A112; A186; A286; A388; A456.
`
`PersonalWeb timely filed its notices of appeal on May 20, 2014. A105; A157;
`
`A247; A366; A432; A513. This Court has jurisdiction over the consolidated
`
`appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 319 and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
`
`II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`1. Whether the PTAB erred in construing three claim terms where:
`
`(a) for the means-plus-function term “identity means,” it devised its own structure
`
`instead of adopting the corresponding structure disclosed and linked in the
`
`specification; (b) for the means-plus-function term “existence means,” it devised
`
`its own function instead of adopting the function explicitly recited in the claim; and
`
`(c) for “sequence of non-overlapping parts,” it adopted a definition that covered
`
`disruptions to the sequence caused by intervening, non-sequential parts.
`
`2. Whether the PTAB erred in holding the challenged claims anticipated
`
`where: (a) it repeatedly combined the elements of separate and distinct protocols
`
`described in prior-art references, rather than finding the elements arranged as in the
`
`claims; and (b) it repeatedly credited hypothetical embodiments of prior art-
`
`references, rather than analyzing the embodiments actually described.
`1
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 12 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 11 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`3. Whether the PTAB erred in holding the challenged claims obvious
`
`where: (a) many of its conclusions were premised on faulty claim constructions or
`
`other legal mistakes; and (b) it failed to properly apply the Graham factors.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`Preliminary Statement.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`The decisions on appeal are “head scratchers.” In its claim constructions, the
`
`PTAB repeatedly made legal determinations untethered to the teachings of the
`
`specification and the claims themselves—for one means-plus-function term, it
`
`crafted a structure not found in the specification; for another means-plus-function
`
`term, it crafted a function not found in the claims; and, for the term “sequence of
`
`non-overlapping parts,” it crafted a definition that expressly covered non-
`
`sequential parts. Furthermore, two of these erroneous constructions were issued
`
`after the PTAB decided to institute these proceedings. It was as if the PTAB was
`
`stretching to support its initial determinations to grant the IPRs.
`
`These surprising conclusions did not end with the claim constructions. They
`
`persisted in the PTAB’s analyses of patentability. Only by impermissibly cobbling
`
`together disjointed elements
`
`in
`
`the prior art, conjuring up hypothetical
`
`embodiments found nowhere in any reference, and ignoring the technological
`
`limits of the embodiments actually disclosed in the prior-art references at issue
`
`could the PTAB reach its unpatentability determinations. The PTAB repeatedly
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 13 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 12 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`acknowledged the rules governing its anticipation and obviousness inquiries, but
`
`then failed to apply them. Again, it was as if the PTAB was doing anything it could
`
`to justify and support its earlier determinations to institute these proceedings.
`
`The new IPR procedures of the America Invents Act (AIA), for better or
`
`worse, incentivize the PTAB to become an advocate for its initial determination to
`
`grant an IPR. The old rule required a lower threshold determination; the new rule
`
`requires an initial determination of likelihood of success on the merits. Prior to the
`
`AIA, all that was needed to commence a reexamination was a determination that a
`
`“substantial new question of patentability” exists. Now the standard for instituting
`
`Inter Partes Review is whether “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In its decisions to institute these IPRs, the PTAB explains why
`
`it believes it will later adjudge the challenged claims to be unpatentable.
`
`Human nature being what it is, it is difficult to persuade courts and panels to
`
`reverse themselves. Under this new AIA regime, the Federal Circuit alone must
`
`prevent human nature from trumping established law, and assure that valid patent
`
`claims are not wrongly held unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`The True Name Patents Provide a Vital Solution for Identifying
`and Managing Data in Complex Computer Networks.
`
`The ability to reliably identify and locate specific data is essential to any
`
`computer system. On a single computer or within a small network, the task is
`3
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 14 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 13 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`relatively easy: simply name the data or file and identify it by that name and its
`
`stored location on the computer or within the network. Early operating systems
`
`facilitated this approach with standardized conventions for naming files, creating
`
`folder structures, and designating internal or attached storage devices, which
`
`together allowed the computer to locate the specific data. A2540(1:23-42). An
`
`example might look like this: c:\mydocuments\Budget_Forecast_1993.doc.
`
`Ronald Lachman and David Farber recognized that conventional naming,
`
`locating, and managing schemes would be operationally inadequate as data
`
`processing systems continued expanding and new, distributed storage techniques
`
`were developed. A2540-41. As systems evolved, files could be divided and stored
`
`across different storage devices in dispersed geographic locations. While offering
`
`benefits, this also created a problem: different users could give identical names to
`
`different files or parts of files—or unknowingly give different names to identical
`
`files. Existing systems had no means to ensure that identical file names referred to
`
`the same data, and conversely, that different file names referred to different data.
`
`Lachman and Farber realized that, if these limitations were not surmounted, it
`
`would become infeasible to accurately identify, locate, retrieve, de-duplicate,
`
`replicate, and synchronize data within advanced systems. A2540-41.
`
`Lachman and Farber had a solution: they developed a system that replaced
`
`conventional naming system-wide with “substantially unique,” content-based
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 15 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 14 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`identifiers. A2541(3:29-35). This approach could assign substantially unique
`
`identifiers to an endless variety of “data items”—“the contents of a file, a portion
`
`of a file, a page in memory, an object in an object-oriented program, a digital
`
`message, a digital scanned image, a part of a video or audio signal, or any other
`
`entity which can be represented by a sequence of bits.” A2540(1:54-60). Applied
`
`system-wide, this invention would permit any data item to be stored, located,
`
`managed, synchronized, and accessed using its content-based identifier.
`
`But how could a system generate a “substantially unique identifier”—based
`
`on content alone—for any size data item, system-wide? For this, Lachman and
`
`Farber turned to cryptography. Cryptographic hash functions, including MD4,
`
`MD5, and SHA, had been used in computer systems to verify the integrity of
`
`retrieved data—a so-called “checksum.” A2546(13:15-19). Lachman and Farber
`
`recognized that these same hash functions could be devoted to a vital new purpose:
`
`if a cryptographic hash function was applied to a sequence of bits (a “data item”),
`
`it would produce a substantially unique result value, one that: (1) “virtually
`
`guarantee[s]” a different result value if the data item is changed; (2) is
`
`“computationally difficult” to reproduce with a different sequence of bits; and (3)
`
`cannot be used to recreate the original sequence of bits. A2546(13:3-8). These
`
`cryptographic hash functions would thus assign any sequence of bits—based on
`
`content alone—a substantially unique identifier. Lachman and Farber estimated
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 16 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 15 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`that the odds of these hash functions producing the same identifier for two different
`
`sequences of bits (i.e., the “probability of collision”) would be at least 1 in 229.
`
`A2546(13:35-45). With such low probability of collision, Lachman and Farber
`
`dubbed their content-based identifier a “True Name.” A2542.
`
`With this insight, Lachman and Farber crafted novel ways for using True
`
`Names to manage the universe of data (each item correlated with a single True
`
`Name) in a network, no matter its complexity. They conceived various data
`
`structures, including a “Local Directory Extension Table” (124 LDE) and “True
`
`File Registry” (126 TFR), for systemically tracking and managing information
`
`about every data item, capturing each True Name and any user-provided name,
`
`location, and other information paired with that True Name:
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 17 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 16 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`
`
`A2510; A2543(8:19-35). These data structures further permitted a key-map
`
`organization, allowing a rapid determination of whether any particular data item
`
`exists anywhere in a system and (if so) its location everywhere on that system. This
`
`essential functionality was simply not possible using the conventional art. A2510.
`
`The invention envisions and allows for all data operations within the system
`
`to be managed using the True Name and associated information for each data item.
`
`This includes assimilating, identifying, and accessing all data items in the system
`
`by their True Name, regardless of actual storage location and user-designated
`
`conventional name. A2541. Several distinct advantages result—particularly in
`
`large, networked computer systems having multiple dispersed storage devices:
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 18 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 17 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`• With True Names, data no longer needs to be stored or
`
`transmitted as an indivisible unit. Files can be disassembled,
`
`segmented, and stored in different locations, and identical sets of data
`
`(or parts thereof) can be stored or transmitted as desired. Files can be
`
`segmented into random or fixed-length data items, each with a True
`
`Name independent of its location. Files (or file parts) can be identified
`
`by their constituent data items, each identified and accessed by a True
`
`Name, with the file later reassembled upon receipt. A2541(3:29-4:41).
`
`•
`
`Duplicate data items can be eliminated or the amount of
`
`duplication can be optimized. This is useful particularly when files
`
`share identical “data item” parts, as each identical part will have the
`
`same True Name. The system can be configured to store only a fixed
`
`number of each data item (by True Name), thereby limiting
`
`duplication and optimizing storage space. A2541(3:48-53); A2550.
`
`•
`
`Data items can be synchronized, replicated, and stored in
`
`geographically dispersed locations. Using a True Name, the system
`
`can determine whether a particular data item is present at a given
`
`location, and either copy or not copy to that location depending on
`
`whether the data item (or a predetermined number of copies) already
`
`exists. This allows for version management control, ensures that data
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 19 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 18 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`items can be identified and accessed in the event that a particular
`
`storage device fails, and reduces bandwidth by allowing a user to
`
`identify the closest data item for retrieval. A2552(26:21-40); A2554.
`
`On April 11, 1995, Lachman and Farber filed their patent application,
`
`describing these and other ways in which content-based “True Names” elevated
`
`data-processing systems over conventional file-naming systems. A2507. The first
`
`True Name patent—U.S. Pat. No. 5,978,791 (the ’791 patent)—issued on
`
`November 2, 1999, A2507, followed by nine continuation patents, each claiming
`
`various techniques for using content-based True Name identifiers to rapidly access
`
`and efficiently store, manage, and transfer data.1
`
`The True Name invention has been widely adopted. In particular, content-
`
`based naming has been employed and licensed in the various fields of cloud
`
`computing, backup systems, content-delivery networks, peer-to-peer networks,
`
`file-sharing applications, online streaming, search engines, and internet telephony.
`
`A23837-39; A24305-06.
`
`
`1 These consolidated appeals concern challenged claims drawn from six True
`Name patents: the ’791 patent; U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280 (the ’280 patent); U.S.
`Patent No. 7,945,544 (the ’544 patent); U.S. Patent No. 7,945,539 (the ’539
`patent); U.S. Patent No. 7,949,662 (the ’662 patent); and U.S. Patent No.
`8,001,096 (the ’096 patent). A36; A112; A186; A286; A388; A456.
`9
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 20 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 19 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`C.
`
`
`
`The PTAB Focuses on Prior-Art References That Provide
`Different Solutions to Different Problems.
`
`In declaring the claims at issue anticipated or obvious, the PTAB chiefly
`
`relied upon three references—a single “distributed storage” patent (Woodhill),
`
`A2823-49, an informal “file descriptions” newsgroup posting (Langer), A2570-75,
`
`and a user manual for a “contents signature” system (Kantor), A2576-613. For
`
`obviousness, the PTAB also combined these references with two unrelated
`
`sources—one “integrity check” patent (Fischer), A16763-75, and a limited set of
`
`“file system” articles (Satyanarayanan), A25466-78; A25961-73. These references,
`
`read alone or in combination, grappled with problems, and offered solutions, far
`
`different from those resolved by the True Name patents.
`
`
`1.
`
`The Woodhill “distributed storage” patent.
`
`The Woodhill patent concerns backup storage. A2823-49. It describes a
`
`system for backing up files in a computer network that has local work stations,
`
`each with a computer and storage disk. These local computers connect over a
`
`network to a remote backup file server:
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 21 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 20 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`
`
`A2824. Each local computer runs a Distributed Storage Manager program that
`
`allocates storage space and maintains a File Database for local and backed-up files.
`
`When a local computer backs up a file over 1MB (defined as a “convenient
`
`maximum binary object size”) to the backup file server, the file is broken into
`
`“Binary Objects” of a 1MB fixed length—except for the final Binary Object,
`
`which may be under 1MB. A2839(4:23-25). Woodhill determines a content-based
`
`identifier for each Binary Object of a backed-up file (a “Binary Object Identifier”),
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412-9 Filed 04/22/19 Page 22 of 90
`Case: 14-1602 Document: 29 Page: 21 Filed: 11/12/2014
`
`and stores that identifier as part of a Binary Object Identification Record in the File
`
`Database on each local computer. A2841-42.
`
`Woodhill’s Binary Object Identifier is materially distinct from a True Name.
`
`For one thing, while the True Name algorithm is applied to “data items” of any
`
`size, the Woodhill algorithm is applied to “Binary Objects” of a fixed, 1 MB size
`
`(aside from the leftover segments or files under 1 MB). A2839. For another,
`
`Woodhill’s Binary Object Identifier is not generated using a cryptographic hash.
`
`The Binary Object Identifier instead consists of four appended fields: (1) 32 bits
`
`representing t