UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`SAP AMERICA INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`v.
`CLOUDING CORP.,
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`Case IPR2013-000586
`Case IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`___________________
`
`
`
` 1
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`SAP AMERICA INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`v.
`CLOUDING CORP.,
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`Case IPR2013-000586
`Case IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`___________________
`
`
`
` 1
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), Patent Owner, Clouding Corp., hereby
`
`provides notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit for review of the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) in Inter
`
`Partes Review 2013-00586, concerning U.S. Patent 6,738,799 (“the ’799 patent”),
`
`entered on March 19, 2014, attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL
`
`A. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 1, 12, 23, 24, 30, 31, 37, and 42
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by U.S. Patent 5,990,810
`
`(“Williams”)?
`
`B. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 5–10 and 16–21 unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Williams and U.S. Patent
`
`5,832,520 (“Miller”)?
`
`C. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 37 and 42 anticipated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by U.S. Patent 6,233,589 (“Balcha”)?
`
`D. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 20, 21, 23,
`
`24, 30, and 31 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`
`Balcha and Miller?
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`E. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 6–8 and 17–19 unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Balcha, Miller, and U.S. Patent
`
`5,898,836 (“Freivald”)?
`
`F. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 37 and 42 unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Balcha and Freivald?
`
`G. Whether the PTAB erred in denying Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend
`
`by substituting claim 47 for claim 42?
`
`
`
`Simultaneous with submission of this Notice of Appeal to the Director of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, this Notice of Appeal is being filed with
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, three copies of this Notice of Appeal,
`
`along with the required docketing fees, are being filed with the Clerk’s Office for the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`333 W. San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`APPENDIX AAPPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov Paper 37
`571-272-7822
`
`Date: March 19, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`SAP AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CLOUDING IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00586
`Case IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JUSTIN BUSCH, and RAMA G. ELLURU,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Unified Patents, Inc. (“Unified”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 5–10, 12, 16–21, 23, 24, 30, 31,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`37, and 42 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,738,799 B2 (“the
`’799 Patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. On March 21, 2014, the Board
`instituted an inter partes review of the challenged claims on six asserted
`grounds of unpatentability (“Dec. on Inst.”). Paper 9. On December 27,
`2013, SAP America, Inc. (“SAP”) filed a petition (the “SAP Petition”),
`asserting the same grounds (against the same claims) as asserted by Unified
`in the Petition. On May 20, 2014, the Board instituted an inter partes review
`of the challenged claims and joined the review based on the SAP Petition
`with this inter partes review. Paper 17. Subsequent to institution and
`joinder of the two reviews, Clouding IP, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Patent Owner Response (“PO Resp.”) responding to the petitions filed by
`Unified and SAP (collectively, “Petitioners”). Paper 18. Patent Owner also
`filed a Contingent Motion to Amend (“MTA” or “Mot. to Amend”). Paper
`19. Petitioners filed a Reply (Paper 22, “Pet. Reply”) to the Patent Owner
`Response and an Opposition (Paper 23, “Opp. MTA”) to the Contingent
`Motion to Amend. Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioners’ Opposition to
`the MTA (“PO Reply”). Paper 25. Oral hearing was held on October 16,
`2014.1
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For
`the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioners have shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend is denied.
`
`
`
`
`1 The record includes a transcript of the oral hearing (“Hr’g Tr.”). Paper 35.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`A. The ’799 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’799 Patent is related to a method for file synchronization using a
`signature list. Ex. 1001, Title. In particular, the ’799 Patent discloses a
`method for synchronizing the local copies of files on client computers to the
`current versions of the files on a network drive. Ex. 1001, 1:24–27.
`According to the ’799 Patent, an object of the method is to provide a
`mechanism by which a user can be provided automatically with a current
`version of a subscription file in an efficient manner. Ex. 1001, 3:36–41.
`This is accomplished by having a server computer monitor network files for
`changes, and then send users email notifications and updates when there is a
`change to the files. Ex. 1001, 3:41–44.
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 12, 23, 30, 37, and 42 are
`independent claims. Claim 1 is similar to claim 23, with the exception that
`claim 1 includes an additional limitation (“wherein the new segment . . .”)
`not present in claim 23. Claims 1, 23, and 37 are method claims. Claims 12,
`30, and 42 are computer readable media versions of claims 1, 23, and 37,
`respectively. Thus, claims 1 and 37 are exemplary of the claimed subject
`matter, and are reproduced below (emphases added):
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`
`1. A method for a first computer to generate an update
`for transmission to a second computer that permits the second
`computer to generate a copy of a current version of a file
`comprised of a first plurality of file segments from a copy of an
`earlier version of the file comprised of a second plurality of file
`segments, such that each file segment corresponds to a portion
`of its respective file, the method comprising the steps of:
`for each segment of the current version of the file,
`(a) searching an earlier version of a signature list
`corresponding to an earlier version of the file for an old
`segment signature which matches a new segment signature
`corresponding to the segment;
`(b) if step (a) results in a match, writing a command in
`the update for the second computer to copy an old segment of
`the second computer’s copy of the earlier version of the file into
`the second computer’s copy of the current version of the file,
`wherein the old segment corresponds to the segment for which
`a match was detected in step (a); and
`(c) if step (a) results in no match, writing a command in
`the update for the second computer to insert a new segment of
`the current version of the file into the second computer’s copy
`of the current version of the file;
`wherein the new segment of the current version of the
`file is written into the update and the unchanged segment is
`excluded from the update; and
`wherein steps (a) through (c) are performed by the first
`computer, without interaction with the second computer, in
`response to the first computer detecting a change between the
`current version of the file and the earlier version of the file.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`37. A method for a first computer to provide updates for
`transmission to a second computer that permits the second
`computer to obtain most recent versions of files, the method
`comprising the steps of:
`(a) determining whether the second computer has a latest
`version of a file, wherein said determining is performed by the
`first computer without interaction with the second computer;
`(b) generating an update, if the second computer does not
`have a latest version of the file, wherein said generating is
`performed by the first computer without interaction with the
`second computer; and
`
`(c) transmitting the update from the first computer to the
`second computer.
`
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`Petitioners indicate that the ’799 Patent was the subject of the
`following terminated inter partes reviews before the Board: Oracle Corp. v.
`Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2013-000732 and Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2013-00261. Pet. 4. Petitioners indicate that the ’799 Patent is the
`subject of the following co-pending federal district court cases: Clouding
`IP, LLC v. EMC Corp., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01455 (D. Del.); Clouding
`IP, LLC v. Dropbox Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-01454 (D. Del.); Clouding IP,
`LLC v. SAP AG, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01456 (D. Del.); Clouding IP, LLC
`v. Verizon Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-01458 (D. Del.); Clouding IP, LLC v.
`Rackspace, Hosting Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-00675 (D. Del.); Clouding IP,
`LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-00641 (D. Del.); Clouding IP,
`LLC v. Oracle Corp., Case No. 1:12-cv-00642 (D. Del.); Clouding IP, LLC
`
`
`2 Petitioners identify IPR2012-00073 as a related matter. Pet. 4. However,
`IPR2013-00073 is the related inter partes review involving the ’799 Patent.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`v. Google Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-00639 (D. Del.). Pet. 4. Petitioners
`indicate that the ’799 Patent also was the subject of the following terminated
`federal district court cases: Clouding IP, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 1:12-
`cv-00638 (D. Del.); and Clouding IP, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Case No.
`1:12-cv-00640 (D. Del.). Pet. 4.
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`The Board instituted inter partes review on the following asserted
`grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (Dec. on Inst.
`29–30):
`
`References
`Williams3
`Williams and Miller4
`Balcha5
`
`Balcha and Miller
`
`Balcha, Miller, and Freivald6
`Balcha and Freivald
`
`
`
`Basis
`§ 102(e)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`1, 12, 23, 24, 30, 31, 37, and 42
`5–10 and 16–21
`37 and 42
`1, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 20, 21, 23,
`24, 30, and 31
`6–8 and 17–19
`37 and 42
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,990,810, issued Nov. 23, 1999 (Ex. 1006) (“Williams”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,832,520, issued Nov. 3, 1998 (Ex. 1004) (“Miller”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 6,233,589 B1, issued May 15, 2001 (Ex. 1003) (“Balcha”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,898,836, issued Apr. 27, 1999 (Ex. 1005) (“Freivald”).
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`§ 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
`interpretation consistent with the specification, reading the claim in light of
`the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`Although the parties argue other terms, for purposes of this decision,
`we find it necessary to construe explicitly only “update,” “writing a
`command . . . to copy,” and “determining whether the second computer has a
`latest version of a file, wherein said determining is performed by the first
`computer without interaction with the second computer.” We provide the
`bases for the construction of each of the explicitly construed terms below.
`1.
` “update”
`Petitioners propose construing “update” as “information for updating
`a file or an up-to-date version of a file.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1010, 10).
`Patent Owner does not propose a construction for “update” in its Patent
`Owner Response.
`The claim term “update” has the following dictionary definition:
`“current information for updating something” or “an up-to-date version,
`account, or report.”7 We do not find an explicit definition in the
`Specification of the ’799 Patent for an update, nor do we find anything in the
`Specification inconsistent with a construction encompassing an up-to-date
`version of a file. Therefore, in the context of file synchronization, we
`construe the claim term “update” broadly, but reasonably, as information for
`updating a file or an up-to-date version of a file.
`
`7 MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, http://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/update (last visited Feb. 11, 2014) (emphasis added).
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`“writing a command . . . to copy”
`2.
`Each of claims 1, 12, 23, and 30 recites the following claim phrase:
`“writing a command in the update for the second computer to copy an old
`segment of the second computer’s copy of the earlier version of the file into
`the second computer’s copy of the current version of the file.” Ex. 1001,
`claims 1, 12, 23, 30 (emphasis added). Hereinafter, we refer to this claim
`phrase as “writing a command . . . to copy.”
`Petitioners propose construing “a command to copy” as “an
`instruction that causes the computer to duplicate information or data.” Pet.
`15 (citing Ex. 1010, 11). Patent Owner asserts a “plain meaning reading of
`[the writing a command . . . to copy phrase] demands that a command to
`copy be written in the update that is used by the second computer to generate
`a copy of the current version of the file.” PO Resp. 10.
`We note that the recited “writing a command . . . to copy” language
`merely requires that a command, which causes the second computer to copy
`a portion of an earlier version of a file into a current version of the file, be
`written in the update. The claim does not limit the command to a specific
`format. Therefore, we broadly, but reasonably, construe “writing a
`command . . . to copy” as inserting an instruction into the update that causes
`the second computer to duplicate information or data from an earlier version
`of a file into a current version of a file.
`3.
`“determining whether the second computer has a latest
`version of a file, wherein said determining is performed
`by the first computer without interaction with the second
`computer”
`Neither Petitioners nor Patent Owner have proposed explicitly a
`construction of “determining whether the second computer has a latest
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`version of a file, wherein said determining is performed by the first
`computer without interaction with the second computer” (the “determining
`limitation”). We find the language of the determining limitation is
`sufficiently clear that the plain and ordinary meaning is the proper
`construction. Nevertheless, because the determining limitation is central to
`the disputes in this proceeding, we address two key components of the
`determining limitation to explain how an ordinarily skilled artisan would
`have understood the determining limitation when read in the context of the
`Specification of the ’799 Patent at the time of invention. In particular, we
`will discuss how an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood what
`the latest version of a file is, and what it means for the determination to be
`“performed by the first computer without interaction with the second
`computer.”
`Patent Owner appears to argue that the determining limitation requires
`the first computer to be absolutely certain that the version on the second
`computer is not the most recent version of the file. See, e.g., PO Resp. 7–8
`(arguing that claims 37 and 42 do not allow for the possibility that a more
`recent file would be overwritten by an older file), 38 (distinguishing prior art
`where “computer E1 cannot be certain whether or not computer E2 stores a
`latest version of the subject file”).
`In its arguments against Petitioners’ challenges, Patent Owner
`provides examples of how uncertainty could occur in the prior art. See, e.g.,
`PO Resp. 7 (“Balcha only discloses detecting whether a base file has been
`modified, regardless of when that modification may have occurred relative
`to other copies of the same base file”), 25 (“Freivald is unconcerned with
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`whether or not a subscribed client has a latest version of a Web page (or any
`version at all for that matter), and sends notifications whenever qualifying
`changes in a Web page have been detected, regardless of whether the
`modifications reflect the latest version of the file or not”), 38 (“Williams is
`both anticipating and accommodating situations in which computer E2 may
`store a different, but not necessarily a latest, version of a file than computer
`E1”). Patent Owner asserts inappropriate file updating is avoided in claims
`37 and 42 “by determining whether the second computer has a latest version
`of a file and, in this way, establishes that the latest version of the file will not
`be overwritten by changes to a file that occurred previously to the changes of
`the latest version of the base file simply because the files are not the same
`(i.e., one of the files has been modified).” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner cites
`to Dr. Mohaptra’s Declaration8, which uses the exact same language and
`provides no further explanation as to why the determining limitation should
`be construed to prevent the inappropriate file updating that is allegedly an
`issue only in the prior art. Ex. 2009 ¶ 17.
`Petitioners explain that there is nothing in the’799 Patent that prevents
`a copy of a subject file from being updated on a client, but that an ordinarily
`skilled artisan would have understood that the system was not intended to
`operate in that way. Hr’g Tr. 7:23–8:10. Petitioners further argue that
`claims 37 and 42 recite the determining is done “without interaction with the
`client[/second computer].” Id. at 8:16–18. Moreover, Petitioners explain
`that the ’799 Patent describes the process of the determining limitation
`
`
`8 Dr. Prasant Mohaptra is Patent Owner’s declarant, whose Declaration was
`submitted as Exhibit 2009.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`assuming that the system is operated normally, and that the server can use
`traditional mechanisms (e.g., comparing time stamps) to determine whether
`the second computer has a current version of the file. Id. at 8:16–24. Thus,
`Petitioners implicitly assert that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would not have understood the determining limitation, which requires the
`determining to be done without interaction with the second computer, to
`require an absolute certainty that the second computer have the latest
`version. Id. at 8:16–13:20. Rather, Petitioners implicitly assert that the
`proper construction of the determining limitation is that the first computer,
`assuming normal operation of the system and using techniques known to
`those of ordinary skill in the art, detects whether there is a difference
`between a current version and an old version of the file at the first computer,
`and updates the second computer if there is a difference. Id.
`With respect to the latest version, a review of the Specification of the
`’799 Patent reveals only one occurrence of the term “latest.” Ex. 1001,
`13:12–14 (“For the next file change, the server will take yet another
`snapshot and compare it against the latest snapshot and so on.”). The ’799
`Patent does, however, consistently refer to updating an old version of a file
`to a current version of a file.
`Although Patent Owner asserts that claims 37 and 42 would not allow
`a newer file to be overwritten by an older file (PO Resp. 7–8), Patent Owner
`does not point to evidence sufficient to support such a restriction. Patent
`Owner does not explain how the recited language requires an
`implementation that prevents issues with transit delays, tampering, or other
`uncertainties with respect to the first computer’s most recent version not
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`being as recent as another version of the file. Patent Owner simply points to
`the recited language as the explanation for why claims 37 and 42 do not
`suffer from the same problems as the prior art.
`The closest Patent Owner comes to providing support for its proposed
`construction is its argument, without citation to supporting evidence, that
`claims 37 and 42 use the timestamp of when a change was made (rather than
`when the server received the change) to determine the latest version. Hr’g
`Tr. 29:15–31:13. Patent Owner explains that, even when using the
`timestamp of when a change was made, the server relies “upon a comparison
`of its own time stamps” because “the server does not have the time stamps
`for the client computer.” Hr’g Tr. at 19:12–17 (emphasis added).
`Nevertheless, even accepting the argument that the server uses the
`timestamp of when a change was made, as opposed to received, by the
`server, there are two issues. First, in the example provided by Patent Owner,
`the first computer may receive a second update (where the change was made
`later) prior to receiving a first update (where the change was made earlier)
`due to network latency. Id. at 30:4–9, 30:21–31:9. There is no disclosure in
`the ’799 Patent indicating that an evaluation made by the first computer, in
`the time between receiving the first and second updates, would result in a
`determination that the second update was the latest version. This is
`inconsistent with Patent Owner’s position that the server is always using the
`latest change to provide an update. Second, regardless of when updates are
`made, there is no recited restriction on how the first computer determines
`what version is the current or latest version.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`There are various references throughout the ’799 Patent that discuss
`the first computer, or server, determining whether an update file needs to be
`sent to the second, or client, computer(s). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract
`(“The server periodically monitors the subscription file to determine if it has
`been altered before generating an update file”), 4:32–34 (“The update file is
`only generated when the server computer determines that the subscription
`file has changed . . . [t]he user determines the periodicity of the checks to
`determine if the file has been altered”), 6:51–55 (“the user then determines
`the polling or monitoring interval for the server to check for changes and
`also what to do when changes occur, i.e., package and send file changes or
`simple notification”). The ’799 Patent also discloses that the server
`periodically monitors files or folders to which clients subscribe for changes
`in order to determine whether an update needs to be generated. See, e.g., id.
`at 3:41–44, 4:32–39, 7:56–57, 9:28–31. One example provided in the ’799
`Patent is that the server “polls files or subfolders at either [sic] user-defined
`intervals for any changes to date, time stamps.” Id. at 6:59–60. Each of
`these descriptions explains that the server (the first computer) makes a
`determination without comparing the subject file (or its timestamp) to the
`version of the file stored at the client (the second computer) (or its
`timestamp).
`In light of the considerations discussed above, we do not see anything
`that would lead us to conclude that the proper construction of the
`determining limitation requires absolutely certainty. From the perspective of
`the first computer, the latest version, as recited in claims 37 and 42, refers to
`the current version accessible by the first computer, as determined by the
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`first computer at the time a check is made. Thus, at the point in time when
`the first computer makes its determination, the first computer merely needs
`to determine whether it has already sent its current version to the second
`computer. Considering all of the above, an ordinarily skilled artisan would
`have understood the plain and ordinary meaning of the “determining
`limitation” to be determining, by the first computer using known techniques
`based on information it has access to and without interaction with the second
`computer, whether the last version of the subject file sent to the second
`computer is not the same as the current version of the subject file.
`B. Submitted Evidence
`1. Williams (Ex. 1006)
`Williams describes a fine-grained incremental backup system and
`process. Ex. 1006, 19:26–22:14. Figure 25 of Williams is reproduced
`below:
`
`
`Figure 25 of Williams illustrates the backup process for two network
`computers.
`Williams describes that a file on computer E1 is backed up to
`computer E2, such that both E1 and E2 have a copy of the same version of
`the file, referred to as Y. When the file is modified, computer E1 now has a
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`new (current) version of the file, referred to as X. As shown in Figure 25 of
`Williams, at that time each of the network computers (E1 and E2) has a
`version of the same file (X and Y, respectively). Williams then determines
`the information to send from computer E1 to E2 necessary for E2 to generate
`a copy of X and sends that incremental backup information in a file, referred
`to as D, from computer E1 to computer E2. Computer E2 subsequently may
`generate a copy of the current version of the file, X, by using its prior
`version of the file, Y, and the incremental backup information file, D. Ex.
`1006, 19:29–34, 19:63–20:2.
`For further improvement, Williams indicates that copies of the
`previous versions of the file system should be retained. Ex. 1006, 21:62–65.
`This means that computer E2 should maintain both versions of the file, Y
`(the previous version) and X (the current version) when generating the
`current version. Id. Therefore, computer E2 eventually may store every
`prior version of that file.
`
`As explained in Williams, computer E1 compares the hash of the old
`version of the file, Y, against the hash of current version of the file, X, to
`determine whether the file has changed. Ex. 1006, 19:44–46. If the file has
`changed, computer E1 partitions the current version of the file into
`subblocks, and compares the hashes of these subblocks with the hashes of
`previous version of the file that are stored in shadow file S of computer E1,
`to find all identical hashes. Ex. 1006, 19:48–51. “Identical hashes identify
`identical subblocks in [version] Y that can be transmitted by reference.”
`Ex. 1006, 19:51–52. Computer E1 then transmits the incremental backup
`file D as a mixture of raw subblocks and references to subblocks whose
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`file, D, coomputer E22
`
`
`
`IPR22013-00586
`
`
`IPR22014-003006
`
`
`Patennt 6,738,7999 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hashhes appear in the shaddow file S and whichh are knownn to appearr as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`subbblocks in thhe prior verrsion of the file, Y. EEx. 1006,
`19:52–55.
`X, from
`
`
`
`
`
`To reconnstruct a duuplicate off the currennt version oof the file,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the pprior versioon of the fiile, Y, and incrementtal backup
`
`
`
`
`
`partiitions Y intto subblocks and calcculates thee hashes off subblockss. Ex.
`
`
`
`
`10066, 19:66–200:1. “It th
`
`
`
`
`en processses the incrremental baackup infoormation,
`
`
`
`
`
`copyying subbloocks that wwere transmmitted raw
`
`and lookinng up the r
`
`
`in Y. Ex. 10066, 20:2–5.
`
`
`2. Miller (EEx. 1004)
`Miller d
`
`
`
`
`method annd system ffor using ssmall differrence
`escribes a
`:11–13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(“difff”) files too update orr revise largge computter files. EEx. 1004, 1
`the large
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The diff files aare small fiiles that inddicate the ddifferencess between
`
`
`
`compputer files and preexisting commputer filess. Id. at 1:113–15. Figgure 1 of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Miller, reproduuced beloww, illustratees how the
`
`process wworks.
`
`eferences””
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Miller illustrates the process of generating a diff file at a first
`computer system by identifying differences between an old file and a new
`file, communicating the diff file to the second computer system over a
`communication path, and generating a copy of the new file at a second
`location using the diff file and a copy of the old file present at the second
`location.
`Miller’s diff file indicates changes between the old file and the new
`file using a minimal number of bytes. Id. at 2:21–24, 31–33. Miller’s diff
`file is comprised of copy and insert commands. Id. at 13:24–30. Miller’s
`first computer system then communicates the diff file to the second
`computer system, using any means for communicating between computer
`systems, including e-mail. Id. at 5:10–17. The second computer system
`then generates a new file, either when invoked explicitly or through receipt
`of a self-extracting execution file, copying segments from its copy of the old
`file and segments from the diff file. Id. at 15:25–43.
`3. Balcha (Ex. 1003)
`Balcha discloses a method for synchronization of files. Ex. 1003,
`1:5–7. In particular, a synchronized file exists on two different servers, and
`changes made to one file must be reflected in the other file. Ex. 1003, 1:42–
`44. Figure 1 of Balcha, reproduced below, illustrates a computer network
`with two servers using file synchronization.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Balcha, servers (22 & 24) are interconnected
`via a network 26, and each server (22 & 24) maintains a copy of a base file
`(21 & 27) and a base signature file (20 & 28). Ex. 1003, 4:51–53. The base
`files (21 & 27) should be identical, but either base file can be modified at
`either server. Ex. 1003, 4:53–61. Upon detection of a modification to the
`file, the detecting server (e.g., server 22), uses the respective base signature
`file (e.g., base signature file 20) to generate a new delta file, and
`communicates the delta file over network 26 to server 24. Ex. 1003, 4:61–
`66 (emphasis added). Server 24 uses the delta file to update the base file 27,
`and recalculates the base signature file 28. Ex. 1003, 4:66–67. As a
`consequence, the base files on the servers will stay in synchronization with
`minimal transfer of data over network 26. Ex. 1003, 5:1–3.
`Figure 3 of Balcha is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of Balcha illustrates the relationship of the files.
`Referring to Figure 3 of Balcha, the base signature file (42) contains a
`plurality of cyclic redundancy check (CRC) values derived from the data
`contained in the base file (38). Ex. 1003, 3:1–3, 3:21–28, 7:46–49. When a
`revised version of the base file (44) is created, a revised signature file (48),
`including a plurality of revised bit patterns, is generated from the revised file
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`
`
`(44). Ex. 1003, 3:4–6, 7:49–53. “Each revised bit pattern is compared to
`the base bit patterns in base signature file 42.” Ex. 1003, 7:57–59
`(emphasis added). “For each revised bit pattern that matches a base bit
`pattern in base signature file 42, it is stored in revised signature file 48,
`along with an offset indicating the location in revised file 44 of the
`beginning of the block of data represented by the revised bit pattern.”
`
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
