IPR2013-00083
`
`
`Docket No. 0100157-00244
`
`
`Filed on behalf of EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc.
`
`By: Peter M. Dichiara, Reg. No. 38,005
`
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
` WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`
`peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Tel.: 617-526-6466
`
`Fax: 617-526-5000
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`____________________________________________
`
`EMC CORPORATION and VMWARE, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Patent Owner of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280 to Farber et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2013-00083
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS
`ON TESTIMONY OF DR. DOUGLAS CLARK
`
`
`
`
`Docket No. 0100157-00244
`
`
`Filed on behalf of EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc.
`
`By: Peter M. Dichiara, Reg. No. 38,005
`
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
` WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`
`peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Tel.: 617-526-6466
`
`Fax: 617-526-5000
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`____________________________________________
`
`EMC CORPORATION and VMWARE, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Patent Owner of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280 to Farber et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2013-00083
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS
`ON TESTIMONY OF DR. DOUGLAS CLARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00083
`Docket No. 0100157-00244
`
`EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc. (“Petitioners”) present the following
`
`response to the observations on the testimony of Dr. Douglas Clark
`
`(“Observations”) submitted by the Patent Owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280 to
`
`Farber et al. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`Response to Observation # 1
`
`
`
`Petitioners respond that the cited testimony does not support Patent Owner’s
`
`statement of relevance. In Ex. 2016, on page 112, lines 14–19 (cited in the
`
`observation), the complete questions and answers were as follows:
`
`Q. Woodhill describes a granularization procedure, right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Is Woodhill's granularization procedure used for large database files with
`
`multiple binary objects?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`This testimony is relevant to PersonalWeb’s mischaracterization of what Dr.
`
`Clark’s testimony demonstrates in Observation # 1, to Dr. Clark’s prior testimony
`
`in Ex. 1078 at paragraphs 8-9 and 15, to Patent Owner’s arguments on page 10,
`
`lines 10-20 of its Response, and to Petitioners’ arguments on page 3, line 5 to page
`
`4, line 1 of its Reply. This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates (1) that
`
`Dr. Clark was never asked whether Woodhill’s granularization procedure is limited
`
`to use with large database files having multiple binary objects, (2) that Dr. Clark
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00083
`
`
`Docket No. 0100157-00244
`
`
`was never asked whether Woodhill’s use of multiple Binary Object Identification
`
`Records 58 in the “update request” procedure is sufficient to meet the “hash of the
`
`contents of the data file” limitation, and (3) that Dr. Clark’s prior testimony
`
`regarding Woodhill’s “update request” procedure meeting the required limitations
`
`remains unrebutted.
`
`Response to Observation # 2
`
`Petitioners respond that the cited testimony does not support Patent Owner’s
`
`statement of relevance. In Ex. 2016, on page 115, line 15 to page 116, line 7, Dr.
`
`Clark asked Mr. Rhoa to clarify that when he was asked questions regarding
`
`applying a hash that he meant applying “a single hash” (e.g., to multiple granules),
`
`to which Mr. Rhoa clarified that this was the interpretation he meant, and then Dr.
`
`Clark answered questions regarding Woodhill using this assumption. This
`
`testimony is relevant to PersonalWeb’s mischaracterization of what Dr. Clark’s
`
`testimony demonstrates in Observation # 2, to Dr. Clark’s prior testimony in Ex.
`
`1078 at paragraphs 8-9 and 15, to Patent Owner’s arguments on page 10, lines 10-
`
`20 of its Response, and to Petitioners’ arguments on pages 3, line 5 to page 4, line
`
`1 of its Reply. This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates (1) that Dr.
`
`Clark’s testimony was given under the assumption that applying a hash means
`
`applying “a single hash” (e.g., applying a single hash function to multiple binary
`
`objects), (2) that Dr. Clark was never asked whether applying separate hashes to
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00083
`
`
`Docket No. 0100157-00244
`
`
`multiple binary objects of a data file is sufficient to sufficient to meet the “hash of
`
`the contents of the data file” limitation, and,” and (3) that Dr. Clark’s prior written
`
`testimony regarding the “update request” procedure remains unrebutted.
`
`Response to Observation # 3
`
`Petitioners responds that this testimony is not relevant because Petitioners
`
`have never contended that granules are “data files” and Patent Owner has never
`
`before asserted that Woodhill’s treatment of granules has a bearing on whether
`
`binary objects are “data files.”
`
`Response to Observation # 4
`
`Petitioners respond that Dr. Clark’s testimony does not contradict Woodhill.
`
`In Ex. 2016, on page 107, line 2 to page 108, line 10, and on page 119, line 15 to
`
`page 125, line 10, Dr. Clark testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that “a collection of data streams” as recited in Woodhill at 4:14-15
`
`encompasses one or more data streams, that Woodhill is capable of storing files
`
`comprised of one data stream and one binary object, that Woodhill expressly refers
`
`at 1:66-2:3 to files comprising one or more binary objects, and that files comprised
`
`of one binary object are not treated differently from files comprised of more than
`
`one binary object. This testimony is relevant to PersonalWeb’s mischaracterization
`
`of what Dr. Clark’s testimony demonstrates in Observation # 4, to Dr. Clark’s prior
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00083
`
`
`Docket No. 0100157-00244
`
`
`testimony in Ex. 1078 at paragraphs 5 and 6, to Patent Owner’s arguments on page
`
`9, lines 6-20 of its Response, and to Petitioners’ arguments on page 10, line 17 to
`
`page 11, line 19 of its Reply. This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates
`
`that Woodhill’s backup procedure backs up files divided into one or more data
`
`streams (and thus one or more binary objects) and that Dr. Clark’s opinions thus do
`
`not contradict Woodhill.
`
`Response to Observation # 5
`
`Petitioners respond that the cited testimony is not relevant to this
`
`proceeding. In Ex. 2016, on page 84, lines 1–17, Dr. Clark testified that Woodhill
`
`provides a reason why File Database 25 is stored at the local computers 20, not the
`
`remote backup file server 12, and on page 88, lines 9-15 (cited in the observation),
`
`Dr. Clark testified that, although it is “possible” that remote backup file server 12
`
`also stores a File Database 25, this is “unlikely.” Although this testimony
`
`demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret Woodhill to
`
`disclose storing File Database 25 at local computers 20 and not at remote backup
`
`file server 12, it is not relevant because Patent Owner has never before asserted
`
`that Woodhill’s File Database 25 is stored at remote backup file server 12.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00083
`Docket No. 0100157-00244
`
`Response to Observation # 6
`
`Petitioners respond that the cited testimony does not support Patent Owner’s
`
`statement of relevance. In Ex. 2016, on page 99, lines 2-17 (cited in the
`
`observation), Dr. Clark was asked if “Woodhill, other than in the claims,
`
`describe[s] saving a binary object identifier as the name of the associated binary
`
`object,” to which he testified “I am not positive. I think not.” This testimony is
`
`relevant to PersonalWeb’s mischaracterization of what Dr. Clark’s testimony
`
`demonstrates in Observation # 6, to Dr. Clark’s prior testimony in Ex. 1078 at
`
`paragraphs 7 and 13, to Patent Owner’s arguments on page 6, line 19 to page 8,
`
`line 10 of its Response, and to Petitioners’ arguments on page 5, lines 4-6 and page
`
`8, line 15 to page 9, line 7 of its Reply. This testimony is relevant because it
`
`demonstrates that Dr. Clark was never asked whether a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would interpret Woodhill’s specification to support saving a binary object
`
`identifier as the “name” of the associated binary object.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00083
`Docket No. 0100157-00244
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Dated: November 6, 2013
`
`/Peter M. Dichiara/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Peter M. Dichiara
`Registration No. 38,005
`Cynthia Vreeland
`Admitted pro hac vice
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`Tel.: 617-526-6466
`Fax: 617-526-5000
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00083
`
`Docket No. 0100157-00244
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 6, 2013, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the following materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Testimony of Dr.
`
`Douglas Clark
`
`to be served via email on the following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa, Lead Counsel
`USPTO Reg. No. 37,515
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`901 North Glebe Road, 11th Floor
`Arlington, VA 22203-1808
`jar@nixonvan.com
`Tel.: 703-816-4043
`
`Updeep S. Gill, Backup Counsel
`USPTO Reg. No. 37,344
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`901 North Glebe Road, 11th Floor
`Arlington, VA 22203-1808
`usg@nixonvan.com
`Tel.: 703-816-4030
`
`/Heather M. Petruzzi/
`
`Heather M. Petruzzi
`Reg. No. 71,270
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
