Page 1
`
`2013 WL 8595566 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd.)
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.)
`
`*1 EMC CORPORATION AND VMWARE, INC. PETITIONER
`v.
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC PATENT OWNER
`
`Case IPR2013-00087(JYC)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,001,096 B2
`
`May 17, 2013
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Peter Dichiara
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`Peter.Dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`
`Updeep S. Gill
`
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`jar@nixonvan.com
`usg@nixonvan.com
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER
`Administrative Patent Judges
`TURNER
`Administrative Patent Judge
`
`DECISION
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc. (“EMC”) filed a Petition (“Pet.,” Paper No. 5) requesting inter partes re-
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2009-1
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`view of claims 1, 2, 81, and 83 of U.S. Patent No. 8,001,096 B2 (“the '096 Patent”). Patent owner, PersonalWeb
`Technologies LLC (“PersonalWeb”), filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.,” Paper No. 11). 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 un-
`der 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 PersonalWeb's Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Pe-
`tition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that EMC will prevail in challenging claims 1, 2, 81, and
`83 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an inter partes re-
`view to be instituted as to claims 1, 2, 81, and 83 of the '096 Patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`EMC indicates that the '096 Patent was asserted against it in PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. EMC Corpora-
`tion and VMware, Inc., Case No. 6:11-cv-00660-LED, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
`of Texas (Pet. 1).
`
`*2 EMC also filed five other Petitions seeking inter partes review of the following patents: U.S. Patent No.
`5,978,791 (IPR2013-00082), U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280 (IPR2013-00083), U.S. Patent No. 7,945,544
`(IPR2013-00084), U.S. Patent No.
`7,945,539
`(IPR2013-00085),
`and U.S. Patent No.
`7,949,662
`(IPR2013-00086) (Id.). According to EMC, those patents and the '096 Patent share a common disclosure (Id
`.(citing to EX 1008)).
`
`B. The Invention of the '096 Patent (EX 1001)
`
`The invention of the '096 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, Spec. 1:44-48, 3:52-58, and 6:20-24). According to the '096 Patent, the
`identity of a data item depends only on the data and is independent of the data item's name, origin, location, ad-
`dress, or other information not directly derivable from the data associated therewith (EX 1001, Spec. 3:52-58).
`The invention of the '096 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, Spec. 3:59-62).
`
`Figures 1(a) and 1(b) illustrate the data processing system that implements the invention of the '096 Patent (EX
`1001, Spec. 5:9-13). Figure 1(a) is reproduced below:
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2009-2
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
`Figure 1(a) illustrates the data processing system
`
`The Specification of the '096 Patent discloses that the data processing system (100) includes one or more pro-
`cessors (102) and various storage devices (104) connected via bus (106) (EX 1001, Spec 5:14-19).
`
`*3 Figure 1(b) is reproduced below:
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2009-3
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
`Figure 1(b) illustrates a typical data processor in the data processing system
`
`The Specification of the '096 Patent discloses that each processor (102) includes a central processing unit (108),
`memory (110), and one or more local storage devices (112) connected via an internal bus (114) (EX 1001, Spec.
`5:14-19). The memory (110) in each processor (102) stores data structures that are either local to the processor
`itself or shared amongst multiple processors in the data processing system (EX 1001, Spec. 8:7-17).
`
`The Specification of the '096 Patent further discloses accessing data items by referencing their identities or True
`Names independent of their present location in the data processing system (EX 1001, Spec. 33:28-30). The actu-
`al data item or True file corresponding to a given data identifier or True Name is capable of residing anywhere
`on the data processing system, i.e., locally, remotely, offline, etc. (EX 1001, Spec. 33:30-32). If a requested data
`item or True File is local with respect to the data processing system, a prospective user can access the data in the
`True File (EX 1001, Spec. 33:32-34). If a requested data item or True File is not local with respect to the data
`processing system, a prospective user may use the True File registry to determine the location of copies of the
`True File according to its given True Name (EX 1001, Spec. 33:34-38). However, if for some reason a prospect-
`ive user cannot locate a copy of the requested data item or True File, the processor employed by the user may in-
`voke the Request True File remote mechanism to submit a general request for the data item or True File to all
`the processors in the data processing system (EX 1001, Spec. 34:42-48).
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2009-4
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`
`Independent claim 1, along with claims 2, 81, and 83, is challenged by EMC in this inter partes review and is re-
`produced below:
`1. A computer-implemented method operable in a file system comprising a plurality of servers, the method
`comprising the steps of:
`(A) adding a data item to the file system, the data item consisting of a sequence of non-overlapping
`parts, each part consisting of a corresponding sequence of bits, by:
`(A1) for each part in said sequence of parts, determining, using hardware in combination with soft-
`ware, a corresponding digital part identifier, wherein each said digital part identifier for each said
`part is determined based at least in part on a first function of all of the bits in the sequence of bits
`comprising the corresponding part, the first function comprising a first hash function;
`(A2) determining, using a second function, a digital identifier for the data item, said digital data
`item identifier being based, at least in part, on the contents of the data item, wherein two identical
`data items in the file system will have the same digital data item identifier in the file system, said
`second function comprising a second hash function;
`*4 (A3) storing each part in said sequence of parts on multiple servers of said plurality of servers in
`the file system;
`(A4) storing first mapping data that maps the digital data item identifier of the data item to the di-
`gital part identifiers of the parts comprising the data item;
`(A5) storing second mapping data that maps the digital part identifier of each part in said sequence
`of parts to corresponding location data that identifies which of the plurality of servers in the file
`system stores the corresponding part; and
`(B) repeating step (A) for each of a plurality of data items; and
`(C) attempting to access a particular data item in the file system by:
`(C1) obtaining a particular digital data item identifier of the particular data item, said particular di-
`gital data item identifier of said particular data item being included in an attempt to access said par-
`ticular data item in said file system;
`(C2) attempting to match, using hardware in combination with software, said particular digital data
`item identifier of said particular data item with a digital data item identifier in said first mapping
`data; and
`(C3) based at least in part on said attempting to match in step (C2), when said particular digital data
`item identifier obtained in step (C1) corresponds to an identifier in said first mapping data, using
`said first mapping data to determine a digital part identifier of each part comprising the particular
`data item;
`(C4) using said second mapping data and at least one digital part identifier determined in step (C3)
`to determine location data that identifies which of the plurality of servers in the file system stores
`the corresponding at least one part of the particular data item;
`(C5) attempting to access at least one part of the particular data item at one or more servers identi-
`fied in step (C4) as storing said at least one part.
`
`EMC relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Mahadev Satyanarayanan, “Scalable, Secure, and Highly Available Distributed File Access,” 23 IEEE Com-
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2009-5
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`puter 9-21 (May 1990)(EX 1005)(hereinafter ““Satyanarayanan”).
`
`Albert Langer, “Re: dl/describe (File descriptions),” post to the ““alt.sources.d” and “comp.archives.admin”
`newsgroups on Aug. 7, 1991 (EX 1003) (hereinafter “Langer”).
`
`Frederick W. Kantor, “FWKCS(TM) Contents_Signature System Version 1.22,” Zipfile FWKCS122.ZIP (Aug.
`10, 1993)(EX 1004)(hereinafter “Kantor”).
`
`Shirley Browne et al. “Location-Independent Naming for Virtual Distributed Software Repositories,” University
`of Tennessee Technical Report CS-95-278 (Feb. 1995)(EX 1002)(hereinafter “Browne”).
`
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`EMC seeks to have canceled independent claims 1, 2, 81, and 83 of the '096 Patent based on the following al-
`leged grounds of unpatentability:
`
`*5 1. Claims 1, 2, 81, and 83 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Browne (Pet. 34-40);
`
`2. Claims 1, 2, 81, and 83 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Langer and
`Satyanarayanan (Id. at 40-46); and
`
`3. Claims 1, 2, 81, and 83 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kantor and
`Satyanarayanan (Id. at 47-54).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`As a first step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a trial, we determine the meaning of the
`claims. In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable con-
`struction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broad-
`est reasonable construction standard, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
`with the specification, and the claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be inter-
`preted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`2004). This means that the words of the claim will be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is in-
`consistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In this regard, an inventor is
`entitled to be his or her own lexicographer of patent claim terms by providing a definition of the term in the spe-
`cification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994).
`
`In this proceeding, analysis of the grounds of unpatentability asserted by EMC depends on the meaning of the
`claim term “data item” as recited in claim 1 (i.e., “a particular data item”).
`
`Each of the parties proposed a claim construction, and the parties appear to agree that the term “data item” has
`the meaning of “sequence of bits.” (Pet. 6-7; Prel. Resp. 3). In particular, PersonalWeb asserts that the Specific-
`ation of the '096 Patent provides a special definition for the term. (Prel. Resp. 3, citing EX 1001, 2:16-17 “the
`terms “data” and “data item” as used herein refer to sequences of bits.”) EMC also directs our attention to the
`following portions of the specification of the '096 Patent (Pet. 6-7):
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2009-6
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 7
`
`Thus a data item may be the contents of a file, a portion of a file, a page in memory, an object in an object-
`oriented program, a digital message, a digital scanned image, a part of a video or audio signal, or any other
`entity which can be represented by a sequence of bits.
`*6 (EX 1001, 2:17-21, emphasis added.)
`In all of the prior data processing systems the names or identifiers provided to identify data items (the data
`items being files, directories, records in the database, objects in object-oriented programming, locations in
`memory or on a physical device, or the like) are always defined relative to a specific context.
`(EX 1001, 2:26-31, emphasis added.)
`
`Based on our review of the specification of the '096 Patent, we agree with the parties that the claim term “data
`item” means “sequence of bits,” but also clarify that the meaning includes one of the following: (1) the contents
`of a 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 data-
`base; (10) a location in memory, on a physical device, or the like; and (11) any other entity which can be repres-
`ented by a sequence of bits.
`
`B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Ground of Unpatentability Kantor & Satyanarayanan
`
`EMC contends that claims 1, 2, 81, and 83 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kantor and Satyanaray-
`anan (Pet. 47-54). EMC relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Douglas W. Clark (EX 1009) to support its positions
`and an attached claim chart (EX 1029) to explain where Kantor in view of Satyanarayanan describes the claimed
`subject matter recited in claims 1, 2, 81, and 83. EMC contends that Kantor is a published manual that describes
`a software program called the Frederick W. Kantor Contents Signature System Version 1.22 (“FWKCS”) (Pet.
`47, citing to EX 1004, Title Page).
`
`Whether Kantor is a “Printed Publication”
`In its Preliminary Response, PersonalWeb does not dispute the substantive disclosure of Kantor, but rather urges
`the Board to deny the asserted grounds of unpatentability on the basis that Kantor is not a prior art “printed pub-
`lication” (Prel. Resp. 4-10). In particular, PersonalWeb argues that EMC has presented no testimony, declara-
`tion, or other evidence that Kantor “was catalogued or indexed in a meaningful way prior to the critical date, or
`that [it] would have turned up in a customary search prior to the critical date, or that persons interested and or-
`dinarily skilled in the art exercising reasonable diligence would have located [it] prior to the critical date” (Prel.
`Resp. 6).
`
`We are not persuaded by PersonalWeb's arguments. Rather, on this record, we determine that EMC has made a
`threshold showing to establish that Kantor is a ““printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`As a consequence, Kantor is available as prior art for the purposes of this decision to demonstrate that claims 1,
`2, 81, and 83 of the '096 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`*7 To determine whether to deny a ground on the basis that a reference is not a “printed publication,” we decide
`each case on the basis of its own facts. More specifically, the determination of whether a given reference quali-
`fies as a prior art “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances sur-
`rounding the reference's disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
`2004).
`
`Here, EMC asserts that Kantor has been publicly available since August 1993, which is one year before April
`11, 1995, the earliest priority date claimed by the '096 Patent (Pet. 5, citing to EX 1004). EMC also proffers the
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2009-7
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
`following explanation (id.):
`Kantor's FWKCS user manual has been publicly and freely available continuously since August 1993. Kan-
`tor distributed the user manual with the FWKCS program as shareware and posted it online to electronic
`Bulletin Board Systems including “The Invention Factory” and “Channel 1” for an extended period of time,
`where it could be downloaded by anyone. As such, the document was accessible to others in the relevant
`community of BBS users and system operators. (See Kantor at 3; see also 158-59; Ex. 1004.)
`
`Further, the title page of Kantor clearly shows the posted date of August 10, 1993. (EX 1004, Title Page
`“FWKCS (TM) Contents_Signature System[,] Version 1.22[,] 1993 August 10 [,] (C) Copyright Frederick W.
`Kantor 1988-1993.”Emphasis added.) Kantor also provides the following:
`The FWKCS(TM) Contents_Signature System has become a robust platform for supporting con-
`tents_signature functions. FWKCS provides many functions and options for application in a public, com-
`mercial, school, institutional, or governmental environment. Extensive technical support is of special value
`in helping such users to benefit more fully from these many features.
`Registered FWKCS hobby BBS users are able to receive a modest amount of assistance, and are invited to
`participate in the FWKCS conference on The Invention Factory BBS, echoed via Execnet.
`Commercial, school, institutional, and governmental users, with their special support needs, are invited to
`discuss terms for obtaining such assistance.
`To get a new version of FWKCS, download FWKCSnnn.ZIP from The Invention Factory BBS, where nnn
`is the new version number without a decimal point. These special downloads are available at no fee, from a
`43_line hunt_up group of USR Dual Standard modems, at 2400-16800 bits/sec (including V32.bis).
`(EX 1004, 158-159.)
`
`Given that disclosure, Kantor appears to convey that the reference was posted on a publically accessible site
`well known to those interested in the art - the electronic Bulletin Board Systems - and could be downloaded and
`retrieved from that site. In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (CCPA 1981) (An electronic publication, including an
`on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a “printed publication” “upon a satisfactory showing
`that the document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and
`ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and
`comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimenta-
`tion.”).
`
`*8 PersonalWeb cites Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00042 (Paper No. 16), at *35-36
`(PTAB Feb. 22, 2013) for the propositions that any asserted grounds of unpatentability based on an electronic
`reference should be denied, unless the reference is presented in the petition with a declaration from one of the
`authors or other evidence that someone accessed or received the reference prior to the critical date (Prel. Resp.
`4-6). PersonalWeb's reliance on Synopsys is misplaced because Synopsys did not involve a reference, such as
`Kantor, that has a posted date. In fact, Synopsys involves a brochure that did not include any indication of when
`it was created or whether it was disseminated publicly, and the only evidence submitted by the petitioner was
`that it was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement filed in an unpublished patent application. Synopsys,
`IPR2012-00042 (Paper No. 16), at *35.
`
`As to PersonalWeb's argument that there is no evidence that Kantor was catalogued or indexed in a meaningful
`way prior to the critical date, we are not convinced. “[W]hile often relevant to public accessibility, evidence of
`indexing is not an absolute prerequisite to establishing online references [] as printed publications within the pri-
`or art.”Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc., 698 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2009-8
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 9
`
`PersonalWeb further argues that Kantor is inadmissible evidence as the copy of Kantor submitted by EMC has
`not been authenticated or certified (Prel. Resp. 8). In that regard, PersonalWeb has not followed the proper pro-
`cedures for objecting to and/or excluding evidence. See37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b); LKQ Corp. v. Clearlamp, LLC,
`IPR2013-00020 (Paper No. 17), at *3-4 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013).
`
`Under the procedure set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), when a party objects to evidence that was submitted dur-
`ing a preliminary proceeding, such an objection must be served within ten business days of the institution of tri-
`al. The objection to the evidence must identify the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow
`correction in the form of supplemental evidence. This process allows the party relying on the evidence to which
`an objection is served timely, the opportunity to correct, by serving supplemental evidence within so many days
`of the service of the objection. If, upon receiving the supplemental evidence, the opposing party is still of the
`opinion that the evidence is inadmissible, the opposing party may file a motion to exclude such evidence. The
`time for filing a motion to exclude is typically several months into a trial. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768-69, Scheduling Order - Due Date 4. Therefore, PersonalWeb will have full
`opportunity to object, serve, and reconsider any supplemental evidence and, finally, file a motion to exclude
`evidence.
`
`Obviousness
`*9 Kantor describes a method of identifying duplicate files (EX 1004, pp. 2-4, 48-49). In particular, Kantor ap-
`plies a hash function (e.g., a cyclic residue check or cyclic redundancy check (CRC)) to each file within the zip-
`file to obtain the contents signature for each file (EX 1004, pp. 6-8, 48-49). Each contents signature is a string of
`bits generated from the contents of a file (id.).
`
`For each zipfile, Kantor creates “zipfile contents signatures” or “zcs” by hashing the contents signatures for the
`files contained within the zipfile (EX 1004, pp. 2, 9, 11, 194-195). As Kantor points out, this is done by “adding
`together all the 32_bit CRC's for the files in the zipfile, modulo 2^32, separately adding together their uncom-
`pressed file_lengths module 2^32, and then arranging the two resulting hexadecimal number as a single struc-
`ture” (Id. at 9). Dr. Clark testifies that “additional modulo 2^32” is another well-known simple hashing function
`that uses addition to calculate a value for a file based on the file's contents (EX 1009, ¶ 88). Kantor further com-
`pares the zipfile contents signatures to check for duplicate files. (EX 1004, pp. Preface-2, 5, 9, 52-54).
`
`Kantor also stores the zcs's and the file contents signatures for all files on the system in a master contents-sig-
`nature list called CSLIST (EX 1004, pp. 18, 45). When a user attempts to add a zipfile to the BBS, the system
`ascertains whether that zipfile already exists in the system, and using the zcs, can determine whether individual
`component files of that zipfile already exist in the system (EX 1004, pp. 9, 173). The contents-signatures can
`also be used to find files on the BBS, to delete specific files, and determine whether files are contained in a lar-
`ger zipfile or among different zipfiles (id.).
`
`EMC acknowledges that users of a BBS typically requested files based on the filename, but contends that it
`would have been obvious to include file identification based on contents-signatures or zcs's to provide greater
`integrity checking (Pet. 51). We concur with EMC that Kantor's system utilizes contents-signatures as paramet-
`ers for certain user commands (id.), and that it would have been obvious to allow download and read commands
`of the system to identify a file by a contents-signature, as well as other parameters. (See also EX 1009, ¶¶
`93-95).
`
`Kantor also fails to disclose the underlying storage system of the BBS, and thus does not disclose that files are
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2009-9
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`replicated on multiple servers, per claim 1, for example. Satyanarayanan discloses a network-based file replica-
`tion system, where copies of files are stored at multiple servers (EX 1026, Abstract).
`
`*10 EMC contends that Kantor does not satisfy the claim limitation of “storing each part in said sequence of
`parts on multiple servers of said plurality of servers in the file system,” but that a person of ordinary skill would
`have found it obvious to modify Kantor to meet that limitation in view of Satyanarayanan (Pet. 52-53). On this
`record, we concur with the analysis of Dr. Clark, that it would have been obvious to combine Kantor and
`Satyanarayanan to provide more reliable storage systems for the BBS's files (EX 1009, ¶ 84).
`
`With respect to dependent claim 2, and independent claims 81 and 83, we have reviewed EMC's claim chart
`with respect to the disclosures of Kantor and Satyanarayanan specific to those claim elements (EX 1029, pp.
`17-23). EMC's analysis parallels that provided for claim 1 and the analysis discussed above. With respect to
`claims 2, 81, and 83, we determine that the contentions therein are persuasive based on the prior discussion of
`Kantor and Satyanarayanan supra.
`
`We have reviewed EMC's analysis and supporting evidence, and we determine that EMC's contentions are per-
`suasive. Therefore, based on the record before us, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that EMC
`will prevail on its assertion that claims 1, 2, 81, and 83 of the '096 Patent are obvious over Kantor and
`Satyanarayanan. We initiate an inter partes review on that ground of unpatentability.
`
`C. Remaining Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`EMC contends that independent claims 1, 2, 81, and 83 are also unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
`based in whole or in part on Browne or Langer or Satyanarayanan (Pet. 34-46). Those grounds of unpatentability
`are redundant to the grounds of unpatentability on which we initiate an inter parties review. Accordingly, we do
`not authorize an inter partes review on the remaining grounds of unpatentability asserted by EMC against claims
`1, 2, 81, and 83 of the '096 Patent. See37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the forgoing reasons, we determine that the information presented in EMC's petition shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that EMC would prevail with respect to claims 1, 2, 81, and 83 of the '096 Patent. Accord-
`ingly, the petition is granted.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review is hereby instituted as to claims 1, 2,
`81, and 83 of the '096 Patent for the following ground of unpatentability:
`*11 Claims 1, 2, 81, and 83 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kantor and Satyanarayanan.
`
`It is FURTHERED ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby giv-
`en of the institution of a trial. The trial will commence on the entry date of this decision.
`
`It is FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board is scheduled for 2:00 PM Eastern
`Time on June 3, 2013. The parties are directed to the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765-66
`(Aug. 14, 2012) for guidance in preparing for the initial conference call, and should come prepared to discuss
`any proposed changes to the Scheduling Order entered herewith and any motions the parties anticipate filing
`during the trial.
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2009-10
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`

`

`Page 11
`
`2013 WL 8595566 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd.)
`
`END OF DOCUMENT
`
`© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`KOLCRAFT EXHIBIT 2009-11
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.
`IPR2014-01053
`
`