throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket