`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`Entered: April 15, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RACKSPACE US, INC. and RACKSPACE HOSTING, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owners.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Rackspace US, Inc. and Rackspace Hosting, Inc. (collectively
`“Rackspace”) filed a petition (“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of
`claims 1-4, 29-33, 35, and 41 of U.S. Patent No. 5,978,791 (“the ’791
`patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 1. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3
`Communications, LLC (collectively “PersonalWeb”) timely filed a
`preliminary response (“Prelim. Resp.”). Paper 8. 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:
`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.
`
`Taking into account the arguments presented in PersonalWeb’s
`preliminary response, we conclude that the information presented in the
`petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Rackspace will
`prevail in challenging claims 1-4, 29-33, 35, and 41 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby
`authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 1-4, 29-33, 35,
`and 41 of the ’791 patent.
`
`2
`
`
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`Rackspace indicates that the ’791 patent was asserted against it in
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00659 (E.D.
`Tex.). Pet. 1. Rackspace also identifies numerous matters where
`PersonalWeb asserted claims of the ’791 patent against third parties. Id. at
`1-2.
`Rackspace further identifies eight other petitions for inter partes
`
`review filed by third parties that are related to this proceeding. Id. at 2-3.
`For instance, Rackspace identifies EMC Corp. and VMware, Inc. v.
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, IPR2013-00082, which involves the ’791 patent.
`Id. at 2. Rackspace also identifies four other petitions filed by Rackspace
`that request an inter partes review of the following patents: (1) U.S. Patent
`No. 6,415,280 B1 (Rackspace US, Inc. and Rackspace Hosting, Inc. v.
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00059); (2) U.S. Patent No.
`6,928,442 B2 (Rackspace US, Inc. and Rackspace Hosting, Inc. v.
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00066); (3) U.S. Patent No.
`7,802,310 B2 (Rackspace US, Inc. and Rackspace Hosting, Inc. v.
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC, IPR2014-00062), and (4) U.S. Patent No.
`8,099,420 B2(Rackspace US, Inc. and Rackspace Hosting, Inc. v.
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00058). Id. at 3. In addition to
`confirming the related matters discussed above, PersonalWeb indicates that
`the ’791 patent is the subject of a pending ex parte reexamination (U.S.
`Patent Application No. 90/012,931). Paper 6, 4.
`
`
`3
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`
`B. The Invention of the ’791 Patent
`
`The invention of the ’791 patent relates to a data processing system
`that identifies data items using substantially unique identifiers, otherwise
`referred to as True Names, which depend on all the data in the data item and
`only on the data in the data item. Ex. 1001, 1:14-18, 3:29-32, 6:6-10.
`According to the ’791 patent, the identity of a data item depends only on the
`data and is independent of the data item’s name, origin, location, address, or
`other information not directly derivable from the data associated therewith.
`Ex. 1001, 3:33-35. The invention of the ’791 patent also examines the
`identities of a plurality of data items in order to determine whether a
`particular data item is present in the data processing system. Ex. 1001,
`3:36-39.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Claims 1, 30, 33, and 35 are independent claims. Claims 2-4 and 29
`
`depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1. Claims 31, 32, and
`41 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 30. Independent
`claims 1, 30, 33, and 35 are illustrative of the invention of the ’791 patent
`and are reproduced below:
`
`1.
`In a data processing system, an apparatus
`comprising:
`
`identity means for determining, for any of a plurality of
`data items present in the system, a substantially unique
`identifier, the identifier being determined using and depending
`on all the data in the data item and only the data in the data
`item, whereby two identical data items in the system will have
`the same identifier; and
`
`4
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`
`existence means for determining whether a particular
`
`data item is present in the system, by examining the identifiers
`of the plurality of data items.
`
`Ex. 1001, 39:14-23.
`
`30. A method of identifying a data item present in a
`data processing system for subsequent access to the data item,
`the method comprising:
`
`determining a substantial unique identifier for the data
`item, the identifier depending on and being determined using all
`of the data in the data item and only the data in the data item,
`whereby two identical data items in the system will have the
`same identifier; and
`
`accessing a data item in the system using the identifier of
`the data item.
`
`Ex. 1001, 42:58-67.
`
`33. A method of duplicating a given data item present
`at a source location to a destination location in a data
`processing system, the method comprising:
`
`determining a substantially unique identifier for the given
`data item, the identifier depending on and being determined
`using all of the data in the data item and only the data in the
`data item, whereby two identical data items in the system will
`have the same identifier;
`
`determining, using the data identifier, whether the data
`item is present at the destination location; and
`
`based on the determining whether the data item is
`present, providing the destination location with the data item
`only if the data item is not present at the destination.
`
`Ex. 1001, 43:11-23.
`
`5
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`
`35. A method for determining whether a particular
`
`data item is present in a data processing system, the method
`comprising:
`
`(A) for each data item of a plurality of data items present
`
`in the system,
`
`
`(i) determining a substantially unique identifier
`
`
`for the data item, the identifier depending on and
`
`
`being determined using all the data in the data item
`
`
`and only the data in the data item, whereby two
`
`
`identical data items in the system will have the
`
`
`same identifier; and
`
`
`(ii) making and maintaining a set of identifiers of
`
`
`the plurality of data items; and
`
`(B) for the particular data item,
`
`
`(i) determining a particular substantially unique
`
`
`identifier for the data item, the identifier depending
`
`
`on and being determined using all of the data in the
`
`
`data item and only the data in the data item,
`
`
`whereby two identical data items in the system will
`
`
`have the same identifier; and
`
`
`(ii) determining whether the particular identifier is
`
`
`in the set of data items.
`
`Ex. 1001, 43:42-63.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Rackspace relies upon the following prior art references:
`Ex. 1003
`Woodhill
`US 5,649,196
`July 15, 1997
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(effectively filed July 1, 1993)
`
`Albert Langer, “Re: dl/describe (File Descriptions),” posted to the
`“alt.sources.d” and “comp.archives.admin” Newsgroups on Aug. 7, 1991,
`(Ex. 1004) (hereinafter “Langer”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Rackspace challenges claims 1-4, 29-33, 35, and 41 of the ’791 patent
`
`based on the alleged grounds of unpatentability set forth in the table below.
`Pet. 28-59.
`Basis
`Reference(s)
`§ 102(e)
`Woodhill
`§ 103(a)
`Woodhill
`Woodhill and Langer § 103(a)
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`1-4, 29-33, 35, and 41
`1-4, 29-33, 35, and 41
`1-4 and 29
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011), the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) construes claims by applying the
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We must be careful not to read limitations from a
`particular embodiment appearing in the specification into the claim if the
`claim language is broader than that embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If a feature in the disclosure is not necessary to
`give meaning to what the inventor means by a claim term, it would be
`“extraneous” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v.
`7
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du
`Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433
`(Fed. Cir. 1988).
`A. Claim Terms and Means-Plus Function Limitations
`Rackspace directs us to the Decision to Institute entered in IPR2013-
`
`00082, Paper 21 at 13-26, in which we construed a number of claim terms
`and means-plus-function limitations recited in claims 1-4, 29-33, and 41 of
`the ’791 patent. Pet. 19-23. With one exception, Rackspace agrees with the
`claim constructions proffered in the Decision to Institute in IPR2013-00082
`and contends that we should adopt those claim constructions in this
`proceeding. Id. at 23. Rackspace only disputes our claim construction of
`the “data associating means for making and maintaining, for a data item in
`the system, an association between the data item and the identifier of the
`data item,” as recited in dependent claim 4. Id. at 23-24; IPR2013-00082,
`Paper 21, 23-25.
`1. Claim Terms and Means-Plus Function Limitations
`Previously Construed by the Board
`
`The claim constructions proffered in the Decision to Institute in
`
`IPR2013-00082 that Rackspace urges should be adopted in this proceeding
`are set forth in the table below. We will address separately Rackspace’s
`contention regarding the “data associating means for making and
`maintaining, for a data item in the system, an association between the data
`item and the identifier of the data item,” as recited in dependent claim 4.
`
`
`8
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1-4, 30-33, and 35
`
`Claims Terms or
`Means-plus-Function
`Limitations1
`“substantially unique
`identifier”
`
`33 and 41
`
`“True Name, data
`identity, and data
`identifier”
`1-4, 29-33, 35, and 41 “data” and “data item”
`
`The Board’s Claim
`Construction in IPR2013-
`00082
`“an identity for a data item
`generated being determined
`using and depending on all
`of the data in the data item,
`and only the data in the
`data item”
`“substantially unique data
`identifier for a particular
`item”
`“‘sequence of bits,’ which
`includes one of the
`following: (1) the contents
`of the file; (2) a portion of
`a file; (3) a page in
`memory; (4) an object in an
`object-oriented program;
`(5) a digital message; (6) a
`digital scanned image; (7) a
`part of a video or audio
`signal; (8) a directory; (9) a
`record in a database; (10) a
`location in memory or on a
`physical device; and (11)
`any other entity which can
`be represented by a
`sequence of bits”
`
`
`1 Each means-plus-function limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 because
`each limitation uses the term “means for,” the term “means for” is modified
`by functional language, and the term “means for” is not modified by
`sufficient structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed function.
`9
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2 and 3
`
`“identity means for
`determining, for any
`of a plurality of data
`items present in the
`system, a substantially
`unique identifier, the
`identifier being
`determined using and
`depending on all of
`the data in the data
`item and only the data
`in the data item,
`whereby two identical
`data items in the
`system will have the
`same identifier”
`
`“existence means for
`determining whether a
`particular data item is
`present in the system,
`by examining the
`identifiers of the
`plurality of data
`items”
`
`“local existence means
`for determining
`whether an instance of
`a particular data item
`10
`
`Function: “determining,
`for any of a plurality of
`data items present in the
`system, a substantially
`unique identifier, the
`identifier being determined
`using and depending on all
`of the data in the data item
`and only the data in the
`data item, whereby two
`identical data items in the
`system will have the same
`identifier”
`
`Corresponding Structure:
`a data processor
`programmed to perform a
`hash function, e.g., MD5 or
`SHA
`Function: “determining
`whether a particular data
`item is present in the
`system, by examining the
`identifiers of the plurality
`of data items
`
`Corresponding Structure:
`a data processor
`programmed according to
`step S232 illustrated in
`Figure 11 or steps S260
`illustrated in Figure 14
`Function: “determining
`whether an instance of a
`particular data item is
`present at a particular
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`
`4
`
`is present at a
`particular location in
`the system, based on
`the identifier of the
`data item”
`
`“accessing means for
`accessing a particular
`data item using the
`identifier of the data
`item”
`
`location in the system,
`based on the identifier of
`the data item”
`
`Corresponding Structure:
`a data processor
`programmed according to
`step S260 illustrated in
`Figure 14
`Function: “accessing a
`particular data item using
`the identifier of the data
`item”
`
`Corresponding Structure:
`a processor programmed
`according to steps S292
`and S294 illustrated in
`Figure 17(a)
`
`
`
`Based on our review of the specification of the ’791 patent, we
`determine that the claim constructions outlined above are consistent with
`their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one with
`ordinary skill in the art, and there is nothing in the specification of the ’791
`patent to suggest that any other claim constructions are appropriate.
`2. “data associating means for making and maintaining, for a data
`item in the system, an association between the data item and the
`identifier of the data item” (claim 4)
`
`Rackspace contends that, in the Decision to Institute in IPR2013-
`00082, Paper 21 at 23-25, our identification of corresponding structure in the
`specification of the ’791 patent emphasizes aspects of decision logic
`11
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`(Ex. 1001, fig. 11, steps S237-S239) that properly correspond to the claimed
`“maintaining” function, but omits other aspects of that same decision flow
`(Ex. 1001, fig. 11, step S236) that properly correspond to the claimed
`“making” function. Pet. 23-24. Therefore, Rackspace argues that the
`corresponding structure for performing the recited function of “making and
`maintaining, for a data item in the system, an association between the data
`item and the identifier of the data item” includes the following:
`A data processor 102 (see FIGs. 1(a), 1(b)) programmed to
`calculate the substantially unique identifier for a data item (see
`step S230, Fig. 11) and, if a corresponding substantially unique
`identifier entry does not yet exist in a registry thereof (see step
`S232, Fig. 11), then create such an entry (see step S236, Fig.
`11) to associate the substantially unique identifier with the data
`item. If a corresponding substantially unique identifier entry
`already exists in the registry, check the entry [to see if] an
`existing association to a data item has been made (see step
`S237, Fig. 11) and, if not, store the association in the registry
`entry (see S239, Fig. 11).
`
`Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:64-6:19, 9:36-10:10, 14:40-15:4, fig. 11, steps
`S230, S232, and S236-239; see also Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 42-43.) PersonalWeb does
`not dispute the claim construction proposed by Rackspace. Nevertheless, we
`do not agree with Rackspace.
`
`Rackspace’s argument is predicated on the notion that the
`corresponding structure we identified in the Decision to Institute in
`IPR2013-00082, Paper 21 at 25, only includes a data processor programmed
`according to steps S230, S232, and S237-S239 illustrated in Figure 11, and
`does not include programming the data processor according to step S236
`
`12
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`illustrated in Figure 11. With respect to step S236 illustrated in Figure 11,
`the ’791 patent discloses that “[i]f it is determined (in step S232) that no
`True Name entry exists in the True File registry 126, then, in Step S236,
`create a new entry in the True File registry 126 for this True Name.”
`Ex. 1001, 14:61-63. We note that a True Name for a data file must be
`calculated before it can be compared against True File Registry 126 in order
`to determine if the True Name already exists. Therefore, contrary to
`Rackspace’s argument, the claimed “making” function does not correspond
`to step S236 illustrated in Figure 11, but instead corresponds to step S230
`illustrated in Figure 11, which includes “determin[ing] the True Name of the
`data item corresponding to the given scratch File ID using the Calculate
`True Name primitive mechanism (Step S230).” Ex. 1001, 14:51-53.
`
`Accordingly, we maintain that the corresponding structure for
`performing the recited function of “making and maintaining, for a data item
`in the system, an association between the data item and the identifier of the
`data item” is “a data processor programmed according to steps S230, S232,
`and S237-S239 illustrated in Figure 11.” IPR2013-00082, Paper 21, 25.
`3. “assimilating a new data item into the system, by determining the
`identifier of the new data item and associating the new data item with
`its identifier” (claim 32)
`
`Rackspace contends that the claim phrase “assimilating a new data
`
`item into the system, by determining the identifier of the new data item and
`associating the new data item with its identifier” should be construed to
`mean the following:
`
`13
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`
`(1) determining a substantially unique identifier for a new data
`item, (2) creating or updating a registry entry to associate the
`substantially unique identifier with the data item, and (3) if the
`new data item is a duplicate of an existing data item,
`eliminating the duplicate.
`
`Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 44). To support its claim construction, Petitioner
`relies upon Figure 11 and its corresponding description in the specification
`of the ’791 patent, as well as the declaration of Dr. Melvin Ray Mercer. Id.
`at 26-27 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:40-15:4, fig. 11; Ex. 1007 ¶ 44). PersonalWeb
`does not dispute the claim construction proposed by Rackspace.
`Nevertheless, we do not agree with Rackspace.
`The claim construction proposed by Rackspace narrowly focuses on
`the embodiment illustrated in Figure 11 and, in particular, the corresponding
`discussion regarding a mechanism for assimilating a data item into a file
`system. Upon reviewing the description of Figure 11 in the specification of
`the ’791 patent, we are not persuaded that the claimed “assimilating a new
`data item into the system, by determining the identifier of the new data item
`and associating the new data item with its identifier” should be limited to the
`three steps outlined in the claim construction proposed by Rackspace. In
`other words, Rackspace attempts to import limitations from the embodiment
`illustrated in Figure 11 into dependent claim 32 even though the claim
`language is broader than that embodiment. Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
`We decline to adopt such a construction as the broadest reasonable
`interpretation because it would import extraneous limitations into dependent
`claim 32. The three steps outlined in the claim construction proposed by
`
`14
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`Rackspace are not necessary to give meaning to the claimed “assimilating a
`new data item into the system, by determining the identifier of the new data
`item and associating the new data item with its identifier,” and, therefore,
`such limitations should not be read into dependent claim 32. Renishaw, 158
`F.3d at 1249.
`We cannot discern how the argument presented by Rackspace adds
`any clarity to the claimed “assimilating a new data item into the system, by
`determining the identifier of the new data item and associating the new data
`item with its identifier,” which, in our view, is easy to understand without
`explanation. For purposes of this decision, we do not believe an explicit
`construction is necessary beyond its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Ground of Unpatentability Based on Woodhill
`Rackspace contends that claims 1-4, 29-33, 35, and 41 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Woodhill. Pet. 28-
`54. In particular, Rackspace explains how Woodhill allegedly describes the
`claimed subject matter and relies upon the declaration of Dr. Mercer
`(Ex. 1007) to support its positions. Id. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`explanations and supporting evidence.
`
`We begin our analysis with a general discussion of Woodhill and then
`we turn to the positions taken by Rackspace with respect to the claimed
`subject matter recited in independent claim 1.
`
`
`
`15
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 15 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00057
`
`
`Patennt 5,978,7991
`
`
`
`
`
`11. Woodhilll
`ributed and methood for distr
`
`
`
`Woodhill generallyy relates too a system
`
`
`es a remotte
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that includer system ted computea networkeement on astoraage manag
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`backkup file serrver in commmunicatioon with onee or more llocal area nnetworks.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 11003, 1:11-17. Figurre 1 of Wooodhill, whhich is reprroduced be
`low,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`illustrates netwworked commputer systtem 10. Exx. 1003, 2::56-58.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As showwn in Figurre 1 of Wooodhill, remmote backuup file serv
`er 12
`
`
`13, wide aarea
`
`
`
`
`
`a data path work 14 viae area netwwith widecommmunicates
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`netwwork 14 commmunicatiions with aa plurality oof local areea networkks 16 via
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`workstatioons 18 andd local commputers 20 vvia data paaths 17. Exx. 1003,
`user
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`data paths 15, aand each loocal area nnetwork 166 communiications wiith multiplee
`
`0 omputer 20ach local cove 19 on eah disk drivace on eachstorage spa3:12-30. The s
`
`16
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 16 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`003, 3:31-e 2. Ex. 10d in Figurey illustratede hierarchycording theis alllocated acc
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00057
`
`
`Patennt 5,978,7991
`
`
`44.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 22 of Woodhhill, which is reproduuced beloww, illustratees
`
`
`
`
`
`
`t allocates ram 24 thatager progrorage ManDistrributed Sto
`
`storage sppace on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`eachh of the storrage devices in networked commputer systeem 10. Exx. 1003,
`
`2:59-62.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As showwn in Figurre 2 of Wooodhill, Disstributed Sttorage Mannager
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proggram 24 buuilds and mmaintains Fiile Databasse 25 on thhe one or mmore disk
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`drivees 19 on eaach local computer 20 in netwoorked compputer systeem 10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a colllection of data streamms. Ex. 10003, 4:13-115. Woodhhill define
`s a data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`streaam as a distinct collecction of daata within aa file that mmay changge
`
`
`
`
`indeppendently from otherr distinct ccollections
`
`
`of data wiithin the fille.
`17
`
`Ex. 11003, 3:45-49. Distrributed Stoorage Manaager prograam 24 viewws a file ass
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 17 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00057
`
`
`Patennt 5,978,7991
`
`
`
`
`-18. Depeending on tthe size of
`
`Ex. 11003, 4:15
`
`the data sttream, Disttributed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Storaage Managger programm 24 dividdes each daata stream iinto one orr more
`
`
`
`binarry objects. Ex. 1003, 4:21-30.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 33 of Woodhhill, which is reproduuced beloww, illustratees File
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, gram 24. Enager progtorage Mantributed Stsed by DistDataabase 25 us
`
`2:63-64.
`
`des the e 25 include Databaseodhill, Filere 3 of WooAs showwn in Figur
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`folloowing threee levels of records orrganized acccording too a predefinned
`
`
`
`
`Record 34; ification Rhieraarchy: (1) File Identi
`
`(2) Backupp Instance
`
`Record 422;
`03, 3:54-4
`
`
`
`
`
`and (3) Binary Object Ideentificationn Record 558. Ex. 10
`:47. The
`
`18
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 18 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`Binary Object Identification Record 58 includes, amongst other things,
`Binary Object Identifier 74 that comprises Binary Object Size 64, Binary
`Object CRC32 66, Binary Object LRC 68, and Binary Object Hash 70.
`Ex. 1003, 4:45-47, 7:64-8:1. Binary Object Identifier 74 is a unique
`identifier for each binary object that is backed up. Ex. 1003, 4:45-47.
`
`Although Woodhill discloses calculating Binary Object Identifier 74
`in various ways, e.g., using a Binary Hash algorithm (Ex.1003, 8:1-31), the
`key notion is that Binary Object Identifier 74 is calculated from the content
`of the data instead of from an external or arbitrary source. Ex. 1003, 8:38-
`42. In other words, Woodhill recognizes that the critical feature in creating
`Binary Object Identifier 74 is that the identifier should be based on the
`contents of the binary object such that Binary Object Identifier 74 changes
`when the contents of the binary object changes. Ex. 1003, 8:58-62.
`Therefore, duplicate binary objects, even if resident on different types of
`computers in a network, may be recognized by their identical Binary Object
`Identifiers 74. Ex. 1003, 8:62-65.
`
`Woodhill discloses that Distributed Storage Manager program 24
`performs two backup operations concurrently. Ex. 1003, 9:30-31. First,
`Distributed Storage Manager program 24 stores a compressed copy of each
`binary object that it needs to restore disk drives 19 on each local computer
`20 somewhere on local area network 16 other than on local computer 20
`where the binary object originally resided. Ex. 1003, 9:31-36. Second,
`Distributed Storage Manager program 24 transmits new or changed binary
`objects to remote backup file server 12. Ex. 1003, 9:36-38.
`
`19
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 19 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`Woodhill further discloses that Distributed Storage Manager program
`
`24 performs auditing and reporting functions on a periodic basis to ensure
`that binary objects, which already have been backed up, may be restored.
`Ex. 1003, 18:11-13. Distributed Storage Manager program 24 initiates a
`restore of a randomly selected binary object identified by a Binary Object
`Identification Record 58 stored in File Database 25. Ex. 1003, 18:16-19.
`2. Rackspace’s Contentions
`The explanations and supporting evidence presented by Rackspace
`
`that explain how Woodhill describes the claimed subject matter recited in
`independent claim 1 have merit and otherwise are unrebutted by
`PersonalWeb. For instance, Rackspace takes the position that Woodhill’s
`Distributed Storage Manager program 24 executes on each local computer
`20 in network computer system 10. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:62-5:11;
`Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 50-53). In particular, Rackspace asserts that Woodhill’s
`Distributed Storage Manager program 24 creates a Binary Object
`Identification Record 58, which includes, amongst other things, Binary
`Object Identifier 74 used to identify uniquely a binary object. Id. at 29-30
`(citing Ex. 1003, 7:60-8:65, fig. 5A, step 138).
`
`According to Rackspace, Dr. Mercer confirms that Binary Object
`Identifier 74, as well as Binary Object Hash field 70, Binary Object LRC
`field 68, and Binary Object CRC32 field 66, are determined using and
`depending on all of the data in the data item and only the data in the data
`item. Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 53). Dr. Mercer further confirms that,
`based on Woodhill’s disclosure of computing binary object identifier fields,
`
`20
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 20 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`two identical data items will have the same identifier. Id. Therefore,
`Rackspace contends that Woodhill describes the following claim limitation
`recited in independent claim 1:
`identity means for determining, for any of a plurality of data
`items present in the system, a substantially unique identifier, the
`identifier being determined using and depending on all the data
`in the data item and only the data in the data item, whereby two
`identical data items in the system will have the same identifier.
`
`
`Id.
`Next, Rackspace takes the position that Woodhill’s Distributed
`
`Storage Manager program 24 uses Binary Object Identifier 74 to determine
`whether the binary object associated therewith already has been backed up in
`in network computer system 10. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:66-9:28, fig. 5A,
`step 140; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 54-57). In particular, Rackspace asserts that
`Woodhill’s Distributed Storage Manager program 24 identifies particular
`binary objects that must be backed up during a current backup cycle, e.g.,
`only binary objects associated with a file that has been changed must be
`backed up. Id.
`
`According to Rackspace, Dr. Mercer confirms that Woodhill’s
`disclosure of determining whether to back up a binary object necessarily
`encompasses determining whether the binary object is present already in the
`next most recent backup. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 57.) Rackspace argues that,
`similar to the disclosure in the ’791 patent of comparing the “substantially
`unique identifier” or True Name against contents of True File registry 126,
`Woodhill’s network computer system 10 compares Binary Object Identifier
`
`21
`
`UNIFIED V PERSONAL WEB; LEVEL 3 COMM - EXH 1004 -Page 21 of 27
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00057
`Patent 5,978,791
`
`74 against the contents of File Database 25. Id. at 31-32 (citing Ex. 1003,
`9:7-22). Dr. Mercer further confirms that such a comparison determines
`whether a particular item is present in Woodhill’s network computer system
`10. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 57). Therefore, Rackspace contends that
`Woodhill describes the “existence means for determining whether a
`particular data item is present in the system, by examining the identifiers of
`the plurality of data items,” as recited in independent claim 1. Id.
`
`Based on the record before us, Rackspace has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that independent claim 1
`is anticipated by Woodhill. In addition, the explanations and supporting
`evidence presented by Rackspace that explain how Woodhill describes the
`claimed subject mat