`Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 35
`571-272-7822 Entered: February 2, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CLOUDING IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`__________
`
`Held: October 16, 2014
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before: JAMESON LEE, JUSTIN BUSCH and RAMA G. ELLURU,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MICHAEL L. KIKLIS, ESQUIRE
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER RICCIUTI, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Oblon Spivak
`
`
`1940 Duke Street
`
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`TAREK N. FAHMI, ESQUIRE
`
`
`MICHAEL A. DAVITZ, ESQUIRE, M.D.
`
`
`Ascenda Law Group
`
`
`84 West Santa Clara Street
`
`
`San Jose, California 95113
`
`ON BEHALF OF SAP:
`
`
`FRANK CIMINO, ESQUIRE
`
`
`S. GREGORY HERRMAN, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Dickstein Shapiro LLP
`
`
`1825 Eye Street, NW
`
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`October 16, 2014, commencing at 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE LEE: Good afternoon, welcome to the Board.
`
`25
`
`Judge Busch is attending remotely. You can see him on our screen to
`
`26
`
`my left. And I just want to say if you step away from the podium,
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`Judge Busch won't be able to see you and he probably won't be able to
`
`hear you, also, so try not to get very far away from the podium.
`
`This is the oral argument for what is essentially two
`
`IPRs, which have been joined, those are IPR2013-00586 and IPR
`
`2014-00306. The two Petitioners are Unified Patents, Inc., who is the
`
`primary Petitioner, who will be making a consolidated argument for
`
`both Petitioners, and the second Petitioner is SAP America, Inc. The
`
`Patent Owner is Clouding IP.
`
`If I may have counsel for each party introduce
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`themselves and their colleagues, please.
`
`11
`
`MR. KIKLIS: Michael Kiklis for Unified Patents, Your
`
`12
`
`Honor, lead counsel, back-up counsel Chris Ricciuti, and Kevin
`
`13
`
`Jacobs, CEO of Unified Patents is here as well.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE LEE: I see. Do we have anyone from SAP
`
`15
`
`today?
`
`16
`
`MR. CIMINO: Yes, Your Honor, Frank Cimino with
`
`17
`
`Dickstein Shapiro for SAP, here with Greg Herrman.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. FAHMI: Good afternoon, Your Honor, Tarek
`
`20
`
`Fahmi on behalf of Clouding Corp. With me is my colleague Michael
`
`21
`
`Davitz, and from Clouding Corp is Rich Sanchez.
`
`22
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. Does either side have any
`
`23
`
`questions on the protocol, who goes first, for how long and things like
`
`24
`
`that?
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. FAHMI: No questions, Your Honor, but we wanted
`
`to bring to the Board's attention a settlement in the Clouding and SAP
`
`matters. There's a -- there is a settlement agreement in place that
`
`affects SAP's participation in this proceeding, as well as the other SAP
`
`versus Clouding matters that I believe Your Honor is also a member
`
`of the panel of, and we'll be -- the paperwork is now with the parties
`
`for signature and we'll be seeking to arrange a call with the Board to
`
`discuss a joint motion for termination in those other matters. I don't
`
`know to what extent such a motion would affect this proceeding,
`
`10
`
`obviously Unified Patents is going to go forward, but wanted to make
`
`11
`
`sure that you were aware of it.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE LEE: Yeah, I'm not, but thank you for letting
`
`13
`
`me know. With that, let's proceed.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Any time you're ready, Mr. Kiklis.
`
`MR. KIKLIS: May I approach the Bench, Your Honor?
`
`JUDGE LEE: Yes, please.
`
`MR. KIKLIS: With copies of our presentation.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. KIKLIS: Hard copies. Thank you, Your Honors.
`
`20
`
`Michael Kiklis for Unified Patents. This case is kind of unlike a lot of
`
`21
`
`other cases that you may have had, in that you don't have dueling
`
`22
`
`experts here. Rather, Unified Patents' expert, Dr. Hutchinson,
`
`23
`
`provided two declarations, and then the Patent Owner's expert, under
`
`24
`
`cross examination, basically contradicted virtually everything that he
`
`25
`
`said in his declaration and agreed with Unified Patents.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`And that's why in our reply brief, to the response, as well
`
`as the opposition to the motion to amend, we cite heavily to
`
`Dr. Mohapatra, who is Patent Owner's expert. That's why this case is
`
`a little bit different.
`
`Now, for my presentation, I'm going to focus on
`
`Williams. I'm going to focus on Williams, because Williams is
`
`dispositive of this case.
`
`If we could start with the presentation. With respect to
`
`claim 1, and its dependent claims and its similar claims of other
`
`10
`
`independent claims, the issue here that Clouding raises is whether
`
`11
`
`there's a command to copy. That's the only argument that they raise
`
`12
`
`as to why their patent is patent eligible over Williams, but you'll see
`
`13
`
`when we go through Williams that that's exactly what Williams
`
`14
`
`discloses, a command to copy. And Dr. Mohapatra, Patent Owner's
`
`15
`
`expert, admitted such.
`
`16
`
`Let's move forward. The way Williams works is that
`
`17
`
`Williams deals with file synchronization. On the left-hand side, and
`
`18
`
`we're on slide DX-2, Judge Busch, so you can follow along.
`
`19
`
`E1 is the server in this case. E2 is the client, and in the
`
`20
`
`middle, you have D, which is the delta file. Now, on the server, you
`
`21
`
`have Y, and then you've got a current version of that file X, and you
`
`22
`
`can see the little rectangle above X with the dashed lines and such,
`
`23
`
`those are blocks of data.
`
`24
`
`Now, how does Williams decide how -- whether a file
`
`25
`
`needs updating? It decides because it has hashes or values for each
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`block of Y, which is an old copy of the file, and it has a hash for all
`
`the blocks of data in X, which is the latest version of that file.
`
`It compares the two, and when there's a difference, it
`
`knows that the version on the client is not the latest version, and needs
`
`to be updated to become the latest version. That mechanism is
`
`identical to what's disclosed in the '799 patent. It's identical.
`
`So, when a file update needs to occur, a back-up in this
`
`case, what happens is the delta file gets created and the delta gets
`
`transmitted from E1, the server, to E2, the client, and in that delta file
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`are all the instructions necessary to take data from Y and include new
`
`11
`
`data to create a separate file X.
`
`12
`
`The command to copy is evidenced by 1, 6 and 2. These
`
`13
`
`are called references, but they operate exactly like a command to
`
`14
`
`copy, because these references instruct the system in terms of which
`
`15
`
`blocks of Y need to be copied to X.
`
`16
`
`So, let's go through an example. You'll see in D, the very
`
`17
`
`top block, this is the first block, are diagonally crossed lines. Do you
`
`18
`
`see that? That becomes the first block in X, which is the file on the
`
`19
`
`very, very top, in the dashed rectangles.
`
`20
`
`So, that is a command to insert. It took a block of data,
`
`21
`
`that then gets stuck right into X. The next block in the delta is 1.
`
`22
`
`That instructs the system that the first block in Y needs to be copied
`
`23
`
`into X, and you can see the first block in Y are these dotted rectangles,
`
`24
`
`a rectangle with dotted dots in it, that gets copied to become the
`
`25
`
`second block in X.
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, you can see that this operates exactly like a command
`
`to copy, and that's why, under cross examination, Dr. Mohapatra, the
`
`Patent Owner's expert, admitted such.
`
`First, Dr. Mohapatra admitted that number 1 is a
`
`reference, refers to a first block of Y that gets copied over to the X
`
`file. He answered yes. The third block, which is the dots you can see,
`
`that then gets copied to become the third block in X. Now, you can
`
`see in that situation, the data was actually contained in the delta file
`
`itself coming from the X on the server.
`
`10
`
`Next slide. Now, one of its arguments that the Patent
`
`11
`
`Owner has raised is that, well, really Y is created in place, but that's
`
`12
`
`not true, and that -- and you can see from here that X is represented as
`
`13
`
`a separate file, and Dr. Mohapatra, the Patent Owner's expert, even
`
`14
`
`admitted such. Here, the Y file is in existence, and then a separate
`
`15
`
`file, the X file, is being created from the delta file, correct? His
`
`16
`
`answer, yes. There are two files, and there's a copy being made.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Next slide.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Are you making an assumption that the
`
`19
`
`server and the client are seeing the same Y at all times? Because I
`
`20
`
`recall reading one of the Patent Owner's arguments saying, well,
`
`21
`
`perhaps the client already has its Y file updated while the server is
`
`22
`
`checking on the server's version of file Y.
`
`23
`
`MR. KIKLIS: Their argument, then I'll let Clouding
`
`24
`
`make its own argument, Your Honor, but I believe that their argument
`
`25
`
`is X on the client has been somehow updated. That argument fails.
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`That argument fails because this is a back-up system, and you
`
`shouldn't be updating the X file. Their argument is, as I understand it,
`
`that X isn't the -- you're not sure that it's the latest version of the file,
`
`because X could have been updated.
`
`Well, that's the exact same problem with the '799 patent.
`
`On the client, there's nothing stopping the client on the '799 patent
`
`from updating that file, but you're not supposed to. And in the
`
`Williams patent, it's the exact same thing. It's a back-up system.
`
`You're not supposed to update X. You're supposed to leave it alone.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`That defeats the whole purpose of a back-up system.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE LEE: I understand. So, really, there's no way to
`
`12
`
`be sure, without actually calling over to the other side to ask, what
`
`13
`
`version do you have, there's really no way to know whether the
`
`14
`
`version on the second computer is or is not the most recent version,
`
`15
`
`right?
`
`16
`
`MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, the claim limitation says
`
`17
`
`without interaction with the client, and you're right, the way all of
`
`18
`
`these systems work is on the server side. You have some hash or
`
`19
`
`signature of the old version of the file, and a hash of the new version
`
`20
`
`of the file. You compare the two. And if the system is being operated
`
`21
`
`as it should, then that shows that the version on the client is not the
`
`22
`
`latest, and then sending X down via the mechanism that I described a
`
`23
`
`little while ago, ensures that that is the latest version of the file. That's
`
`24
`
`the exact same way the '799 patent works.
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE LEE: I understand. It might be exactly the same
`
`way, but now we have two paths, whether we say, all right, because
`
`that's the way it's disclosed in the patent, we will simply construe the
`
`claims as if it means that, even though literally it doesn't read like that.
`
`So, but the other path is, well, the specification doesn't support the
`
`claim. So, tell us which way it should be. Why would it
`
`automatically be so that if we think it's simply not true, that you will
`
`always know whether the other computer has the latest version, then
`
`we should just construe the claim as though it doesn't require absolute
`
`10
`
`certainty that if you think it's the latest version, then all right.
`
`11
`
`MR. KIKLIS: I think that's the way these systems work,
`
`12
`
`Your Honor. There is no absolute certainty. There's always the
`
`13
`
`possibility of a client, unless the computer is off, that somebody could
`
`14
`
`break it, use some mechanism and update a file on there. There's
`
`15
`
`nothing described in the '799 patent that says -- that excludes that
`
`16
`
`possibility. What we're talking about are systems in their normal
`
`17
`
`operation, yes, it would determine that the latest version of the file is
`
`18
`
`not on the client, and needs to be updated. We're talking about the
`
`19
`
`normal situation, not if somebody with mal intent breaks the thing,
`
`20
`
`steals a popularity from the hard disk or something to that effect.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE LEE: Well, how normal is it? It simply would
`
`22
`
`never happen, almost never happen, it can never happen in normal
`
`23
`
`operations that the second computer somehow has its file updated?
`
`24
`
`MR. KIKLIS: Corrupted could happen, there's lots of
`
`25
`
`possibilities, Your Honor, but those possibilities, I think, are kind of
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`beyond the point. The point here is that the server detects whether a
`
`file needs to be updated by comparing an old version to a new version
`
`and the hashes. That's how it determines it, and then sends the file as
`
`appropriate. That's what the prior art does.
`
`JUDGE LEE: I see. Who else can update the file on the
`
`second computer? Or are all updates through the server?
`
`MR. KIKLIS: It's not specified, Your Honor. It's not
`
`specified. There's no --
`
`JUDGE LEE: So then how can we be sure that it is,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`indeed, that rare? If all the files in the second computer can be freely
`
`11
`
`overwritten, or updated, then why couldn't it just happen in normal
`
`12
`
`course of operation?
`
`13
`
`MR. KIKLIS: Well, if you're talking about the prior art,
`
`14
`
`Your Honor, it's a back-up system. People shouldn't be messing with
`
`15
`
`the back-up files. Otherwise, you're not going to be able to restore
`
`16
`
`your system in the event of an emergency.
`
`17
`
`In the case of the '799 patent, you've got mobile, you
`
`18
`
`know, that's their issue, they've got mobile people using a copy of a
`
`19
`
`file from the server. They shouldn't be updating it, but there's nothing
`
`20
`
`stopping them from doing so.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE LEE: So, that's the Williams, right, you're
`
`22
`
`talking about?
`
`23
`
`MR. KIKLIS: I'm talking about Williams is a back-up
`
`24
`
`system, that's Williams. The '799 patent talks about mobile
`
`25
`
`customers, or clients that have a copy of the file on their -- on their
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`device. But the point here is that the support for the claim limitation
`
`in the '799 patent is the exact same way that Williams describes it and
`
`operates. That's unpatentability. That's 102.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Well, that's my point, it doesn't
`
`necessarily lead you to where you want to go. Let's assume the
`
`disclosure is the same, why can't the end result be that they are
`
`without description for what they claim?
`
`MR. KIKLIS: That's -- we're not making that argument,
`
`Your Honor.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE LEE: I know you're not making that argument,
`
`11
`
`but if that is the result, then the art doesn't teach it. If the claim -- if
`
`12
`
`the claim were to say, I'm supposed to find out whether that's the
`
`13
`
`latest copy without actually knowing it is so, then they don't have it,
`
`14
`
`and neither does the art, so why -- I'm asking why do you say that it
`
`15
`
`has to be the case, then, the art describe it, rather than -- the art doesn't
`
`16
`
`describe it and they don't describe it?
`
`17
`
`MR. KIKLIS: Both the '799 patent, as well as Williams,
`
`18
`
`describe this limitation. They describe it. This is the support for
`
`19
`
`doing it, and it works. The example that you're making, Your Honor,
`
`20
`
`with all due respect, is somebody breaking the system and using it for
`
`21
`
`some unintended purpose. That's not what's called for here. What's
`
`22
`
`called for here is that on the server, you've got an X file, a Y file, a
`
`23
`
`new file, a latest version and an old version. You detect a difference,
`
`24
`
`and that tells you whether it needs updating on the client. That's the
`
`25
`
`way these systems work.
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Is there some possibility that remotely, that somebody
`
`could break these systems? Yeah. But I don't read that as a
`
`requirement here whatsoever. I think that the way that the system
`
`works and it's detecting of whether there needs to be an update is
`
`disclosed in the '799 as well as the Williams patent, the same way,
`
`that's the way these systems work.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Well, I asked you earlier, is there some
`
`other way files can be updated normally, and you said that, well,
`
`maybe they can. So, I don't know where you get it from that it has to
`
`10
`
`be a corrupted file situation or somebody breaks into the system. I
`
`11
`
`mean, where is the support for that?
`
`12
`
`MR. KIKLIS: In the '799 patent, Your Honor? I don't
`
`13
`
`know what the '799 patent support is for that. Williams and the prior
`
`14
`
`art here doesn't talk about -- it's assumed that nobody with mal intent
`
`15
`
`is trying to break these systems. That's the point. That these systems
`
`16
`
`operate as intended in such a way as to render the '799 patent
`
`17
`
`unpatentable. There's --
`
`18
`
`JUDGE LEE: Well, let me try again. You say that -- are
`
`19
`
`you saying that the only way the second computer can -- should
`
`20
`
`update any file is through the process disclosed, and that no
`
`21
`
`reasonable person would read it as it having some other way of
`
`22
`
`updating files?
`
`23
`
`24
`
`MR. KIKLIS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: And the reason for that is?
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. KIKLIS: Because this is a back -- if you're talking
`
`about Williams, that's a back-up mechanism, and there should be --
`
`and it would be -- it would be beyond the purpose of the system to be
`
`updating individual files on the back-up system. That's not the
`
`intended purpose of the reference. I think one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art reading this would understand it as you just described.
`
`JUDGE LEE: So, that's for Williams, what about in the
`
`context of their patent? Is it the same answer?
`
`MR. KIKLIS: I think it's the same answer, Your Honor,
`
`10
`
`one of ordinary skill reading it would understand that the mechanism
`
`11
`
`on the server, which is both the same for Williams as well as the '799
`
`12
`
`patent, it operates in a way to -- so that it updates the client side so
`
`13
`
`that it has the latest file.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE LEE: So, on this theory, their argument that the
`
`15
`
`file may not be the latest is really -- has no basis on this evidence,
`
`16
`
`then?
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`MR. KIKLIS: I think it's irrelevant, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Right.
`
`MR. KIKLIS: I think it's a very weak argument and I
`
`20
`
`think it's irrelevant.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`JUDGE LEE: All right. Thank you.
`
`MR. KIKLIS: If we could go to the next slide, here is the
`
`23
`
`quote that I was referring to, Your Honor, that says when I asked
`
`24
`
`Dr. Mohapatra, I asked him this question, "In fact, the references
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`instruct the system in terms of which blocks in Y need to be copied to
`
`the X file; correct?" He said, "Yes." That is a command to copy.
`
`Now, with respect to the other set of claims, 37 and 42, if
`
`we can move forward. The argument here that the Patent Owner
`
`raises is determining whether the second computer has a latest version
`
`of the file. We've already discussed that.
`
`If we could go forward to the next slide, Chris.
`
`Here, Williams discloses -- here the Patent Owner's
`
`expert admitted that Williams discloses a method for updating on the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`client to make sure it is the latest version.
`
`11
`
`Your Honor, unless there's any questions from the panel,
`
`12
`
`I would like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal. It's my
`
`13
`
`understanding, we do not have the burden for the motion to amend, so
`
`14
`
`I will address the motion to amend on rebuttal.
`
`15
`
`JUDGE LEE: Let's see, you started at 2:10, so you only
`
`16
`
`used up 15 minutes. So, you have 45 minutes left.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`MR. KIKLIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Does counsel for SAP want to say
`
`19
`
`anything, but you're limited to those points with which you disagree
`
`20
`
`with Unified Patents.
`
`21
`
`MR. CIMINO: Well, Your Honor, just one quick point,
`
`22
`
`and I don't know for sure necessarily whether Mr. Kiklis and I
`
`23
`
`disagree on this point, but in response to one of the questions that you
`
`24
`
`asked Mr. Kiklis --
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Well, I'm sorry, you're limited only to
`
`disagreement, I don't want to mess up the record by you putting in
`
`another argument that's slightly off from what he says and then we
`
`wouldn't know what to do with it. So, please limit it only to
`
`disagreement. You start out by saying we disagree, and tell us what
`
`you disagree with. If it's embellishments and elaborations, it's going
`
`to cause us problems and cause the other side problems.
`
`MR. CIMINO: I don't think I can represent that I
`
`disagree with Mr. Kiklis, without knowing his view on this, so --
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`MR. CIMINO: Can I check with him?
`
`JUDGE LEE: You can confer and see if you disagree.
`
`(Counsel confers.)
`
`JUDGE LEE: I can certainly have Mr. Kiklis come up
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`again and clarify after your consultation with him, if that's what you
`
`16
`
`want.
`
`17
`
`MR. CIMINO: I can't say that we disagree, Your Honor,
`
`18
`
`so I'll sit down.
`
`19
`
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. Kiklis, do you want to clarify
`
`20
`
`anything?
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`MR. KIKLIS: I'll save it for rebuttal, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Okay.
`
`MR. FAHMI: I have copies of the slides for the
`
`24
`
`members of the panel that are here, Your Honor. May I approach?
`
`25
`
`JUDGE LEE: Yes, please. Thank you.
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. FAHMI: May it please the Board, my name is
`
`Tarek Fahmi, I'm representing Clouding Corp. in this proceeding. I
`
`would like to begin, Your Honor, with addressing some of the points
`
`that you discussed with Mr. Kiklis regarding the Williams reference,
`
`and the same slide that Mr. Kiklis had on the screen is in our
`
`presentation, slide number 16, it may help facilitate the discussion.
`
`With respect to claims 1 and claims similar to claim 1,
`
`Clouding's position is that Williams does not teach the command to
`
`copy. Now, Mr. Kiklis indicated that he believed this was a case
`
`10
`
`where the experts didn't disagree. I don't fully agree with that
`
`11
`
`characterization. In fact, what Dr. Mohapatra has said in declaration
`
`12
`
`testimony is that Williams does not teach the command to copy as it's
`
`13
`
`recited in the claim.
`
`14
`
`The copying that Mr. Kiklis referred to was a copying of
`
`15
`
`information into the update file, but that is not the copying referenced
`
`16
`
`in the claim language. The claim language represents copying
`
`17
`
`occurring at the second computer.
`
`18
`
`So, it's the instruction in the difference file, or delta file
`
`19
`
`as some of the references call it, that commands the second computer
`
`20
`
`to copy a portion of the file that it currently has into a new file as part
`
`21
`
`of the process of creating this revised file. The revised file being the
`
`22
`
`one for which the update is being sent.
`
`23
`
`That is the command to copy that is referred to in the
`
`24
`
`update file, that is the copying that results, it is not the copying of the
`
`25
`
`information into the update file.
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, why doesn't Williams, then, teach this command to
`
`copy as it's reflected in the claim? Williams, as is shown in the slide,
`
`describes a modified file X, and you want that to be replicated
`
`somehow on computer E2, and so it creates what it calls this
`
`incremental back-up that consists of subblocks and references to
`
`subblocks.
`
`The references to subblocks, Mr. Kiklis indicated, are
`
`commands to copy, but, in fact, they're not. In fact, Williams doesn't
`
`say what they are. He only says they are references to subblocks. So,
`
`10
`
`how, then, can they be commands to copy?
`
`11
`
`Well, we turn to Petitioner's own expert testimony on this
`
`12
`
`matter. Dr. Hutchinson, in his initial declaration, explained that there
`
`13
`
`are really two regimes in this synchronization or back-up process,
`
`14
`
`however you want to characterize it, and Dr. Hutchinson's testimony
`
`15
`
`in this regard is set forth on our slide number 4. Now, he explained
`
`16
`
`this in the context of the scientific principles underlying the '799
`
`17
`
`patent, and he said, there are two ways of doing this. One is a scheme
`
`18
`
`which he characterized as retain by default. The other is a scheme he
`
`19
`
`characterized as discard by default.
`
`20
`
`Now, what do those mean? In a discard by default
`
`21
`
`regimen, it assumes that the receiving computer, the second computer
`
`22
`
`in the claims, is going to delete information from its existing copy of
`
`23
`
`the file, unless you tell it otherwise. How do you tell it otherwise?
`
`24
`
`With a command to copy.
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`In a retained by default regime, you assume that the
`
`receiving computer, the second computer in the claims, is going to
`
`keep information, unless you tell it otherwise. How do you tell it
`
`otherwise? You delete it. And so you issue an instruction to delete.
`
`Now, would you ever include both the copy command
`
`and the delete command in the same difference file? Well, on slide 5,
`
`you'll see that Dr. Hutchinson, in his initial declaration, said no, that
`
`when you're designing one of these, you pick one or the other. And,
`
`in fact, later in his declaration, he said to keep both a scheme which
`
`10
`
`includes a copy command, and a delete command, in the update file,
`
`11
`
`would be overly pedantic. He wouldn't do it.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JUDGE LEE: What's the word?
`
`MR. FAHMI: Overly pedantic is the word that's used in
`
`14
`
`his declaration, Your Honor.
`
`15
`
`So, how does this all play out in Williams? Well,
`
`16
`
`Williams says we have references to files, and doesn't explain the
`
`17
`
`references. Dr. Hutchinson said, you pick one or the other. It's
`
`18
`
`equally likely that you would choose one versus the other because
`
`19
`
`then that result, according to Mr. Hutchinson, is the same thing.
`
`20
`
`Well, if you're not told in the reference which regime
`
`21
`
`you're operating in, and if each is equally likely, it seems to me you're
`
`22
`
`trying to rely on an inherency argument, but an inherency argument
`
`23
`
`can't work in an anticipation case where either of the possibilities is
`
`24
`
`equally likely. And, so, the anticipation rejection proposed by the
`
`25
`
`Petitioners fails.
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Now, there was also the question, Your Honor, about
`
`determining how do you know that the second computer has the latest
`
`copy of the file? And this is relevant with respect to claims 37 and 42,
`
`where that language appears. Well, the '799 patent tells you how you
`
`know, you check time stamps. And this is at column 6, line 50.
`
`In fact, it gives a variety of ways that you can figure out.
`
`The latest, by the way, has a temporal connotation, last in time. So, it
`
`makes sense that you would check time stamps. You would check
`
`time stamps on the file to see whether it's changed.
`
`10
`
`JUDGE LEE: Does the server have the time stamps for
`
`11
`
`the client computer?
`
`12
`
`MR. FAHMI: So, the server does not have the time
`
`13
`
`stamps for the client computer. The server has the time stamps for its
`
`14
`
`previous version of the file, and its next version of the file. And as the
`
`15
`
`claim says, the server operates without interaction with the client
`
`16
`
`computer, the second computer. So, the server is relying upon its
`
`17
`
`comparison of its own time stamps to see whether it copies.
`
`18
`
`JUDGE LEE: So, it's assuming that there's no separate
`
`19
`
`update on the other side?
`
`20
`
`21
`
`MR. FAHMI: Yes. Yes.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Then why are you having -- stating an
`
`22
`
`argument that with respect to the -- to their argument that the
`
`23
`
`reference doesn't really -- in short, that there's no subsequent update in
`
`24
`
`the client computer?
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. FAHMI: Williams doesn't care. Williams doesn't
`
`care if it's the latest version or not. Williams is a back-up system, and
`
`the back-up operates according to a schedule. And, so, that back-up
`
`takes place whether or not it's the latest version or not.
`
`Now, another interesting thing about Williams, with
`
`respect to this latest version, is that there's no discussion of time
`
`stamps at all. So, other than the schedule, Williams doesn't really
`
`provide us any criteria for performing the back-up, whereas '799 does.
`
`JUDGE LEE: So, are you saying in Williams the process
`
`10
`
`is done for every item, whether or not it is -- the condition is met that
`
`11
`
`the other computer does not have the latest version?
`
`12
`
`MR. FAHMI: That's how I would read Williams, Your
`
`13
`
`Honor, yes. The back-up takes place without regard to whether or not
`
`14
`
`the other computer has the latest version of the file. In fact, Williams
`
`15
`
`describes something rather interesting about the back-up file. It's not
`
`16
`
`shown in figure 25, but it's described in Williams, that a portion of the
`
`17
`
`back-up file is what's referred to as an MD5 or MD25, MD5, I think,
`
`18
`
`computation for the entire file. MD5 is a type of cyclic redundancy
`
`19
`
`check, I believe. It's a way of taking a fingerprint of a file.
`
`20
`
`And, so, why does Williams send over to the client
`
`21
`
`computer this MD5 file? Well, we're told that it's because it's to
`
`22
`
`ensure that the back-up is applied to the correct version of Y that is on
`
`23
`
`the client -- or on the back-up server. So, it seems that Williams is
`
`24
`
`contemplating a situation where there may be multiple versions, and
`
`25
`
`you don't know which version you're actually updating, so you send
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00586
`Patent No. 6,738,799
`
`the fingerprint of the file that you want to update so that the back-up
`
`server knows how to apply the update.
`
`It's not interested in the latest file, it's interested in the
`
`one for which it tells the back-up server that the update actually
`
`applies.
`
`JUDGE LEE: I have a question along that line. Isn't it
`
`true that for typical back-up systems, you don't really back up
`
`something that hasn't been changed, so if the server looks at whatever
`
`it thinks the other side has and it sees that there's no difference, then
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`would you still be sending over a block which essentially says,
`
`11
`
`123456, you know, which essentially says, you end up with the same
`
`12
`
`thing as what you have? Or would that simply not happen?
`
`13
`
`MR. FAHMI: So, I think this is a distinction between a
`
`14
`
`back-up
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
