IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States Patent No.: 7,149,511
`Inventors: Edward F. Bachner III,
`John Major, Xin Du
`Formerly Application No.: 09/652,734
`Issue Date: December 12, 2006
`Filing Date: August 31, 2000
`Former Group Art Unit: 2617
`Former Examiner: Keith Ferguson
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`110797-0020-651
`Customer No.: 28120
`
`Petitioners: SAMSUNG ELEC-
`TRONICS CO. LTD., SAM-
`SUNG ELECTRONICS AMERI-
`CA, INC., and APPLE INC.
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`For: WIRELESS INTELLIGENT PERSONAL SERVER
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF DR. EREZ ZADOK
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1004 Page 00001
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  Background and Qualifications ........................................................................................ 1 
`III.  One of Ordinary Skill ...................................................................................................... 9 
`IV.  Materials Relied Upon .................................................................................................. 11 
`V.  Background on the State of the Art ................................................................................ 11 
`VI.  Analysis of the ’511 patent ........................................................................................... 20 
`A.  Overview of the ’511 patent .................................................................................................. 20 
`B.  Overview of the ’511 Patent Prosecution History and Reexamination .................................... 26 
`C.  Claim Construction of the ’511 Patent Claims ........................................................................ 30 
`VII.  The Challenged Claims are Invalid ............................................................................... 31 
`A. 
`Legal Standards ..................................................................................................................... 31 
`B.  Prior Art ................................................................................................................................ 35 
`1.  Overview of Goggin ................................................................................................................... 35 
`2.  Overview of Proxim ................................................................................................................... 37 
`3.  Overview of Bodnar ................................................................................................................... 38 
`4.  Overview of Jornada .................................................................................................................. 39 
`5.  Overview of DeLorme ................................................................................................................ 40 
`6.  Overview of Ogasawara ............................................................................................................ 41 
`7.  Overview of CapShare ............................................................................................................... 41 
`C.  Claims 1‐10, 19‐22, 58‐65, and 68‐71 Are Obvious .................................................................. 42 
`1.  Claims 1 and 58: Goggin in view of knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious claims 1 and 58 
`(Ground 1); Goggin in view of Proxim render obvious claims 1 and 58 (Ground 2) ......................... 42 
`a.  Preamble .................................................................................................................................... 42 
`b.  Element [1.A] and [58.A] ........................................................................................................... 44 
`c.  Element [1.B] and [58.B] ............................................................................................................ 57 
`d.  Element [1.C] and [58.C] ........................................................................................................... 58 
`e.  Element [1.D] and [58.D] ........................................................................................................... 59 
`f.  Element [1.E] and [58.E] ............................................................................................................. 68 
`g.  Element [1.F] and [58.F] ............................................................................................................ 83 
`2.  Claims 2 and 59: Goggin in view of knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious claims 2 and 59 
`(Ground 1); Goggin in view of Proxim renders obvious claims 2 and 59 (Ground 2); Goggin in view 
`of Bodnar renders obvious claims 2 and 59 (Ground 3); Goggin in view of Proxim and Bodnar 
`renders obvious claims 2 and 59 (Ground 4) .................................................................................... 85 
`3.  Claims 3 and 60: Goggin in view of knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious claims 3 and 60 
`(Ground 1); Goggin in view of Proxim renders obvious claims 3 and 60 (Ground 2) ....................... 96 
`4.  Claims 4 and 61: Goggin in view of knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious claims 4 and 61 
`(Ground 1); Goggin in view of Proxim renders obvious claims 4 and 61 (Ground 2) ..................... 100 
`5.  Claims 5 and 62: Goggin in view of knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious claims 5 and 62 
`(Ground 1); Goggin in view of Proxim renders obvious claims 5 and 62 (Ground 2) ..................... 103 
`6.  Claims 6 and 63: Goggin in view of knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious claims 6 and 63 
`(Ground 1); Goggin in view of Proxim renders obvious claims 6 and 63 (Ground 2) ..................... 107 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 00002
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`7.  Claims 7 and 64: Goggin in view of knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious claims 7 and 64 
`(Ground 1); Goggin in view of Proxim renders obvious claims 7 and 64 (Ground 2) ..................... 109 
`8.  Claim 8: Goggin in view of knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious claim 8 (Ground 1); Goggin 
`in view of Proxim renders obvious claim 8 (Ground 2); Goggin in view of Jornada renders obvious 
`claim 8 (Ground 5); Goggin in view of Proxim and Jornada renders obvious claim 8 (Ground 6) . 112 
`9.  Claim 9: Goggin in view of knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious claim 9 (Ground 1); Goggin 
`in view of Proxim renders obvious claim 9 (Ground 2); Goggin in view of Jornada renders obvious 
`claim 9 (Ground 5); Goggin in view of Proxim and Jornada renders obvious claim 9 (Ground 6) . 121 
`10.  Claims 10 and 65: Goggin in view of knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious claims 10 and 
`65 (Ground 1); Goggin in view of Proxim renders obvious claims 10 and 65 (Ground 2) .............. 127 
`11.  Claims 19 and 68: Goggin in view of knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious claims 19 and 
`68 (Ground 1); Goggin in view of Proxim renders obvious claims 19 and 68 (Ground 2) .............. 132 
`12.  Claims 20 and 69: Goggin in view of DeLorme renders obvious claims 20 and 69 (Ground 7); 
`Goggin in view of Proxim and DeLorme renders obvious claims 20 and 69  (Ground 8) ............... 135 
`13.  Claims 21 and 70: Goggin in view of Ogasawara renders obvious claims 21 and 70 (Ground 9); 
`Goggin in view of Proxim and Ogasawara renders obvious claims 21 and 70 (Ground 10) ........... 142 
`14.  Claims 22 and 71: Goggin in view of CapShare renders obvious claims 22 and 71 (Ground 11); 
`Goggin in view of Proxim and CapShare renders obvious claims 22 and 71 (Ground 12) ............. 147 
`VIII.  Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 153 
`
`Appendix A
`Appendix B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 00003
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Erez Zadok, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
`
`the United States of America:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained to provide assistance regarding U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,149,511 (“the ’511 patent”). Attached hereto as Appendix A is a true and
`
`correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae describing my background and experience. I
`
`have personal knowledge of the facts and opinions set forth in this declaration, and
`
`believe them to be true. If called upon to do so, I would testify competently there-
`
`to. I have been warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by
`
`fine or imprisonment, or both.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`2.
`I am a Professor in the Computer Science Department at Stony Brook
`
`University (part of the State University of New York ("SUNY") system). I direct
`
`the File Systems and Storage Lab at Stony Brook's Computer Science Department.
`
`My research interests include file systems and storage systems, operating systems,
`
`energy efficiency, performance and benchmarking, information technology and
`
`system administration, security, networking, compilers, and software engineering.
`
`3.
`
`I studied at a professional high school in Israel, focusing on electrical
`
`engineering, and graduated in 1982. I spent one more year at the high school's col-
`
`lege division, receiving a special Certified Technician's degree in electrical engi-
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Page 00004
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`neering. I then went on to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces for three years
`
`(1983-1986). I received my Bachelor of Science degree in computer science
`
`("CS") in 1991, my Master's degree in CS in 1994, and my Ph.D. in CS in 2001-all
`
`from Columbia University in New York.
`
`4.
`
`In 1981, while still in high school studying electrical engineering, I
`
`became the lab manager for a newly established computer lab. During that time, I
`
`also worked as a support technician for Commodore Computers in Israel. During
`
`my army service, I was trained and then supported computerized subsystems. Af-
`
`ter being honorably discharged, I served as an instructor, teaching computer pro-
`
`gramming to K-12 students for one year.
`
`5. When I began my undergraduate studies at Columbia University, I al-
`
`so began working as a student assistant in the various campus-wide computer labs,
`
`eventually becoming assistant to the lab manager, who was managing all public
`
`computer labs on campus. During that time, I also became more involved with re-
`
`search within the CS Department at Columbia University, conducting research on
`
`operating systems, file and storage systems, networking, and other topics. For ex-
`
`ample, I developed and used client/server software utilizing Sun Microsystem's
`
`Remote Procedure Calls (RPC), as well as Sun's IDL compiler called "rpcgen," to
`
`access and manipulate files remotely. I also assisted the CS department's computer
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Page 00005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`administrators in managing the department's computers and networks, which in-
`
`cluded network file access for users.
`
`6.
`
`In 1991, I joined Columbia University's CS department as a full-time
`
`systems administrator, studying towards my MS degree part-time. My MS thesis
`
`topic related to file system reliability, fault tolerance, network replication, and
`
`network storage failover. My main duties as a systems administrator involved in-
`
`stalling, configuring, and managing many servers and desktops running several op-
`
`erating systems (many flavors of Unix/Linux, Windows, and Macs), as well as a
`
`network that was rapidly growing in complexity. One relevant to this case was en-
`
`suring reliable, convenient, networked file and data access on a network that in-
`
`cluded copper, fiber, and wireless components. I have studied and mastered an as-
`
`sortment of tools for managing systems, networks, and storage.
`
`7.
`
`In 1994, I left my systems administrator position to pursue my doctor-
`
`al studies at Columbia University. My Ph.D. thesis topic was on versatile file sys-
`
`tem development, with examples in the fields of security and encryption, efficien-
`
`cy, reliability, and network failover. I continued to work part-time as a systems
`
`administrator at the CS department, and eventually I was asked to serve as manag-
`
`er to the entire information technology ("IT") staff. From 1991 to 2001, I was a
`
`member of the faculty-level Facilities Committee which oversaw all IT operations
`
`at the CS department.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Page 00006
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`8. While studying for my Ph.D. at Columbia University's Computer Sci-
`
`ence Department, I was a member of the Mobile Computing Lab (MCL), under the
`
`co-direction of my then adviser, Prof. Daniel J. Duchamp and several others. Stu-
`
`dents in the lab worked on an assortment of research topics related to the then
`
`fledgling mobile Internet. This group conducted some of the earliest research into
`
`mobile networking, which included mobile IP network protocols, methods to cache
`
`and prefetch users' files onto mobile computers before said computers were dis-
`
`connected from the network (and to synchronize changes back to the main server
`
`upon reconnection to the network), techniques to hop smoothly between wireless
`
`networks, and more. Many papers and several MS/PhD theses came out of this
`
`group, including several I co-authored.
`
`9.
`
`During that time in the graduate program, and years before "Wi-Fi"
`
`became a household term, I personally configured, studied, and used wireless net-
`
`works and services. For example, I set up a 900Mhz (radio frequency) Wi-Fi net-
`
`work in my student apartment, using early generation NCR adapters on a Toshiba
`
`"suitcase" laptop running the Mach 2.0 operating system. This home network con-
`
`nected my apartment directly to the Computer Science department Wi-Fi network,
`
`allowing me to have an early generation enterprise-quality network at home.
`
`10. Over the years, I became an early adopter for mobile devices. I
`
`owned several generations of Palm handhelds including the Palm III and the Treo,
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Page 00007
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`HP's iPaq (running Windows CE/Mobile), many Apple iPhones; several tablets in-
`
`cluding early generation Microsoft tablets (2003); and many portable laptops of
`
`various form factors, on which I installed and configured several operating sys-
`
`tems. Many such devices came with plug-n-play interfaces including PCMCIA,
`
`CF, and USB devices. PCMCIA cards can offer wired (e.g., RJ-45), wireless (e.g.,
`
`802.11 family of protocols), and cellular connections (GSM and the like). Internet
`
`Protocols (e.g., TCP/IP) can operate on top of all of these three classes of technol-
`
`ogies, among others. Some devices may have these protocols built into the device.
`
`I had the opportunity to configure networking on many of those devices, and syn-
`
`chronize their files and data with several desktops/laptops using serial, USB, infra-
`
`red, or wireless connections numerous times.
`
`11. From 1990 to 1998, I consulted for SOS Corporation and HydraWEB
`
`Technologies, as a systems administrator and programmer, often managing data
`
`storage use and backup/restore duties. From 1994 to 2000, I led projects at Hy-
`
`draWEB Technologies, and then became the Director of Software Development-
`
`overseeing the development of several products and appliances such as firewalls
`
`and network load-balancers. Since 2009, I have consulted for Packet General
`
`Networks, a startup specializing in secure storage and applications' data security
`
`spanning personal, enterprise, an cloud storage.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Page 00008
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`In 2001, I joined the faculty of Stony Brook University, a position I
`
`have held since. In 2002, I joined the Operations Committee, which oversees the
`
`IT operations of the CS department at Stony Brook University. Since 2010, I have
`
`served as the Co-Chair to the Operations Committee. From 2006 to 2010, I was
`
`the Director of IT Operations of the CS department; my day-to-day duties include
`
`setting policies regarding computing, storage, and networking; hiring and training
`
`new staff; assisting any staff with topics of my specialty; defining requirements for
`
`new software/hardware; and purchasing.
`
`13. Since 1995, I have taught courses on operating systems, storage and
`
`file systems, advanced systems programming in Unix/C, systems administration,
`
`and more. My courses often use storage, network file systems, and security as key
`
`teaching principles and practical examples for assignments and projects. I've spe-
`
`cifically covered topics including mobile computing, network storage protocols,
`
`and replica and caching systems.
`
`14. My research often investigates computer systems from many angles:
`
`security, efficiency, energy use, scalability, reliability, portability, survivability,
`
`usability, ease-of-use, versatility, flexibility, and more. My research gives special
`
`attention to balancing five often-conflicting aspects of computer systems: perfor-
`
`mance, reliability, energy use, security, and ease-of-use. Since joining Stony
`
`Brook in 2001, my group in the Filesystems and Storage Lab has developed many
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Page 00009
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`file systems and operating system extensions; examples include a highly-secure
`
`cryptographic file system, a portable versioning file system, a tracing file system
`
`useful to detect intrusions, a replaying file system useful for forensics, a snapshot-
`
`ting and sandboxing file system, a namespace unification file system, an anti-virus
`
`file system, an integrity-checking file system, a load balancing and network repli-
`
`cation/mirroring file system, a compiler to convert user-level C code to in-kernel
`
`efficient yet safe code, GCC plugins, stackable file system templates, and a Web-
`
`based backup system.
`
`15.
`
`I have published over 110 refereed publications (ACM, IEEE, USE-
`
`NIX, and more). To date, my publications had been cited nearly 4,500 times (as
`
`per Google Scholar). My papers cover a wide range of related technologies such
`
`file systems, storage systems, security, performance benchmarking and optimiza-
`
`tion, energy efficiency, networking, and more. I also published a book entitled
`
`"Linux NFS and Automounter Administration" (Sybex, 2001), covering many sys-
`
`tems administration topics related to network storage; this book, for example co-
`
`vers the Network File System (NFS) protocol since its original release in 1984.
`
`16. Some of my research has led to public software releases that have
`
`been used world-wide. I have publicly maintained the Amd Berkeley Automount-
`
`er in a package called "am-utils" since 1992; this software helps administrators
`
`manage the multitude of network file system mounts on dozens of different Unix
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Page 00010
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`systems. Since 1997, I have maintained and released several stackable file system
`
`software projects for Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris, in a package called FiST. One
`
`of my stackable file system encryption projects, called Cryptfs, became the basis
`
`for IBM's public release of eCryptfs, now part of Linux. Another encryption file
`
`system called Ncryptfs was licensed by Packet General Networks, for whom I have
`
`provided consulting services since 2009. Another popular file system released in
`
`2003, called Unionfs, offers namespace unification, transparent shadow copying
`
`(a.k.a., copy-on-write or COW), file system snapshotting, the ability to save disk
`
`space by sharing a read-only (network) copy of data among several computers,
`
`among other features.
`
`17. My research has been supported by many federal and state grants, in-
`
`cluding an NSF CAREER award, two IBM Faculty awards, two NetApp Faculty
`
`awards, a Western Digital award, several EMC awards, and several equipment
`
`gifts. I was the winner of the 2004 Computer Science Department bi-annual Grad-
`
`uate Teaching Award, the winner of the 2006 Computer Science Department bi-
`
`annual Research Excellence Award, and a recipient of the 2008 SUNY Chancel-
`
`lor's Excellence in Teaching award (an award that can be given only once a life-
`
`time).
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Page 00011
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`18.
`
`I am a named inventor on two patents titled "Systems and methods for
`
`detection of new malicious executables" (U.S. Patent No. 7,979,907B2, issued July
`
`12, 2011; and U.S. Patent No. 7,487,544, issued February 3, 2009).
`
`19.
`
`I have been disclosed as a testifying expert in five cases in the past
`
`four years. I've been deposed four times and testified in trial once.
`
`20. Additional details of my background are set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae (Appendix A), which provides a more complete description of my back-
`
`ground and work experience, and lists the presentations, articles and other publica-
`
`tions I have authored or to which I have contributed.
`
`21. Additional details of my background are set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae (Appendix A), which provides a more complete description of my back-
`
`ground and work experience, and lists the presentations, articles and other publica-
`
`tions I have authored or to which I have contributed.
`
`III. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL
`22.
`I understand that the factors considered in determining the ordinary
`
`level of skill in a field of art include the level of education and experience of per-
`
`sons working in the field; the types of problems encountered in the field; and the
`
`sophistication of the technology at the time of the purported invention, which I un-
`
`derstand is asserted to be August 31, 2000. I understand that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is not a specific real individual, but rather is a hypothetical individu-
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Page 00012
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`al having the qualities reflected by the factors above. I understand that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would also have knowledge from the teachings of the prior
`
`art, including the art cited below.
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, on or before August 2000, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) relating to the technology of the ’511 patent would have had a
`
`minimum of a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering or computer science and
`
`either a master’s degree in computer engineering or computer science or two or
`
`more years of experience with computer networks and/or computer file systems, or
`
`the equivalent. Additional education could substitute for professional experience,
`
`or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. I under-
`
`stand that a POSITA is presumed to have knowledge of all relevant prior art, and
`
`therefore would have been familiar with each of the references cited herein and the
`
`full range of teachings they contain.
`
`24. Well before August 31, 2000, my level of skill in the art was at least
`
`that of a POSITA, as discussed above. I am qualified to provide opinions concern-
`
`ing what a POSITA would have known and understood at that time, and my analy-
`
`sis and conclusions herein are from the perspective of a POSITA as of August 31,
`
`2000.
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`Page 00013
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IV. MATERIALS RELIED UPON
`25.
`In reaching the conclusions described in this declaration, I have relied
`
`on the documents and materials cited herein as well as those identified in Appendix
`
`B attached to this declaration. These materials comprise patents, file histories, and
`
`other prior art documents.1 Each of these materials is a type of document that ex-
`
`perts in my field would reasonably rely upon when forming their opinions.
`
`26. My opinions are also based upon my education, training, research,
`
`knowledge, and personal and professional experience.
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND ON THE STATE OF THE ART
`27. The Challenged Claims recite concepts that were well-known long be-
`
`fore the claimed August 31, 2000 priority date—a hand-portable server that has a
`
`Radio Frequency receiver or transceiver to wirelessly receive an electronic file, a
`
`memory, a CPU, software instructions to store the file in a generic memory, and an
`
`interface to allow an external display device to “pick and open” the file stored in
`
`the memory of the portable server while that file remains resident on the server.
`
`28. RAPI, which stands for Remote API (Application Programming Inter-
`
`face), is an API developed by Microsoft that “allows applications on one machine
`
`to call functions on another machine” where “[a] Windows CE device is the RAPI
`
`server while [a] PC is the RAPI client. The application runs on the client, the PC,
`
`
`1 All emphasis and annotations are added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Page 00014
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`which in turn calls functions that are executed on the server, the Windows CE de-
`
`vice.” Ex. 1032 634.
`
`29. Goggin teaches that with RAPI, an application on a PC may open a
`
`file on a portable CE device while the file remains on the CE device. RAPI “allows
`
`developers … to access any files, databases, or system information on a CE de-
`
`vice” Ex. 1030 308, using for instance “file access functions [which] are those
`
`functions that allow you to create directories, read and write files” id. 314, and
`
`“miscellaneous shell and system functions that allow you to start CE applications
`
`remotely.” Id. 318. See also id. 505-06 (“CeCreateFile()”); 506-07 (“CeCreatePro-
`
`cess()”).
`
`30. An example of a client-server model that uses RAPI is Ulrich (Ex.
`
`1018). The Ulrich system comprises a desktop computer and a mobile device
`
`where “[o]bjects maintained by the electronic mail applications are synchronized
`
`between the desktop computer and the mobile device such that attachments to elec-
`
`tronic mail messages are receivable by the mobile device.” Id. Abstract.
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`Page 00015
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31. The architecture of the Ulrich system is shown in FIG. 5, reproduced
`
`above. The mobile device includes a RAPI server (116) and the desktop device has
`
`a RAPI component (114). In the system, a “synchronization interface component
`
`108 calls the necessary interface methods associated with RAPI component 114 to
`
`transfer the attachment to RAPI server 116 and eventually object store 6.” Id.
`
`14:20-26.
`
`32. Further, it was well-known that RAPI could be used wirelessly. The
`
`communication link 9 between RAPI server mobile device and RAPI client desk-
`
`top computer is one of several well-known communication mechanisms such as
`
`“communication through commercially available network cards (i.e., using
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`Page 00016
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`TCP/IP) . . . Wireless modem, Wireless cellular digital packet data (CDPD).” Id.
`
`4:66-5:14.
`
`33.
`
`In the 80s and 90s, researchers and companies were developing many
`
`of the fundamental Internet technologies we used today. As networking took cen-
`
`ter stage in computing, much new work revolved around ubiquitous and mobile
`
`computing—or how to access any resource on the Internet from anywhere at any
`
`time, as conveniently as a local computer pre-loaded with all such resources (e.g.,
`
`files, databases).
`
`34. For example, a ten-year project starting in 1985 at Carnegie Mellon
`
`University (CMU), called “Mach,” was concerned with supporting distributed
`
`computing to the then mostly standalone, monolithic operating systems (OSs).
`
`One project under the Mach umbrella at CMU was the Constant Data Availability
`
`(Coda) distributed file system, developed starting in 1987. Coda's main design fea-
`
`tures were to support access to files and data even in the face of different wireless
`
`and wired networking technologies; this included caching files on mobile devices
`
`such as laptops and synchronizing files back with their source server upon recon-
`
`nection to a network. Coda was a successor to the Andrew File System (AFS), and
`
`was succeeded by the InterMezzo network file system, both designed to allow net-
`
`work access to files residing on remote, distributed servers.
`
`35. This time period (80s to 90s) saw a huge amount of related activity.
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`Page 00017
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`In the early 90s, Microsoft introduced client-server protocols to access file and
`
`other resources over the network, including Server Message Block (SMB), and the
`
`Common Internet File System (CIFS), and has supported and developed those to
`
`this date. In 1995, Microsoft introduced a feature (similar to Coda) called Brief-
`
`case: a special folder that provides file synchronization between the briefcase fold-
`
`er and another folder (often one from a network drive). Similarly, Apple intro-
`
`duced their Apple Filing Protocol (AFP) in 1988 and have developed and support-
`
`ed such features to date. Lastly, in the early 80s, Sun Microsystems developed the
`
`Network File System (NFS) protocol, to allow easy access to files across a net-
`
`work, while the files remain on the server. NFS is a client-server protocol that was
`
`built on top of Sun's popular Remote Procedure Calls (RPC2) API. Sun released
`
`two major versions of the protocol (initially mainly for Unix/Linux based OSs):
`
`NFSv2 in 1989 (described in RFC-1094) and NFSv3 in 1995 (RFC-1813), after
`
`which the IETF took over future developments of this protocol (NFSv4.x). All
`
`major vendors at the time began supporting NFS.
`
`36. During the same period, computers have gotten increasingly smaller,
`
`more portable, and lightweight. To give users more configurability and flexibility,
`
`as well as control costs, weight, and battery use, mobile devices offered assortment
`
`2 Sun’s RPC is functionally similar to Windows’s RAPI: both enable execution of
`
`remote code in a client-server setting.
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`Page 00018
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`of plug-n-play (PnP) interfaces to extend a mobile device’s functionality easily us-
`
`ing many ports (e.g., PCMCIA, Card Flash, USB, serial, parallel, and more). With
`
`the right software drivers available from vendors, users could add more network
`
`connections to their mobile devices easily (wired and wireless); external displays,
`
`mice, and keyboards; card and bar-code readers; GPS devices; and many more,
`
`Network software layers were being enhanced at the time to allow the same system
`
`to use a wired or wireless connection with equal ease and without changing appli-
`
`cations.
`
`37. A POSITA at the time would have seen a tremendous amount of ac-
`
`tivity and technologies being developed across the entire span of OSs to allow easy
`
`access to files—whether through a cached/synchronized local copy or through a
`
`remote network access protocol. This activity was not happening in a vacuum, but
`
`in response to growing user demands and realizations by industry and academia
`
`that ubiquitous, distributed, network access to files is critical. These are just a few
`
`examples showing that the purportedly patentable feature of the independent Chal-
`
`lenged Claims was, like the remainder of the Challenged Claims, widely described
`
`before the priority date and would have been within the knowledge of any person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”).
`
`38. The challenged dependent claims add various conventional implemen-
`
`tation choices. Claims 2-5 and 59-62 specify that the saved file may be a new file
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`Page 00019
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`or updated file, that it may have read-only access, or that the data sent to the server
`
`may reflect a change to a file rather than contain all the file data. These concepts
`
`were well-known in the art (e.g., material that has been long taught in introductory
`
`undergraduate computer science courses). See, e.g., Ex. 1001 2:29-32 (admitting
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,034,621 discloses systems and methods for “communicating
`
`changes made to a data file on a personal computer (PC) to a personal digital assis-
`
`tant (PDA)); Ex. 1030 (Goggin) 107-108, 505-506, 388, 543, 545; Ex. 1035 (Ki-
`
`mura) 8:45-50, 15:54-59 (“[w]hen the received access request is judged as the ac-
`
`cess request for file writing, a preparation for data writing into a specified position
`
`in the file data memory unit 181 is carried out…and the…data received via the file
`
`transmission and reception units 141 [of the stationary computer] and 161 [of the
`
`portable personal data device] are written into the file data memory unit 181 [of the
`
`portable personal data device]….”), 16:39-43, 16:59-17:5, 17:33-37, 18:12-23; Ex.
`
`1033 (Carson) 1:66-2:2 (“The invention is directed to an improved system for
`
`transferring blocks of data or files between computer storage devices and for syn-
`
`chronizing or updating the contents of the duplicate files stored at both storage de-
`
`vices”); Ex. 1020 (Criss) Fig. 2, ¶¶75-80, ¶11 (“A wireless communication system
`
`and method is provided in which software upgrades are wirelessly transmitted to a
`
`mobile device [from a host computer] based on a