Inter Partes Review of
`United States Patent No. 7,149,511
`IPR2016-00616 and IPR2016-00622
`
`June 1, 2017
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative
`Rosetta-2030
`
`
`United States Patent No. 7,149,511
`IPR2016-00616 and IPR2016-00622
`
`June 1, 2017
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative
`Rosetta-2030
`
`
`
`Overview
`Overview of the ‘511 Patent
`
`Claim Construction
`• “Downstream Data”
`• “Network Server”
`• “Electronic File and “Source Electronic File”
`Petitioners’ Grounds
`• Goggin
`• Kimura
`Secondary Considerations
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’511 Patent
`
`The Problem: Wireless data infrastructure could not reliably support
`remote access to network data resources. [Ex. 1001 at 1:46-2:6; 1:35-37]
`•
`Intermittency: A connection to the network was not always available
`when the user left the office.
`• Latency: When available, wireless connections were slow.
`• Available solutions were impractical workarounds and essentially
`hand-portable hard drives.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’511 Patent
`
`The Solution:
`Wireless intelligent personal
`(network) server (“WIPS”), a
`device that maintains data
`downloaded from a remote
`source server and provides local
`access to the downloaded files to
`a PDAs and other “external
`display devices”
`
`4
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’511 Patent
`
`A remote source server, such as a
`corporate network server, sends
`data downstream to the WIPS,
`without any active request from the
`user, whenever the WIPS has
`wireless network access
`
`5
`
`Ex. 2022 ¶ 18
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’511 Patent
`
`• With a WIPS, a traveling employee could access his or her work e-mails and
`other files on his or her external display device (e.g., a PDA) regardless of
`the employee’s real-time connection to his or her employer’s network server
`• E-mails and other files are automatically sent to the WIPS and
`added/updated
`
`6
`
`
`
`Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`
`Microsoft v. Proxyconn, 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`Reasonableness
`• Board cannot construe claims “so broadly that its constructions are
`unreasonable under general claim construction principles” (emphasis in
`original)
`
`• “A construction that is ‘unreasonably broad’ and which does not ‘reasonably
`reflect the plain language and disclosure’ will not pass muster.”
`
`Claims Read In Light of Specification
`• “[C]laims should always be read in light of the specification and
`teachings in the underlying patent”
`
`• See also PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747
`(Fed. Cir. 2016): Even absent an express definition, proper interpretation must
`“recogniz[e] the context” of the term’s use in the patent
`
`7
`
`
`
`Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`
`Microsoft v. Proxyconn, 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`Plain Meaning
`• “must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would
`reach”
`
`Prosecution History
`• “The PTO should also consult the patent's prosecution history in proceedings
`in which the patent has been brought back to the agency for a second review.”
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Constructions
`
`“downstream
`data”
`
`“Data transmitted from a source server to the
`personal network server”
`
`“network
`server”
`
`“a computer in a network configured to
`receive and share data resources with other
`devices in that network”
`
`“personal”
`
`“source
`electronic file”
`“electronic
`file”
`
`9
`
`“configured to provide access to a user’s
`individual data”
`“a file stored on an upstream source server”
`
`“a copy of a source electronic file”
`
`
`
`“Downstream Data”
`
`• Patent Owner’s proposed construction:
`
`“Data transmitted from a source server
`to the personal network server”
`
`• Encompasses two concepts:
`
`• Source of data—namely, the source server
`
`• Direction of the flow of data
`
`10
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by the
`Usage in the Claims and Specification
`
`• Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, “claims
`should always be read in light of the specification and teachings
`in the underlying patent’” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d
`at 1298.
`
`• Even in the absence of an express definition, the proper interpretation must
`“recogniz[e] the context” of the term’s use in the patent. PPC
`Broadband, 815 F.3d at 752; see also Pride Mobility Prod. Corp. v.
`Permobil, Inc., 818 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that
`specification “reinforces . . . reading” derived from usage in claims).
`Paper 28 at 15-16.
`
`11
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by the
`Usage in the Claims
`
`•
`
`Independent claims include “receiving downstream data”
`• Claim 1: “a radio frequency (RF) receiver for receiving downstream
`data transmitted over a first wireless communications channel”
`• Claim 35: “a wireless intelligent personal network server, said wireless
`intelligent personal network server including a memory and a radio
`frequency (RF) receiver, said RF receiver being for receiving
`downstream data transmitted over a first wireless communications
`channel”
`• Claim 48: “said wireless intelligent personal network server receiving
`downstream data transmitted over a first wireless communications
`channel, said downstream data reflecting said changes made to said
`source electronic file”
`
`12
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by the
`Usage in the Claims
`
`• The claims distinguish between “downstream” and “upstream”
`
`• Claim 12: “The wireless intelligent personal network server of claim 11,
`wherein said RF transmitter transmits upstream data over said second
`wireless communications channel, said upstream data reflecting
`changes to said at least one electronic file made by said external display
`device.”
`
`13
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction Conforms to the
`Canon of Linguistic Differentiation
`
`“Downstream” must mean something more than “received”
`
`“There is a canon of construction: ‘the general assumption is that different
`terms have different meanings.’ This canon is certainly employed in both
`statutory interpretation and claim construction.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v.
`Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 752 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different
`meanings . . . .” Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d
`1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`14
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction Conforms to the
`Canon of Linguistic Differentiation
`
`• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747
`(Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Even in the absence of an express definition, the proper interpretation
`must ‘recogniz[e] the context’ of the term’s use in the patent.” Id. at 752.
`“The Federal Circuit rejected the Board’s construction of ‘resides
`around’ as meaning ‘in the immediate vicinity of; near’ because the
`specification consistently used the term in the narrower sense of
`‘encircle or surround.’” Id. at 751-52.
`“There is a canon of construction: ‘the general assumption is that
`different terms have different meanings.’ This canon is certainly
`employed in both statutory interpretation and claim construction.” Id.
`at 752.
`
`15
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction Gives Meaning to
`All of the Claim Terms
`
`• Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`•
`“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is
`preferred over one that does not do so.” Id. at 1372.
`• Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396 (Fed.Cir.2004)
`•
`“A claim construction that renders claim terms superfluous is generally
`disfavored.” Id. at 1410.
`• Cephalon, Inc. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC, 618 F. App'x 663 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`•
`“However, construing the two terms to have no difference in meaning
`would render one of the terms superfluous, which is disfavored in claim
`construction.” Id. at 666.
`• Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`•
`“[C]laims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in
`the claim.” Id. at 950.
`
`16
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by
`Usage in the Specification
`
`• Pride Mobility Prod. Corp. v. Permobil, Inc., 818 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`• Court based its construction on the consistent use of a term in the
`specification, even in exemplary embodiments. Id. at 1314
`“The specification nowhere describes or depicts the drive-wheel axis as
`oriented other than perpendicular to the planar surface of the mounting
`plate in the ordinary geometric sense.” Id.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`• The court rejected construction that encompassed meaning expressly
`distinguished in the specification. Id. at 1287.
`
`17
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by
`Usage in the Specification
`• Microsoft v. Proxyconn, 789 F.3d at 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`•
`
`• Term was limited by the consistent use of the term in the specification,
`and the specification’s differentiation of other terminology.
`“The language of the specification consistently refers to the
`sender/computer, receiver/computer, gateway, and caching computers
`as separate and independent components of an overall system.” Id. at
`1300.
`• Relied on figures, which “separately identify and number each
`component of the system” even though the figures depict embodiments
`of the invention—not exclusive or expressly limiting. Id.
`
`18
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by
`Usage in the Specification
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:52-61; 2:68-3:7;
`3:13-17; 3:27-30; 3:35-40; 4:10-
`16; 4:29-33; 5:35-36; 6:60-62;
`9:3-6; 9:29-36; 9:37-49; 9:50-
`53; 10:24-25; 11:50-51; 12:60-
`13:2.
`
`19
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by
`Usage in the Specification
`
`• The specification uses downstream data in a specific manner
`
`• Specification references “downstream data” 19 times and “downstream
`channel” 3 times
`
`“Downstream data” is consistently received from a source server and
`flows toward the display device
`
`“Downstream” is used to specify the direction of data flow as being
`from a source server
`
`•
`
`•
`
`20
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by
`the Plain Meaning
`
`•
`
`“Plain meaning” is the understanding of the term “consistent with the one
`that those skilled in the art would reach” at the time of the patent filing.
`Microsoft v. Proxyconn, 789 F.3d at 1298, MPEP § 2111.01.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“downstream In communications, the direction of transmission flow
`from the source toward the sink (destination/user).” Ex. 2007 at 3.
`“Downstream (adv.) The location of a client computer in relation to a
`server. The direction in which data moves from the server to the client.
`(adj.) Refers to data that moves from a remote network to an individual
`computer.” Ex. 2023 at 3.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Errors In Petitioners’ Arguments About
`“Downstream Data”
`
`1. Petitioners erroneously claim that PO defined downstream data without reference to
`a server or third node: “(i.e., data that is transmitted over a wireless communication
`channel)”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 356
`
`22
`
`
`
`Errors In Petitioners’ Arguments About
`“Downstream Data”
`
`Refers to claim limitations requiring “receiver for receiving downstream data
`transmitted over a first wireless communications channel” and instructions for
`“processing said downstream data to provide at least one electronic file in
`said memory” …
`
`23
`
`
`
`Errors In Petitioners’ Arguments About
`“Downstream Data”
`
`Pen events
`
`Video events
`
`Ex. 1038 at Fig. 1 (color added)
`
`24
`
`Ex. 1038 at 6:42-50
`
`
`
`Errors In Petitioners’ Arguments About
`“Downstream Data”
`
`Pen events
`
`Video events
`
`Ex. 1038 at Fig. 1 (color added)
`
`• Distinctions:
`1. Pen events are not data files
`2. Data received by wireless interface device just video—relationship is video
`display driver and video monitor
`3. Data does not flow through host computer—data transmitted from wireless
`interface device are pen events, not data originating upstream and “provided” to
`host computer
`
`25
`
`[Ex. 1002 at 355-356; see also id. at 374 (handwritten decision by examiner “The Boals Reference does not teach Applicant’s invention”)]
`
`
`
`Errors In Petitioners’ Arguments About
`“Downstream Data”
`
`•
`
`Section cited by Petitioners simply clarifies that what is being “provided” by
`the wireless interface device (pen events) are not files that are received by
`the wireless interface device (video files)
`• Not a definition, merely a clarification of what files based on one
`characteristic
`• Not a concession that “downstream data” is something other than data
`received from an upstream server.
`• Meaning clear from earlier exchange with examiner:
`
`26
`
`Ex. 1002 at 354
`
`
`
`Errors In Petitioners’ Arguments About
`“Downstream Data”
`
`Furthermore, reading selection as a definition as Petitioners suggest would
`create a nonsensical redundancy:
`
`[data that is
`transmitted over a wireless communications channel]
`
`27
`
`’511 at 13:29-34
`
`
`
`Errors In Petitioners’ Arguments About
`“Downstream Data”
`
`2. Relatedly, Petitioners erroneously claim that PO “confirmed” that “downstream data”
`may originate from the display device and not from a separate “source server”
`
`Pen events
`
`Video events
`
`Ex. 1038 at Fig. 1 (color added)
`• Not an acquiescence that source server and display device can be the same,
`merely a distinction based on the fact that Boals describes two separate types of
`data, so cannot meet the “provided” limitation.
`
`28
`
`
`
`Errors In Petitioners’ Arguments About
`“Downstream Data”
`
`3. Petitioners erroneously claim that PO provided a demonstration of a merely two-node
`system (WIPS + laptop computer serving as display device)
`
`29
`
`Ex. 1002 at 246
`
`
`
`Errors In Petitioners’ Arguments About
`“Downstream Data”
`
`But demonstration actually included access to remote enterprise server in Chicago.
`
`30
`
`
`
`“Network Server”
`
`• Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction:
`
`A “computer in a network configured to
`receive and share data resources with other
`devices in that network”
`
`• Contrast:
`
`•
`
`“Direct point-to-point communication link”: If no other devices
`permitted to communicate on the connection, cannot be a “network”
`server
`
`31
`
`
`
`“Network Server”
`
`Application originally claimed a
`“wireless intelligent personal
`server”
`
`Inventors argued that alleged
`prior art (Criss/Wecker) did not
`disclose capacity of WIPS to act
`as a server on a network. Ex.
`1002 at 205-206.
`
`September 21, 2004 in-person
`interview with the PTO’s
`examiner: Inventors
`demonstrated capacity of WIPS
`to exchange files with an out-of-
`state enterprise network. Ex.
`1002 at 246.
`
`Alleged prior art (Boals) was not
`a “network server” because it
`received video display data over a
`direct point-to-point
`communications link. Ex. 1002 at
`355-56; id. at 374
`
`“[T]he language ‘network server’
`was carefully chosen during the
`interview conducted on
`September 21, 2004 in order to
`more clearly define the
`invention” Ex. 1002 at 355.
`
`Examiner stated that “replacing
`the terminology ‘wireless
`intelligent personal server’ with
`‘wireless intelligent network
`server’ throughout the claims
`would more clearly define the
`invention and would overcome
`the prior art of record.” Ex. 1002
`at 246-247.
`
`Allowance on basis of that
`distinction.
`
`32
`
`In sum, prosecution history
`shows that “network server” was
`a computer in a network that
`exchanges data files with other
`devices in that network, not
`merely a device capable of
`receiving or transmitting data.
`Ex. 2017 at ¶55.
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by
`the Prosecution History
`The addition of the “network” limitation clarified the scope to distinguish a
`hard-drive-like device:
`
`33
`
`Ex. 1002 at 246-47
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by
`the Prosecution History
`
`The addition of the “network” limitation clarified the scope to distinguish a
`hard-drive-like device:
`
`34
`
`Ex. 1001 at 6:24-30
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by
`the Prosecution History
`
`PO expressly clarified that a standalone computer, even on a local area
`network, is not a “network server”
`
`35
`
`Ex. 1002 at 355
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by
`the Prosecution History
`
`PO expressly clarified that a standalone computer, even on a local area
`network, is not a “network server”
`
`36
`
`Ex. 1038 at 5:23-30
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction is Supported by the
`Usage in the Claims and Specification
`
`•
`
`Communications between the WIPS and display device: described as connections,
`not as networks
`
`’511 at 4:48-50: “WIPS 30 is able to transfer the data stored in its memory to and
`from different types of display devices 32, on at least an intermittent basis . . .”
`
`’511 at 8:43-51: “As noted above, this transfer of digital data may be over an
`electrical connection, or it may be over a wireless connection, such as IrDA or
`Bluetooth. Thus, display device interface 130 is preferably connected to at least
`one electrical connector 134 to electrically connect to display device 32. However,
`display device interface 130 may also be connected to an IrDa port 136 and/or to
`a Bluetooth transceiver 138 provided with an antenna 140.”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`37
`
`
`
`“Source Electronic File” and “Electronic File”
`
`“Source Electronic File”: “a file stored on an upstream source server”
`•
`“When a patent thus describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as
`a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.” Verizon
`Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir.
`2007)
`
`“Electronic File”: “a copy of a source electronic file”
`• The ‘511 patent is clear that the WIPS provides a copy of a source server
`file or a “source electronic file” that exists on a source server
`’511 at 1:8–12: “this invention relates to a wireless intelligent personal
`server that receives data transmitted over a wireless communications
`channel and automatically processes it so as to maintain a copy of at
`least one electronic file stored in a source computer”
`
`•
`
`“Personal”: “configured to provide access to a user’s individual data”
`
`38
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`Goggin Does Not Render the ’511 Patent Obvious
`
`•
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e)
`• Petitioners bear “the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability
`by a preponderance of the evidence”
`• Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`• Obviousness determination involves the following four factual
`considerations: “(1) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, (2)
`the scope and content of the prior art, (3) the differences between the
`prior art and the claims at issue, and (4) secondary considerations of
`nonobviousness . . .”
`• TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`•
`“[T]he Board ‘must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction
`of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why the
`references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.”
`
`39
`
`
`
`Goggin Does Not Render the ’511 Patent Obvious
`
`•
`
`In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`• Because “[m]ost if not all inventions arise from a combination of old
`elements” it is often the case that “every element of a claimed invention
`[is] found in the prior art.”
`
`•
`
`“[I]dentification in the prior art of each individual part claimed is
`insufficient to defeat patentability of the whole claimed invention.”
`
`40
`
`
`
`Goggin Does Not Render the
`’511 Patent Obvious
`The APIs discussed in Goggin can be combined in infinite ways, but Goggin
`does not disclose how those pieces should be put together to solve the problem
`overcome by the ’511 Patent’s invention.
`
`41
`
`Ex. 1030 at 617-18
`
`
`
`Goggin Does Not Render the ’511 Patent Obvious
`
`CeRegCloseKey()
`
`CeRegCreateKeyEx()
`
`CeRegDeleteKey()
`
`CeGetSystemPowerStatusEx()
`
`CeReadRecordProps()
`
`CeCreateFile()
`
`CeRapiUnInit()
`
`CeCloseHandle()
`
`CeGetDesktopDeviceCaps()
`
`CeGlobalMemoryStatus()
`
`42
`
`CeGetTempPath()
`
`Ex. 1030 at 309; 311; 313-15; 318-19
`
`
`
`Goggin Does Not Render the ’511 Patent Obvious
`
`“Goggin is merely a manual that provides an overview of the Windows CE
`operating system, and instructions to developers on how to program
`software within the Windows CE environment . . . Nowhere in Goggin is
`there any disclosure of a device configured to carry out the functionality of
`the WIPS device, much less any instruction on which features to select, and
`in what combination, to achieve that outcome.”
`
`“Petitioners appear to rely on the previously mentioned toolbox of RAPI
`functions discussed in Goggin to paint a picture of their belief that a
`developer could have developed [a “wireless personal network server”].
`This strikes me as similar to using the Oxford English
`Dictionary to argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`could have written Macbeth.”
`
`Declaration of PO’s expert William Mangione-Smith, Ex. 2022 at ¶¶ 104-5, 110
`
`43
`
`
`
`Missing Elements in Goggin
`
`Goggin or Goggin/Proxim
`Before any other RAPI functions are used, “CeRapiInit()” must be called
`“CeRapiInit()” establishes a direct point-to-point communications link
`between the Windows CE device and the other computer
`The device and computer cannot communicate with any other devices
`over that link
`Although CE devices may be able to connect to a wireless LAN or another
`network, those are not used for transferring files using RAPI
`
`Exchange of information between CE device and computer is merely
`“receiving data”; no directionality
`RAPI functions used to carry out data transfer create a direct point-to-
`point communications link and say nothing about directionality
`“CeWriteFile()” is a general function for writing files on a Windows CE
`device
`“szbuf” data is simply described as “a buffer of some kind”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’511 Patent Limitation
`“network server”
`
`“receiving
`downstream data”
`
`44
`
`
`
`Goggin does not disclose a “network server”
`
`Ex. 2022 at ¶ 115.
`
`45
`
`
`
`Goggin does not disclose
`a “network server”
`
`46
`
`Ex. 2022 at ¶ 116-17
`
`
`
`Goggin does not disclose
`a “network server”
`
`47
`
`Ex. 2022 at ¶ 122-123
`
`
`
`Goggin does not disclose a “network server”
`
`PO distinguished other prior art in prosecution on exactly the same basis:
`
`48
`
`Ex. 1002 at 355
`
`
`
`Missing Elements in Kimura
`
`’511 Patent Limitation
`“receiving downstream
`data”
`
`“personal network
`server”
`
`“electronic file” and
`“source electronic file”
`
`49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kimura
`Files are stored directly on the PPDD
`Expressly designed to avoid transfer of data from an
`upstream source server to a downstream receiving device
`No flow of data from server toward the user; user data is
`saved directly, in real-time, onto the PPDD
`Petitioner’s construction requires the computer as both
`the source of downstream data and the display device
`Results in the “flow” of data from the computer to the
`PPDD to be both “downstream” and “upstream”
`
`File-sharing conducted through direct point-to-point
`communications link
`Twelfth embodiment references PPDD being connected to
`a network, but that connection permits other computers
`to access files from the PPDD in a direct point-to-point
`communications link
`
`“Source file” and “copy” are both the file stored on the
`PPDD
`No processing of “downstream data” to create a copy of
`source files stored on the source server
`
`
`
`Kimura Does Not Render the ’511 Patent Obvious
`
`Kimura discloses a
`portable data storage
`device that is directly
`mounted on a
`stationary computer,
`which saves directly
`onto the device.
`
`50
`
`Ex. 1035 at 6:52-7:2
`
`
`
`Kimura Does Not Render the ’511 Patent Obvious
`
`The Kimura device can
`then be mounted on a
`second, local
`stationary computer—
`like the hard-drive like
`prior art devices that
`the Rosetta invention
`was expressly designed
`to overcome.
`
`51
`
`Ex. 1035 at Fig. 2 (color added)
`
`
`
`Kimura does not disclose “receiving downstream data”
`
`’511 Patent
`
`Kimura
`
`52
`
`
`
`Kimura does not disclose “receiving downstream data”
`
`• Kimura designed to avoid need for transfer
`from an upstream source server to a
`downstream receiving device.
`• Files are not “stored at each work station or
`personal computer independently,” which
`“require[s] a user to be conscious of
`differences in computer device type or
`environment and without demanding a user
`to spend considerable efforts in copying data
`and maintaining a consistency among the
`copied data.” Ex. 1035 at 2:26-30; 6:64-65.
`• User files are stored directly onto the PPDD,
`which is mounted or otherwise configured
`using a “mechanism for making the file
`system 4 of the portable personal file system
`4 as if it is a part 8 of the file system 7
`of the stationary computer 5 located
`nearby.” Id. at 7:11-13.
`
`53
`
`
`
`Kimura does not disclose both an “electronic file” and a
`“source electronic file”
`
`• User files are stored directly onto the PPDD
`“as if it is a part 8 of the file system 7
`of the stationary computer 5 located
`nearby.” Ex. 1035 at 7:11-13.
`
`•
`
`Identified “electronic file” and “source
`electronic file” are the same.
`
`54
`
`
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`• Rosetta’s invention satisfied a long-felt but unmet need:
`
`• Access to updated server data despite intermittent network availability
`and bandwidth limitations.
`
`• Problem remained unsolved for more than a decade.
`
`• Rosetta’s invention took a different approach from the teachings and
`general consensus of the industry at the time:
`
`• Problem could not be solved by better infrastructure alone
`• Approach was initially rejected as unworkable solution, but later
`found widespread adoption
`
`55
`
`
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`• Rosetta’s invention received substantial praise once demonstrated:
`
`• Rosetta was awarded a highly selective $2 million grant from NIST to
`develop working prototypes of its WIPS technology. See Ex. 2010.
`
`• Motorola hailed Rosetta as a “leading-edge program[ ]” with a “very
`innovative approach.” Ex. 2003.
`
`• Rosetta’s WIPS device received coverage and praise from the Chicago
`Business Journal. Ex. 2012.
`
`• Mr. Sergio Fogel, a contemporaneous skilled artisan from Uruguay,
`described the WIPS solution as a “killer app.”
`
`•
`
`56
`
`Intel built a proof-of-concept WIPS and published its success in 2005.
`Ex. 2004 at 1; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 28, 32.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
