Filed on behalf of EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc.
`
`IPR2013-00083
`Docket No. 0100157-00244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`
`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’ DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`EMC/VMware v. PersonalWeb
`IPR2013-00083
`EMCVMW 1083
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00083
`Docket No. 000157-00244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b) and the Board’s Order (Paper 67),
`
`Petitioners file the enclosed demonstratives for the oral hearing scheduled for
`
`December 16, 2013. Petitioners intend to use any of the exhibits filed in this
`
`proceeding as demonstratives. Petitioners also intend to use as a demonstrative the
`
`physical copy the October 1993 Walnut Creek CD-ROM pictured in Ex. 1041.
`
`Dated: December 11, 2013
`
`/Peter M. Dichiara/
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`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
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00083
`Docket No. 000157-00244
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 11, 2013, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the following materials:
`
`(cid:120) Petitioners’ Demonstratives for Oral Argument (Ex. 1083)
`
`(cid:120) Exhibit List
`
`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
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Demonstrative Slides
`
`Case IPR2013-00082 – U.S. Patent No. 5,978,791
`Case IPR2013-00083 – U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`Case IPR2013-00084 – U.S. Patent No. 7,945,544
`Case IPR2013-00085 – U.S. Patent No. 7,945,539
`Case IPR2013-00086 – U.S. Patent No. 7,949,662
`Case IPR2013-00087 – U.S. Patent No. 8,001,096
`
`December 16, 2013
`
`1
`
`

`

`Overview
`
`PersonalWeb Patents
`
`Woodhill, Langer, Kantor
`
`Disputed Claim Limitations
`– ’791 ( Woodhill)
`– ’280 (Woodhill)
`– ’539 (Langer, Woodhill, Kantor)
`– ’096 (Kantor)
`– ’662 (Kantor)
`– ’544 (Kantor, Woodhill)
`
`2
`
`

`

`PersonalWeb Patents
`
`All of the patents relate to the use of “substantially
`unique identifiers” for file management functions
`– Files are divided into one or more data items
`– Data items are identified by “substantially unique
`identifiers” based on the data in the data item:
`
`’791 patent at Col. 3, lines 29-35 (IPR’82, Ex. 1001)
`
`3
`
`

`

`PersonalWeb Patents
`True File registry stores True Name
`and corresponding information:
`
`’791 patent at Fig. 4 (IPR’82, Ex. 1001)
`
`’791 patent at Col. 8, lines
`28-33 (IPR’82, Ex. 1001)
`
`’791 patent at Col. 9, lines 63-66 (IPR’82, Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`PersonalWeb Patents
`
`All of the patents use the identifiers to perform basic
`file management functions, e.g.:
`– determining if a data item is present in the system
`– accessing a data item
`– eliminating unnecessary duplicate copies
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`PersonalWeb Patents
`
`According to the patents:
`
`’791 patent at Col. 1, line 65 to Col. 2, line 3 (IPR’82, Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`’791 patent at Col. 2, lines 12-13 (IPR’82, Ex. 1001)
`
`6
`
`

`

`PersonalWeb Patents
`
`’791 patent prosecution history, Amendment of August 29, 1997, at page 8 (IPR’82, Ex. 1028)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Overview of Woodhill, Langer
`and Kantor
`
`8
`
`

`

`Woodhill
`
`Woodhill at Fig. 1 (IPR’82, Ex. 1005)
`
`9
`
`

`

`Woodhill
`
`Files are divided into one or more binary
`objects (BOBs)
`BOBs are identified by unique binary object
`identifiers (BOBIDs):
`
`
`
`
`Woodhill at Col. 8, lines 58-62 (IPR’82, Ex. 1005)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Woodhill
`
`Woodhill’s File Database
`stores BOBIDs and
`corresponding
`information:
`
`Woodhill at Fig. 3 (IPR’82, Ex. 1005)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Woodhill
`
`Woodhill uses BOBIDs for basic file management
`functions, e.g.:
`– Identifying and accessing file data
`– Managing file backups
`– Comparing binary objects to recognize duplicates
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Woodhill at Col. 8, lines 62-65 (IPR’82, Ex. 1005)
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Langer
`
`..
`III
`
`:IIW.IJIMI.§I11I=W.WI.HI.II:
`
`llnfllll HMHHITIU-mufl
`
`"limp—m: m.l.r!hlull.mn .
`.'
`aluminum: flaunt-r Euniuu tutu. Ara-LEM." mum-1 “ll'I'IJIII-r,
`Emrrl. mlnlll.
`
`1.1"": 251
`:n “11:1! I1 “line" 31‘0" ”11‘0" “mil-Ida m- H-mlvw-rlcm: m n:
`
`Inn cum mlul:
`
`
`
`'cmeSlfia‘numzau {Albert hanger}
`From:
`
`
`_
`.
`Hewagroupa: alt.aourcea.d.cnmp.archives.admjn
`
`
`Subject: Re: dldeECrihE {File descriptions} posted to alt.aourcea
`Héasa-e-ID: <1991Aug?.225159.786@newahoap.anu.edu.nu:
`
`WEE-22:51:59 GMT
`,
`-
`
`y'iu'i 'i. I'vmitiiil Ihfjilicfll 1a mil-r.- me "gnu-a.- hu- Hu- -'
`main-I: u: uILllc': luv“ u! II-un de-n-d “unsung. nun 1mm
`
`”lam. Ihnuld be amazed ulna-"nay. a. unfl- fllqllr :nnunum
`(and he L11|L annual; lK-IELLW in In: (in: EBLnll 1|
`.- n:- Ellen-lil-
`Langer at 1 (IPR’85, Ex. 1003)
`Langer at 1 (IPR’85, Ex. 1003)
`Inr 1 manhunt-1m In! a Frl'I-I-IUISI rlmmlnully long “luau um: um
`
`
`um inn infar- I-hl
`III-I a! nu pmiwl :ISMJ. Inn-ml"; tn: I-unl
`“ct tit-lulu:- 1- I “Influx-Hol- 0| I ducll‘puan ho- Im survival
`
`
`um :4- a! u. EM Lug. u .n Humane“ a: {nu flit-stunt-
`CA n-Liur came-nun a. mm! m "L“ :lls H]:- Lnl; play I. uni LIT
`Lula n: nan nus-II.
`:Iund-i mm
`
`
`1 mid awlal'e .11 um. lxklna I." . .1...“- =§ llttlmfi “a “.an
`mun-Lyn." till- nun-nu In: amp-nun..- anal-gram.
`1 min: 1|: LI
`:
`.wnr gun-a Minion u Ehp-tfii-llr Lam LIK uu .31 mm IIIc- tu ulna:
`
`
`
`,.
`
`
`mm mmmmmmfljm «unmmuwmwwwmmmmu: mm
`
`
`
`
`13
`13
`
`
`
`-
`
`
`
`

`

`Langer
`
`Files are identified by MD5 codes
`
`Packages of files are identified as MD5 hash of hashes
`
`Langer at 4 (IPR’85, Ex. 1003)
`
`Langer at 5 (IPR’85, Ex. 1003)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Langer
`Computers can query a central database (Archie) using
`unique MD5 identifiers to obtain location information
`
`Langer at 4 (IPR’85, Ex. 1003)
`
`Clark Dec. at ¶ 29 (IPR’85, Ex. 1009)
`
`15
`
`

`

`Langer
`Langer uses MD5 identifiers for basic file
`management functions
`
`Langer at 4 (IPR’85, Ex. 1003)
`PersonalWeb admits that Langer uses the MD5
`identifiers to access files
`
`Patent Owner Resp. at 41 (IPR’85)
`
`16
`
`

`

`Kantor
`
`Kantor at Title Page (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`17
`
`

`

`Kantor
`Files are identified by contents signatures
`
`Kantor at 7 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`Zipfiles are made up of inner files and identified by
`zipfile contents signatures
`
`Kantor at 9 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`18
`
`

`

`Kantor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`p
`g
`corresponding information
`
`Kantor CSLIST stores contents signatures and K CSLIST es contents signis contentts signts sigi d
`
`Kantor at 52-53 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`19
`
`

`

`Kantor
`
`Kantor uses contents signatures and zipfile contents
`signatures for basic file management functions, e.g.,
`detecting and eliminating unwanted duplicates
`
`Kantor at Preface 2 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`20
`
`

`

`Kantor
`
`“The Kantor Reference is part of
`the FWKCS122.ZIP file from my
`copy of the October 1993 Walnut
`Creek CD-ROM. . . .”
`
`Declaration of Jason Sadofsky,
` Director of The BBS Documentary
` at ¶ 16 (IPR’85, Ex. 1081)
`
`October 1993 Walnut Creek CD-ROM (IPR’85, Ex. 1052)
`
`21
`
`

`

`Kantor
`
`Mr. Sadofsky’s screenshot
`
`Sadofsky Reply Dec. at ¶ 10 (IPR’85, Ex. 1091)
`
`22
`
`

`

`Ka ntor
`
`
`Kantor
`
`New Version
`
`
`
`
`
`
`To get a new version of FWKCS, download FWKCSnnn.ZIP from The
`
`Invention Factory BBS, where nnn is the new version number
`
`without a decimal point.
`These special downloads are available
`at no fee,
`from a 43_line hunt_up group of USR Dual Standard
`
`
`modems, at 2400—16800 bits/sec (including V32.bis):
`
`212-274-8110 8N1
`
`
`Kantor at 158-159 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`59 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`
`
`23
`23
`
`

`

`Disputed Claim Limitations
`
`24
`
`

`

`’791 – Woodhill (IPR’82)
`’791 — Woodhill (IPR’82)
`
`25
`
`

`

`’791 Patent
`
`Challenged claims
`– MPF Claims 1-4, 29
`– Method claims 30-33, 41
`
`Claims focus on substantially unique identifiers to
`perform basic file management functions such as
`determine if a data item is present in the system or
`to access the data item
`
`Woodhill is primary reference
`
`26
`
`

`

`Woodhill: “Identity means” (claim 1)
`
`PersonalWeb does not dispute Woodhill satisfies identity
`means as construed by PTAB
`– “Identity means . . . whereby two identical data items in the
`system will have the same identifier” (’791 patent at claim 1
`(IPR’82, Ex. 1001))
`Instead, PersonalWeb contends PTAB’s construction is wrong
`But PersonalWeb’s expert has “no opinion” whether
`PersonalWeb’s construction is correct. (Dewar Dec. at ¶ 32
`(IPR’82, Ex. 2013))
`PersonalWeb’s expert admits “all hash functions” have the
`property that “identical data items will have the same
`identifier” (Dewar Tr. At 60 (IPR’82, Ex. 1078))
`
`27
`
`

`

`Woodhill: “Existence means for determining whether
`a particular data item is present in system” (claim 1)
`
`Woodhill at Col. 8, lines 62-65 (IPR’82, Ex. 1005)
`
`Woodhill at Col. 9, lines 14-16 (IPR’82, Ex. 1005)
`
`’791 Patent at Col. 15, lines 25-27 (IPR’82, Ex. 1001)
`
`28
`
`

`

`Woodhill: “Determining whether a particular data
`item is present at a particular location” (claims 2,3)
`
`Q. And the system knows that the modified first BOB exists on the local
`computer?
`A. Yes.
`Q. I mean, that's a simple case, there is no doubt about that?
`A. Yes.
`Q. It definitely exists there, right?
`A. Right.
`Q. And therefore, since it exists on the local computer, it exists in the
`system?
`A. Yes.
`Q. There is no doubt about that?
`A. There is no doubt about that.
`
`Dewar Tr. at 124-25 (IPR’82, Ex. 1078) 2 2 ( ’82 0 8)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`29
`
`

`

`Woodhill: “Determining whether a particular data
`item is present in the system” (claim 1)/ “at a
`particular location” (claims 2,3)
`
`Q. And when Woodhill is processing that BOB, the comparison is going to
`determine that the BOBIDs are the same, right?
`A. Right.
`Q. And it is going to determine that the remote already has that BOB
`because the BOBIDs are equal, right?
`A. Right.
`Q. In this situation, the system knows that the second BOB exists on the
`local computer, right?
`A. Right.
`Q. And there is no doubt about that because that's where it is, right?
`A. Right.
`Q. And it also knows that that second BOB exists in the backup file server?
`A. Right.
`
`Dewar Tr. at 131-32 (IPR’82, Ex. 1078)
`
`30
`
`

`

`Woodhill: “Access means” (claim 4)/ “accessing” a
`data item (claim 30)
`
`Woodhill at Col. 18, lines 17-19 (IPR’82, Ex. 1005) ( ’ )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Woodhill at Fig. 5J (IPR’82, Ex. 1005)
`
`31
`
`

`

`Woodhill: File database (claims 1-4)/ “data
`associating means” (claim 4)
`Woodhill database:
`’791 True File Registry:
`
`* * *
`
`Woodhill at Fig. 3 (IPR’82, Ex. 1005)
`
`’791 patent at Col. 9, lines 37-67 (IPR’82, Ex. 1001)
`(portion omitted)
`
`32
`
`

`

`Woodhill: “Providing” (claim 33)/ “fetching”
`data (claim 41)
`
`W dhill
`C l 9 li
`23 26 (IPR’82 E 1005)
`Woodhill at Col 9, lines 23-26 (IPR’82, Ex. 1005)
`
`Woodhill at Fig. 5A (IPR’82, Ex. 1005)
`
`33
`
`

`

`Woodhill: “Providing” (claim 33)/ “fetching”
`data (claim 41)
`
`Woodhill at Col. 10, lines 32-34 (IPR’82, Ex. 1005)
`
`Q. There is no dispute that even by the time of Woodhill there was
`technology around that would determine that on the local computer,
`if your disk was fried or your file was corrupted, that it would say I
`can't get this file?
`A. Right.
`Q. And in that case, you would, using the Woodhill technology, you could
`get that file from the backup file server?
`A. Right.
`
`Dewar Tr. at 139-40 (IPR’82, Ex. 1078)
`
`34
`
`

`

`’280 – Woodhill (IPR’83)
`’280 — Woodhill (IPR’83)
`
`35
`
`

`

`’280 Patent
`
`Challenged claims
`– Method claims 36, 38
`
`Claims focus on using content-based identifiers to
`store, request and obtain a copy of a data file from a
`set of servers
`
`Primary Reference is Woodhill
`
`36
`
`

`

`Woodhill: “Responsive to a client request for the
`data file … causing the data file to be provided”
`(claims 36, 38)
`
`* * *
`
`Woodhill claim chart at 4 (IPR’83, Ex. 1032)
`
`37
`
`

`

`Woodhill: “Responsive to a client request for the
`data file … causing the data file to be provided”
`(claims 36, 38)
`
`* * *
`
`Woodhill claim chart at 4-5 (IPR’83, Ex. 1032)
`
`38
`
`

`

`Woodhill: “Responsive to a client request for the
`data file … causing the data file to be provided”
`(claims 36, 38)
`
`Clark Dec. at ¶ 27 (IPR’83, Ex. 1009)
`
`39
`
`

`

`Woodhill: “Responsive to a client request for the
`data file … causing the data file to be provided”
`(claims 36, 38)
`
`Woodhill at Col 18, lines 17-19 (IPR’83, Ex. 1005) dh ll l l ( ’ )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Woodhill at Fig. 3 (IPR’83, Ex. 1005) (portion omitted)
`
`Woodhill at Fig. 5J (IPR’83, Ex. 1005)
`
`40
`
`

`

`’539 – Langer, Woodhill,
`and Kantor (IPR’85)
`
`41
`
`

`

`’539 Patent
`
`Challenged claims
`– Method claims 10, 21, 34
`
`Claims focus on using substantially unique
`identifiers, based on the contents of the segments
`contained within a data item, to access the data item
`
`Three primary references:
`– Langer
`– Woodhill
`– Kantor
`
`42
`
`

`

`Langer As Primary Reference
`
`43
`
`

`

`Langer: Claims 10, 21, 34
`
`Decision at 21-22 (quoting Clark Dec. at ¶ 29 (Ex. 1009)) (IPR’85)
`
`44
`
`

`

`Langer: Claims 10, 21, 34
`
`Decision at 21-22 (quoting Clark Dec. at ¶ 29 (Ex. 1009)) (IPR’85)
`
`45
`
`

`

`Langer: “Obtaining … segment identifiers”
`(claims 10, 21)
`“Providing at least said second data item” (claim 34)
`
`Langer at 5 (IPR’85, Ex. 1003)
`
`46
`
`

`

`Langer: “Obtaining … segment identifiers” (claims 10, 21)
`“Providing at least said second data item” (claim 34)
`
`Q. And then he continues, "...and it would be nice to be able
`to tell the user without the need for collecting the entire
`package," right?
`A. Right.
`Q. And so what he is saying is, he's trying to propose a way so
`that the user can find out what the new revisions are
`without having to get the whole package over?
`A. Right.
`Q. And there is no dispute about that?
`A. No.
`
`Dewar Tr. at 355-56 (IPR’85, Ex. 1088)
`
`47
`
`

`

`Langer & Woodhill: “Dividing a ... data item”
`(claim 34)
`
`Clark Dec. at ¶ 19
`(IPR’85, Ex. 1009)
`
`
`
`Decision at 24 (IPR’85) i i 2 ( ’8 )
`
`
`
`
`
`48
`
`

`

`Woodhill As Primary Reference
`
`49
`
`

`

`Woodhill/Fischer: “Using at least one of said segment
`identifiers … requesting at least one particular segment”
`(claims 10, 21)
`
`
`Woodhill at Fig. 5I W
`(IPR’85, Ex. 1005)
`
`50
`
`

`

`Woodhill/Fischer: “Using a first data identifier to obtain a
`plurality of segment identifiers” (claim 21)/ “using at least
`one of said segment identifiers … requesting at least one
`particular segment” (claims 10,21)
`
`Clark Dec. at ¶ 50
`(IPR’85, Ex. 1009)
`
`51
`
`

`

`Woodhill/Fischer: “Using at least one of said segment
`identifiers … requesting at least one particular segment”
`(claims 10, 21)
`
`Q. When the remote backup file server notices that these
`identifiers don't match, it knows that the local computer is
`missing the corresponding granule as it exists in the work area?
`A. Right.
`Q. And then it transmits it in step 454?
`A. Right.
`Q. And in order to make that transmission, it has to request that
`that granule get transmitted from the remote back to the local?
`A. Right.
`
`Dewar Tr. at 197 (IPR’85, Ex. 1088)
`
`52
`
`

`

`Woodhill/Fischer: “Said first identifier is based, at least
`in part, on a second given function of the plurality of
`segment identifiers” (claims 10, 21)
`
`Fischer disclosure:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fischer at Col. 7, line 65 to Col. 8, line 5 (IPR’85, Ex. 1036)
`
`53
`
`Clark Dec. at ¶ 57
`(IPR’85, Ex. 1009)
`
`

`

`Kantor As Primary Reference
`
`54
`
`

`

`Kantor: “Data item comprising a plurality of segments”
`(claims 10, 21)
`
`Kantor at Preface 2 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`55
`
`

`

`Kantor: “The segment identifier … being based, at least in
`part, on a first given function of the data”
`(claims 10, 21)/ “determining … segment identifiers” (34)
`
`Kantor at 7 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`Kantor at 48 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`56
`
`

`

`Kantor: Obvious to modify read/download commands to
`identify files with contents signatures (claims 10, 21, 34)
`
`
`
`41. Kantor renders obvious all portions of claims 10, 21 and 34. As obvious all portions of claims 10, 21 and 34. Asooobvbvioiousus aallll pppporortitiononss ofof cclalaimimss 1010,, 2121 aandnd 334.4. AAss
`
`
`
`
`discussed above, Kantor discloses file contents-signatures and KKaaaantor discloses file contents-signatures and tor discloses file conor discloses file conr discloses file con
`
`filename. I Indeed, Kantor provides an express motivation to do so. filename. I
`zipfile contents-signatures for identifying files and zipfiles based on
`
`
`
`gnnnnatuures for identifying resres for identifyingfor identifying
`files and zipfiles based on
`eerrrrson of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`their contents. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`For example, Kantor discloses the Lookup operation, which is a
`filing of the ‘539 patent, exercising ordinary creativity, would have
`
`aaaaatent, exercising ordinary creativity, would have
`request containing a file or zipfile contents-signature to determine
`found it obvious to modify the BBS commands and operations used
`o
`mmmmodify the BBS commands and operations used
`with the FWKCS to include a read and/or download request that
`
`tooooo include a read and/or download request that
`where the corresponding file or zipfile is located on the BBS.
`identifies a file by its file contents-signature or a zipfile contents-
`iitttts file contents-signature or a zipfile contents-
`(Kantor at 96-97; Ex. 1004).
`signature, like the ones disclosed in Kantor, instead of by the
`ooones disclosed in Kantor, instead of by the
`filename. I Indeed, Kantor provides an express motivation to do so.
`,
`KKKantor provides an express motivation to do so.
`For example, Kantor discloses the Lookup operation, which is a
`
`tor discloses the Lookup operation, which is a oooooooooooooooooorrrr dididididiscscscscllolololosesesesessss thththththeeee LLoLoLoLo kokokokok pupupup opopopoperererer tatatatatiioioioionnnn wwwhihihihihi hchchchch iiiiissss aaaa
`request containing a file or zipfile contents-signature to determine
`
`
`where the corresponding file or zipfile is located on the BBS. nding filennnndnnndnnndiningg ggg fifilelee or zipfile is located on the BBSooorr zizipfpfppp ililee e isiss llocococatatatededed ooonn ththt eee BBBBSS.S.
`
`
`
`
`file contents-signature identifies. Furthermore, adding a contents-filefile004). identifies..fieti contentsid -signaturediscloses using the “i” function to provide a user with file contents-“““i” function to provide a user with file contents-f tif pt idt user with file cor with fil t tt t
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Kantor at 96-97; Ex. 1004). As discussed above, Kantor further EEExxx. 1004).004). As discussed above, Kantor further As discussed aAs discussed a ove, Kantor furtove, Kantor fur her her
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`signature based (e.g. using a contents-signature or “zcs” ) read
`
`signatures for files associated with a zipfile. (Kantor at 97; Ex. aaaassociated with a zipfile. (Kantor at 97; Ex.
`
`1004). In response to such commands, the modified FWKCS would ttooo such commands, the modified FWKCS would
`and/or download command to the BBS used with the FWKCS
`use the cs-list to identify the file or zipfile. Subsequently, FWKCS
`eennntify the file or zipfile. Subsequently, FWKCS
`system disclosed in Kantor would obtain the predictable result of
`
`as modified would be able to use one of the file contents-signatures bbbbe able to use one of the file contents-signatures
`
`
`in a download request to obtain the file within the zipfile that the ueeeeest to obtain the file within the zipfile that the
`providing a more efficient and context-free means for accessing and
`file contents-signature identifies. Furthermore, adding a contents-
`
`tuuuuure identifies. Furthermore, adding a contents-
`signature based (e.g. using a contents-signature or “zcs” ) read
`ggg. using a conttents-signature or “zcs” ) read
`sharing files, and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`and/or download command to the BBS used with the FWKCS
`ooommmmmand to thee BBS used with the FWKCS
`skill in the art.
`system disclosed in Kantor would obtain the predictable result of
`nn Kantor would obtain the predictable result of
`providing a more efficient and context-free means for accessing and
`ffffffffficient and context-free means for accessingggg and
`ould have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`sharing files, and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art.
`
`gonfw
`
`Clark Dec. at ¶ 41 (IPR’85, Ex. 1009)
`
`57
`
`Kgep
`
`io
`
`ateb
`
`

`

`Kantor: Obvious to modify read/download commands to
`identify files with contents signatures (claims 10, 21, 34)
`
`Kantor at 96 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`58
`
`

`

`Kantor and Langer: “Dividing a particular data item
`into a plurality of segments” (claim 34)
`
`Kantor at 174 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`59
`
`

`

`Kantor and Langer: “Determining a data item
`identifier for said data item…” (claim 34)
`
`Kantor at 9 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`60
`
`

`

`Kantor and Langer: “Determining a data item
`identifier for said data item…” (claim 34)
`
`’539 patent at Col. 3, lines 55-58 (IPR’85, Ex. 1001)
`
`Kantor at Preface 2 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`61
`
`

`

`Kantor and Langer: “Determining a data item
`identifier for said data item…” (claim 34)
`
`* * *
`
`Kantor at 52-53 (IPR’85, Ex. 1004)
`
`
`1004). In response to such commands, the modified FWKCS would 1004).
`Subsequently, FWKCS
`use the cs-list to identify the file or zipfile. Subsequently, FWKCS
`
`Clark Dec. at ¶ 41 (IPR’85, Ex. 1009)
`
`62
`
`

`

`’096 – Kantor (IPR’87)
`’096 — Kantor (IPR’87)
`
`63
`
`

`

`’096 Patent
`
`Challenged claims
`– Method claims 1, 2, 81 and 83
`
`Claims focus on replicating data items and using
`content-based identifiers to access data
`
`Kantor is the primary reference
`– Satyanarayanan II is the secondary reference for data
`replication
`
`64
`
`

`

`Kantor: “A method operable in a file system”
`(claims 1, 2, 81, 83)
`
`Kantor at Preface 2 (IPR’87, Ex. 1004)
`
`65
`
`

`

`Kantor: “Data item consisting of a sequence of
`non-overlapping parts” (claims 1, 2, 81, 83)
`
`Kantor at Preface 2 (IPR’87, Ex. 1004)
`
`66
`
`

`

`Kantor: “Digital part identifiers … determined
`based at least in part on a first function comprising
`a hash function” (claims 1, 2, 81, 83)
`
`Kantor at 7 (IPR’87, Ex. 1004)
`
`67
`
`

`

`Kantor: “A digital data item identifier … based … on
`the contents of the data item” (claims 1, 2, 81, 83)
`
`Kantor at 9 (IPR’87, Ex. 1004)
`
`68
`
`

`

`Kantor: “A digital data item identifier … based …
`on the contents of the data item” (claims 1, 2, 81, 83)
`
`’096 patent at Col. 3, lines 55-58 (IPR’87, Ex. 1001)
`
`Kantor at Preface 2 (IPR’87, Ex. 1004)
`
`69
`
`

`

`Kantor: Obvious to modify read/download commands to
`identify files with contents signatures (claims 1, 2, 81, 83)
`
`
`83. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it 83 A f di kill i h ld h f d i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obvious to modify the BBS commands, including the download
`and/or read commands, so the commands would accept contents-
`signatures or zipfile contents-signatures to identify the files or
`zipfiles on which to operate. One of the benefits would be facilitate
`integrity checking because a user could specify the file of interest
`
`seeeeeer co luldd speciiifify hthe fifille off iinterest
`
`83. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
`based on its content instead of an arbitrary filename, and thus
`lename, and thus aannnn arbitrary fi
`
`improve accuracy. Kantor shows that such a modification would be
`
`wwssss that such a modification would be
`
`obvious to modify the BBS commands, including the download
`easy to implement. For example, FWKCS used contents-signatures
`
`eee, FWKCS sed contentsus
`-signatures
`and/or read commands, so the commands would accept contents-
`as input for certain user commands, such as the “Lookup” feature
`
`annnnnds, such as the “Lookupt
`” feature
`(see id. at 97 and 173; Ex. 1004.), and it would have been
`uld have44...), and it wou
`
`been
`signatures or zipfile contents-signatures to identify the files or
`
`straightforward to allow download and read commands to identify a oooooad and read ccommands to identify a
`
`zipfiles on hich to operate. One of the benefits would be facilitate
`
`
`
`file by a contents-signature in a similar way. Users could easily a similar way. i il Users could easily U ld il
`
`
`
`
`
`obtain contents-signatures to use for the modified download and seeee for the modified download and
`integrity checking because a user could specify the file of interest
`
`read commands. For example, the contentssignatures could be thhhhhe contentssignatures could be
`based on its content instead of an arbitrary filename, and thus
`
`shared among users. Additionally, Kantor discloses that the FWKCS lllyy, Kantor discloses that the FWKCS
`
`could provide contents-signatures for files on the BBS through the rreeees for files on the BBS through the
`improve accuracy. Kantor shows that such a modification would
`“Precheck” feature. Using Precheck, a user is provided a report of
`
`hhhhhheck, a user is provided a report of
`be easy to implement. For example, FWKCS used contents-
`
`contentssignatures of files on the BBS. (Kantor at 173; Ex. 1004.) hheeee BBS. (Kantor at 173; Ex. 1004.)
`
`The user could then use contents-signatures from the report to ttssss-signatures from the report to
`signatures as input for certain user commands, such as the
`request files of interest with the modified download or read
`e modified download or read
`“Lookup” feature (see id. at 97 and 173; Ex. 1004.), and it would
`command. In addition, Kantor provided contents-signatures to the
`pprrrovided contents-signatures to the
`user in response to Lookup commands in certain modes of
`mmmmmmands in certain modes of
`have been straightforward to allow download and read commands
`operation. (Kantor at 96-97; Ex. 1004.)
`. 1004.)
`to identify a file by a contents-signature in a similar way.
`
`awe
`
`a4o
`
`astlrc
`
`htepmx
`
`Clark Dec. at ¶ 83 (IPR’87, Ex. 1009)
`
`70
`
`

`

`Kantor: Obvious to modify read/download commands to
`identify files with contents signatures (claims 1, 2, 81, 83)
`
`Kantor at 96 (IPR’87, Ex. 1004)
`
`71
`
`

`

`Kantor And Satya II Are An Obvious Combination
`(claims 1, 2, 81, 83)
`
`Satya II at 450 (IPR’87, Ex. 1028)
`
`72
`
`

`

`’662 – Kantor (IPR’86)
`’662 — Kantor (IPR’86)
`
`73
`
`

`

`’662 Patent
`
`Challenged claim
`– Method claim 30
`
`Claims focus on the concept of using content-based
`identifiers to delete data items
`
`Kantor is the primary reference
`– Satyanarayanan II is the secondary reference for data
`replication
`
`74
`
`

`

`Kantor: “Obtaining a particular digital data item
`identifier … being obtained in response to an attempt to
`delete said particular data item…” (claim 30)
`
`1) MULTIS
`
`Kantor at 189 (IPR’86, Ex. 1004)
`
`75
`
`

`

`Kantor: “Obtaining a particular digital data item
`identifier … being obtained in response to an attempt to
`delete said particular data item…” (claim 30)
`
`2) Exclude
`
`Kantor at 81 (IPR’86, Ex. 1004)
`
`76
`
`

`

`Kantor: “Obtaining a particular digital data item
`identifier … being obtained in response to an attempt to
`delete said particular data item…” (claim 30)
`
`Q. We walked through at least two examples, both the
`duplicate and the exclude, where it is automatically
`deleted, right?
`A. Yes, it seems to suggest in some cases there is an
`automatic deletion.
`
`Dewar Tr. At 287-89 (IPR’86, Ex. 1079)
`
`77
`
`

`

`Kantor: “Updating a record in said list to reflect
`deletion of said particular data item” (claim 30)
`MULTIS list
`
`MULTIS deleted.log
`
`Kantor at 189
`(IPR’86, Ex. 1004)
`
`Kantor at 190
`(IPR’86, Ex. 1004)
`
`78
`
`

`

`Kantor: “Updating a record in said list to reflect
`deletion of said particular data item” (claim 30)
`Exclude upload log
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`
`
`* * *
`
`
`
`
`
`Kantor at 101 (IPR’86, Ex. 1004) K 101 (IPR’86 E 1004)
`
`
`
`79
`
`

`

`Kantor: “Updating a record in said list to reflect
`deletion of said particular data item” (claim 30)
`
`Q. So the upload log file is going to give you both the
`type of operation, right, accessioned or excluded,
`right?
`A. Right.
`Q. The file name, the content signature, the date it
`happened, date and time it happened, correct?
`A. Yes, that's what I read, yeah.
`
`Dewar Tr. At 287-89 (IPR’86, Ex. 1079)
`
`80
`
`

`

`Kantor and Satya II Are An Obvious Combination
`(claim 30)
`
`Satya II at 450 (IPR’86, Ex. 1026)
`
`81
`
`

`

`Kantor and Satya II Are An Obvious Combination
`(claim 30)
`
`Clark Dec. at ¶ 47 (IPR’86, Ex. 1009)
`
`82
`
`

`

`’544 – Kantor, Woodhill (IPR’84)
`’544 — Kantor, Woodhill (IPR’84)
`
`83
`
`

`

`’544 Patent
`
`Challenged claim 1
`
`Claim focuses on comparing two data items
`comprising parts based on their content-based
`identifiers.
`
`Primary references
`– Kantor
`– Woodhill
`
`
`84
`
`

`

`Kantor As Primary Reference
`
`85
`
`

`

`Kantor and Woodhill: “Data item comprising a
`plurality of parts” (claim 1)
`
`Kantor at Preface 2 (IPR’84, Ex. 1004)
`
`86
`
`

`

`Kantor and Woodhill: “Applying a first function to each
`part of said plurality of parts to obtain a corresponding
`part value” (claim 1)
`
`Kantor at 7 (IPR’84, Ex. 1004)
`
`Kantor at 48 (IPR’84, Ex. 1004)
`
`87
`
`

`

`88
`
`Kantor and Woodhill: Obvious To Combine
`(claim 1)
`
`26. It would be well within routine creativity of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings
`of Kantor and Woodhill. Both are concerned with
`uniquely identifying files for reliable file access (Kantor
`at 10-11; Ex. 1004 and Woodhill at col. 9, ll. 30-44; Ex.
`1005.) Although the zipfiles and files in Kantor are clearly
`themselves “data items” and “parts of data items,” a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
`obvious to modify Kantor to include even smaller “data
`items” and “parts of data items” (i.e., smaller sequences
`
`ose disclosed in Woodhill. It is a welloososossossseeee didididiscscscsclolololosesesesedddd inininin WWWWoooooooodhdhdhdhililililllll. IIIItttt isisisis aaaa wwwwelelelelllll--
`of bits), like those disclosed in Woodhill. It is a well-
`uueee to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`divide a file into parts This can bedivide a file divide a file into partsinto parts This can be T s. . n b
`known technique to divide a file into parts. This can be
`
`
`themselves “data items” and “parts of data items,” a themselves “data itemsthemselves “d ” and “parts of data items,” ”
`
`
`useful, for example, for large files, such as databases. For
`
`
`
`mmppple, for large files, such as databases. , for large files, such as databases. for large files, such as databases. for large files such as databases For For
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
`example, Woodhill discloses dividing a data item into
`
`hhhhhill discloses dividing a data item into
`llllar, Woodhill divides files into “binary
`parts. In particular, Woodhill divides files into “binary
`obvious to modify Kantor to include even smaller “data
`
`rrrrrther divides the binary object into
`objects,” and further divides the binary object into
`ooooodhill at col. 4, ll. 14-30, col. 14, l. 52 -
`“granules”. (Woodhill at col. 4, ll. 14-30, col. 14, l. 52 -
`items” and “parts of data items” (i.e., smaller sequences
`111005.) Such combination of Kantor and
`col. 15, l.4; Ex. 1005.) Such combination of Kantor and
`of bits), like those disclosed in Woodhill. It is a well-
`dd have been the application of Woodhill’s
`Woodhill would have been the application of Woodhill’s
`
`known technique of dividing files into smaller parts (e.g., uueee of dividing files into smaller parts (e.g.,
`known technique to divide a file int