`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS
`
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 1
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
`Entered: April 24, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CLOUDING IP, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073 (JL)
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL W. KIM,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`On December 8, 2012, Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) filed a petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 5-10, 23, 24, and 37 of U.S. Patent
`6,738,799 (Ex. 1001, “the ’799 patent”). (Paper 1, “Pet.”) In response, Clouding
`IP, LLC (“Clouding”) filed a patent owner preliminary response on March 12,
`2013. (Paper 7, “Prel. Resp.”) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the petition and patent owner preliminary response,
`we determine that the information presented in the petition establishes that there is
`a reasonable likelihood that Oracle would prevail with respect to claims 1, 5-10,
`23, 24, and 37 of the ’799 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
`authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 1, 5-10, 23, 24, and 37
`of the ’799 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Oracle indicates that the ’799 patent is involved in co-pending litigation
`captioned Clouding IP, LLC v. Oracle Corp., Case No. 1:12-cv-00642 (D.Del.).
`(Pet. 3.)
`
`2
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`
`B. The ’799 Patent
`
`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 automatically provided 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.)
`
`C. Exemplary Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 23, and 37 are independent claims.
`Independent claims 1 and 23 recite similar limitations, but independent claim 37 is
`broader than those claims. As to the dependent claims, claims 5-10 directly or
`indirectly depend from claim 1, and claim 24 depends from claim 23. Claims 1
`and 37 are exemplary of the claimed subject matter of the ’799 patent, and are
`reproduced as follows (emphasis added):
`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,
`
`3
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`
`(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.
`
`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.
`
`4
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Oracle relies upon the following prior art references:
`Miller
`U.S. Patent 5,832,520 Nov. 3, 1998
`Freivald
`U.S. Patent 5,898,836 Apr. 27, 1999
`Williams U.S. Patent 5,990,810 Nov. 23, 1999
`Balcha
`U.S. Patent 6,233,589 May 15, 2001
`
`(Ex. 1004)
`(Ex. 1005)
`(Ex. 1006)
`(Ex. 1003)
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`
`Oracle alleges that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the
`following grounds:
`1. Claims 1, 23, 24, and 37 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
`anticipated by William;
`2. Claims 5-10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over William and
`Miller;
`3. Claim 37 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Balcha;
`4. Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 23, and 24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Balcha and Miller;
`5. Claims 6-8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Balcha, Miller,
`and Freivald;
`6. Claim 37 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
`Freivald; and
`7. Claims 1, 5-10, 23, 24, and 37 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Miller and Freivald.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`As a first step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a review,
`we determine the meaning of the claims. In an inter partes review, claim terms in
`an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the
`broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are presumed to be given
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). An inventor may rebut that presumption by
`providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Here, the parties have not alleged that the inventor of the ’799 patent acted as his
`own lexicographer and gave any claim term a special definition different from its
`recognized meaning to one with ordinary skill. Therefore, the words of the claim
`will be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the
`specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In this regard, we
`must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written
`description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment.
`In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Oracle provides its interpretations for two claim terms, “signature list” and
`“without interaction.” (Pet. 15-16.) Clouding also submits its proposed
`interpretation for the claim term “signature list,” and identifies four additional
`6
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`claim terms or phrases for which claim construction is sought: “update,” “a
`command to copy,” “determining whether the second computer has a latest version
`of a file,” and “generating an update, if the second computer does not have a latest
`version of the file.” Further, we find it necessary to construe the claim term
`“a command to insert,” and the preamble of each independent claim being
`challenged. For this decision, we will construe each of these claim terms and
`phrases in turn.
`
`1. “Signature list” (Claims 1 and 23)
`
`Oracle asserts that the term “signature list” should be interpreted as “a table
`or listing of unique identifiers determined using any ‘hashing method or signature
`algorithm’ including, but not limited to, Cyclic redundancy Checks (CRCs),
`Checksums, and any variety of hash functions.” (Pet. 15, citing to Ex. 1001,
`8:18-28, emphasis added.) Clouding counters that “a signature list is a collection
`(e.g., a table) of representations of variable length segments of a subject file, which
`representations serve to identify the segments from which they are determined”
`(e.g., a table of hashes). (Prel. Resp. 8, citing to Ex. 1001, 8:18-20, 29-54; fig. 5.)
`To resolve the differences between the parties’ proposed interpretations, we
`begin our analysis by reviewing the pertinent portions of the specification of the
`’799 patent. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (The specification is the single best
`guide to the meaning of a claim term.).
`Figure 3 of the ’799 patent, reproduced below, depicts a subscription file and
`the signatures corresponding to the segments of the file.
`
`7
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPPR2013-00073
`
`Patent 66,738,799
`
`
`
`file
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FFigure 3 of the ’799 ppatent illusttrates an eaarlier versiion of a suubscription
`
`
`
`
`
`that hass been dividded into six segments (A1-A6)
`, and the s
`
`ignatures ((SIG(A1)-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(A6), 3111-316) coorrespondinng to the siix segmentts. (Ex. 10001, 8:7-100.) Segmennts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(A1-A66) representt variable llength porttions of thee subscripttion file. (EEx. 1001,
`
`the variabble
`
`values derrived from
`
`
`
`
`8:10-122.) Signatuures (311-3316) are fixxed length
`
`
`
`length ssegments (AA1-A6). (Ex. 1001,
`
`
`
`dded.) As 8:18-28, emmphasis ad
`explainedd in
`
`
`
`
`es may, buut are not reequired to,, be determmined by a
`
`
`the ’7999 patent, thhe signatur
`
`m (e.g., the
`
`
`e algorithmhashingg method or signature
`
`
`
`cyclic reduundancy chheck (CRCC)
`
`
`
`and MDD5). (Id., eemphasis aadded.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`correspoonding to aa subscripttion file.
`
`
`
`
`
`FFigure 4 of the ’799 ppatent, reprroduced beelow, depiccts a signatture list thaat is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`list
`
`
`AAs shown inn Figure 4
`
`
`
`9 patent, fofor each seggment, thee signature
`of the ’79
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`includess: (1) the ssegment/sttarting locaation (401--406); (2) tthe size (4111-416); annd
`8
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`(3) the signature (311-316). (Ex. 1001, 8:29-54.) The segment location and size
`allow the addresses of all of the data within the segment to be computed. (Id.)
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we agree with
`Clouding that the claim term “signature list” does not require the unique identifiers
`to be determined using a hashing method or signature algorithm. The specification
`does not set forth any specific definition that requires such determination. In fact,
`the specification merely suggests the usage of a hashing method, signature
`algorithm, or cyclic redundancy check in a preferred embodiment. (See e.g.,
`Ex. 1001, 8:20-28 “The signatures 311 through 316 may be determined by any one
`of a variety of hashing methods or signature algorithms. In the presently preferred
`embodiment, the signatures A1 through A6 are computed using the cyclic
`redundancy check (CRC).” Emphasis added.) Therefore, we decline to adopt
`Oracle’s narrow interpretation of the claim term “signature list.”
`Because Clouding’s construction is consistent with the specification, on this
`record, we adopt its construction of the claim term “signature list” to mean a
`signature list is a collection (e.g., table) of representations of variable length
`segments of a subject file, which representations serve to identify the segments
`from which they are determined (e.g., a table of hashes).
`
`2. “Update” (Claims 1, 23 and 37)
`
`Clouding urges the Board to construe the claim term “update” as “an item
`that allows a second computer to build a current version of a file from a local copy
`of that file.” (Prel. Resp. 9-11, citing to Ex. 1001, 1:24-27; 10:15-22; 11:60-
`12:13.) Oracle did not submit any interpretation as to this claim term.
`
`9
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`
`The claim term “update” has the following dictionary definition: “current
`information for updating something or an up-to-date version, account, or report.”1
`(Emphasis added.) In the context of file synchronization, we therefore construe the
`claim term “update” broadly, but reasonably, as information for updating a file or
`an up-to-date version of a file.
`We do not adopt Clouding’s narrow interpretation, as Clouding does not
`direct our attention to any special definition provided in the specification that
`would exclude an up-to-date version of a file from the meaning of the claim term
`“update.” While the specification provides examples where the second computer
`already maintains a version of the file which may suggest that the claim term
`“update” means “information for updating a file,” nonetheless it would be
`improper to import such a limitation from the specification into the claims. See
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (Although the specification often describes very specific
`embodiments of the invention, our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against
`confining the claims to those embodiments.). Furthermore, the term “an item” as
`proposed by Clouding in its construction is vague in the context of the claimed
`subject matter.
`
`3. “Command to copy” (Claims 1 and 23)
`
`Each of claims 1 and 23 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
`
`1 MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, http://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/update (last visited Apr. 10, 2013).
`10
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`computer’s copy of the current version of the file.” (Emphasis added.)
`Clouding urges the Board to construe that claim phrase to require “a copy
`command” be written in the update. (Prel. Resp. 4-6.) Clouding asserts that the
`examples provided in the specification of the ’799 patent indicate that “it is a copy
`command that is being referenced in the claims.” (Id., citing to Ex. 1001, 11:19-
`23; 11:57-12:13; figs. 10 and 11.) Clouding through its arguments related to prior
`art grounds of unpatentability, which we address infra, implies that a copy
`command must be written in a specific format or form to include the word “copy”
`(e.g., Prel. Resp. 36-38).
`Turning first to the claim language, it does not limit the claimed “command”
`to any specific format or form written in the update file for instructing the second
`computer to perform the function “to copy.” As ordinarily understood,
`“command” means “an instruction to a computer program that when issued by the
`user, causes an action to be carried out”; and “copy” means “to duplicate
`information and reproduce it in another part of a document, in a different file or
`memory location, or in a different medium.”2 With the context of the claimed
`subject matter and the specification of the ’799 patent in mind, we construe the
`claim phrase “a command to copy” to mean an instruction that causes the computer
`to duplicate information or data.
`We further disagree with Clouding that the specification of the ’799 patent
`supports its narrow interpretation. Clouding fails to point out a special definition
`in the specification. Clouding’s argument also seems to be relying upon a
`
`2 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002.
`11
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPPR2013-00073
`
`Patent 66,738,799
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`preferreed embodimment discloosed in thee ’799 pateent. (Prel. RResp. 5-6,
`
`citing to EEx.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1001, 11:57-12:133; fig. 11). Specificaally, Cloudiing relies uupon Figurre 11 of thee
`
`
`’799 paatent, reproduced beloow, that illustrates ann updated ffile that conntains a coopy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`commannd (id.).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HHowever, oother portioons of the sspecificatioon of the ’7799 patentt do not limmit
`
`the worrd “commaand” to anyy specific fformat or foform. (See
`
`
`e.g., Ex. 11001, 11:199-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23.) Foor example, Figure 100 of the ’7999 patent ddepicts a fl
`
`
`owchart foor generatinng
`
`
`
`
`an updaate file, andd is reproduuced as folllows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AAs illustrateed by Figuure 10 of thhe ’799 pattent, the neew segmennt signaturee is
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`compared to the old segment signature (Step 1002). (Ex. 1001, 11:3-4.) If there is
`a match, the method 1000 “writes a command in the update file to copy the old
`segment into the client computer’s copy of the current version of the subscription
`file at step 1003.” (Ex. 1001, 11:19-23, emphasis added.) Therefore, construing
`the claim phrase to require “a copy command” or limiting the claimed “command”
`to a specific format or form, as proposed by Clouding, would be importing the
`limitation from the specification into the claim improperly. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at
`321 (“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.”).
`
`4. “Command to insert” (Claims 1 and 23)
`
`Each of claims 1 and 23 recites the following claim phrase: “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.” (Emphasis added.)
`Similar to the claim phrase “a command to copy,” the claim language of the
`phrase “a command to insert” does not limit the claimed “command” to any
`specific format or form written in the update file for instructing the second
`computer to perform the function “to insert.” The claim term “insert” ordinarily is
`understood as “to put or introduce into the body of something.”3
`In the context of the specification of the ’799 patent and the claimed subject
`matter, we therefore interpret the claim phrase “a command to insert” to mean an
`instruction that causes the computer to put or introduce certain information or data
`
`3 MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, http://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/insert (last visited Apr. 10, 2013).
`13
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`into another file.
`
`5. “Determining whether the second computer has a latest version of a file”
`and “Generating an update, if the second computer does not have a latest
`version of the file” (Claim 37)
`
`Clouding urges the Board to construe these claim phrases cited in claim 37
`to require “that the second computer must currently possess some version of the
`file.” (Prel. Resp. 6-7.) In Clouding’s view, “[b]y articulating a process that
`requires a first computer to determine whether a second computer has a copy of a
`file (i.e., a latest version of that file), claim 37 necessarily implies that the second
`computer must already possess some version of the file.” (Id.) To support its
`contention, Clouding directs our attention to the specification of the ’799 patent
`(Ex. 1001, 1:24-27 “the present invention involves the synchronization of the local
`copies of files on user’s [sic] client computer hard disk to the current version of the
`files on a network drive”), and to its discussion regarding the “copy command.”
`(Prel. Resp. 4-6.)
`We decline to adopt Clouding’s proposed construction that requires the
`second computer to possess some version of the file prior to “transmitting the
`update from the first computer to the second computer.” With respect to the
`determining step, Clouding improperly substitute the claim phrase “a latest version
`of a file” with its proposed language “a copy of a file.” Also, the generating step
`does not require the second computer to possess a version of the file. As discussed
`previously, the claim term “update” is interpreted as information for updating a file
`or an up-to-date version of a file.
`
`14
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`
`Moreover, Clouding’s discussion regarding the “copy command” is
`inapposite for the interpretation of claim limitations in claim 37, as claim 37 does
`not recite a “copy” limitation. The “copy command” discussion is directed to
`claims 1 and 23, rather than claim 37.
`The portion of the specification cited by Clouding does not provide a special
`definition that supports Clouding’s proposed construction to require the additional
`limitation. Requiring the second computer to have a copy of the file would be
`importing a limitation from the specification into the claim, which we decline to
`do. In re Zletz, 893 at 321.
`
`6. “Without interaction” (Claims 1, 23, and 37)
`
`Oracle asserts that the term “without interaction” should be interpreted as
`limiting the interaction between first and second computers only for the purposes
`specifically recited in the claims. (Pet. 15.) In particular, Oracle argues that the
`claims do not require the computer systems to operate with complete independence
`from one another, but only “without interaction” for the purposes specified in the
`claims. Clouding did not submit any interpretation as to this claim term.
`We agree with Oracle’s interpretation as it is consistent with other claim
`language. For instance, the limitation “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” recited in claim 37 merely
`limits the first computer’s interaction with the second computer in the context of
`determining whether the second computer has a latest version of a file. By
`comparison, step (c) of claim 37 does not recite “without interaction,” and thus the
`
`15
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`first computer may interact with the second computer when transmitting the update
`to the second computer (see step (c) of claim 37).
`
`7. The Preambles (Claims 1, 23, and 37)
`
`The preamble of claim 37 provides that “[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.” And each preamble of claims 1
`and 23 recites the following:
`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 language in each preamble provides antecedent basis for many of the
`important terms in the respective claim body (e.g., “a first computer,” “an update,”
`“second computer,” “a copy of a current version of a file,” and “file segments”).
`Further, the language in each preamble expressly states that the transmission of the
`update permits the second computer to obtain the most recent version of a file,
`while the respective claim body may have set forth such a limitation implicitly.
`Because the bodies of independent claims 1, 23, and 37 depend on their
`preambles for completeness, we determine that the preambles of those claims are
`entitled to patentable weight. Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com,
`Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
`Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (A preamble limits the invention if it
`
`16
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`recites essential structure or steps, or if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and
`vitality” to the claim.).
`
`B. Claims 1, 23, 24, and 37 – Anticipated by Williams
`
`Oracle asserts that claims 1, 23, 24, and 37 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(e) as anticipated by Williams. (Pet. 46-54.) In support of this asserted
`ground of unpatentability, Oracle provides detailed explanations as to how each
`claim limitation is met by Williams, and a declaration of Dr. Andrew Grimshaw
`(“Dr. Grimshaw”). (Pet. 46-54, citing to Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 24, 35, 36, 46.) Upon
`review of Oracle’s analysis and supporting evidence, we determine that Oracle has
`demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect
`to claims 1, 23, 24, and 37 on the ground that these claims are anticipated by
`Williams.
`In its patent owner’s preliminary response, Clouding argues that Oracle fails
`to establish a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 23, and 24 are anticipated by
`Williams. (Prel. Resp. 35-40.) In particular, Clouding asserts that Williams does
`not describe “a command to copy” or “a command to insert” as recited in the
`claims. (Id.)
`We are not persuaded by Clouding’s arguments as they are based on narrow
`interpretations of the disputed claim phrases, which we decline to adopt (see
`supra). Furthermore, Clouding fails to consider Williams from the perspective of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir.
`1995); In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962) (A reference anticipates a
`claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its
`
`17
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPPR2013-00073
`
`Patent 66,738,799
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`possession of the iinvention.)).
`
`
`
`teachinggs in combbination wiith his ownn knowledgge of the p
`
`
`
`articular arrt and be inn
`
`
`
`
`Williamms
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WWilliams deescribes a ffine-graineed incremeental backuup system aand the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`process thereof. ((Ex. 1006, 19:26-22:114.) Figurre 25 of Wiilliams, repproduced
`
`
`
`
`
`
`below, iillustrates tthe backupp process ffor two netwwork compputers.
`
`5 of Williaams, each oof the netwwork compputers (E1 &&
`
`
`
`
`
`AAs shown inn Figure 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E2) has a version of the samme file (X aand Y). Whhen file X
`
`
`on compuuter E1 is
`Y using file Yn of file X uate versionct a duplicareconstrucer E2 will modifieed, comput
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and the incrementtal backup file D sentt from commputer E1 tto computeer E2, ratheer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`006, 19:29E1. (Ex. 10computer Ee X from ce entire filethan importing the
`
`-34; 19-633-
`20:2.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FFor further improvemment, Williaams indicatates that coppies of thee previous
`
` This meaans
`
`
`
`
`
`
`versionss of the filee system shhould be reetained. (EEx. 1006, 221:62-65.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that commputer E2 should maaintain bothh file Y (thhe previouss version) aand a
`
`
`duplicatte version of file X.
`
`18
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`As explained in Williams, computer E1 compares the hash of file Y against
`
`the hash of file X to determine whether file X has changed. (Ex. 1006, 19:44-46.)
`If file X has changed, computer E1 partitions file X into subblocks, and compares
`the hashes of these subblocks with the hashes of file Y 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 file 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 hashes appear in
`the shadow file S and which are known to appear as subblocks in file Y. (Ex.
`1006, 19:52-55.)
`
`To reconstruct a duplicate version of file X from file Y and incremental
`backup file D, computer E2 partitions file Y into subblocks and calculates the
`hashes of subblocks. (Ex. 1006, 19:66-20:2.) It then processes the incremental
`backup information, copying subblocks that were transmitted raw and looking up
`the references in file Y. (Ex. 1006, 20:2-5.)
`
`Whether Williams describes the disputed claim limitations
`With respect to Clouding’s argument that Williams does not describe
`“a command to copy,” this argument is based on Clouding’s narrow claim
`interpretation, which we decline to adopt. As discussed previously, we construe
`the claim phrase “a command to copy” as an instruction that causes the computer
`to duplicate information or data. Under the proper construction, the claim
`language does not limit the claimed “command” to a specific format or form.
`
`19
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00073
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`
`Clouding fails to recognize that, as explained in Williams, the subblocks of
`file Y are duplicated in computer E2, and that is caused by the instructions in the
`incremental backup file D. In that regard, Williams describes that the incremental
`backup file D contains instructions that cause the computer E2 to duplicate certain
`subblocks of file Y, so that a duplicate version of file X is reconstructed from file
`Y and the incremental backup file D, and computer E2 may maintain both file Y
`(the previous version) and the duplicate version of file X. (Ex. 1006, 19:26-22:14.)
`Additionally, Clouding’s arguments focus narrowly on limited portions of
`Williams that merely contain the word “copy,” without considering the entire
`disclosure of Williams’ fine-grained incremental backup process relied upon by
`Oracle. (See e.g., Prel. Resp. 36-37, citing to Ex. 1006, 19:29-34; 22:1-6.) Those
`arguments are misplaced because the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
`test to anticipate. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Expert testimony
`Clouding further contends that the testimony of Dr. Grimshaw does not
`support Oracle’s asserted ground of unpatentability, because Dr. Grimshaw’s
`testimony makes a reference to Miller and contains a drawing that is not part of
`Williams’s actual disclosure. (Prel. Resp. 36, citing to Ex. 1007, ¶ 35-36, the
`drawing on p. 26.) We are not persuaded by that argument.
`At the time of his declaration, Dr. Grimshaw was employed as a Professor of
`Computer Science at the University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied
`Science and Chief Architect for the NCSA-led eXtrem Science and Engineering
`Discovery Environment project. (Ex. 1007, ¶ 1.) Dr. Grimshaw holds a Ph.D. in
`
`20
`
`Unfied Patents Exhibit 1010
`Pg. 21
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPPR2013-00073
`
`Patent 66,738,799
`
`
`comput
`
`and has mmore than 2
`
`
`
`teaching aand researcch experiennce
`5 years of
`er science
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in distriibuted systems includding client--server andd peer-2-peeer interac
`tion, grid
`
`
`
`computing, high-pperformancce parallel computingg, compilerrs for paraallel systemms,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e that Dr. e concludeerefore, we2-10.) The. 1007, ¶¶ 2tems. (Ex.an
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
