Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 53
`Entered: September 9, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DROPBOX, INC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2016-00850
`IPR2016-00851
`Patent 6,671,757 B1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 25, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DAVID C. MCKONE and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 53
`Entered: September 9, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DROPBOX, INC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2016-00850
`IPR2016-00851
`Patent 6,671,757 B1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 25, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DAVID C. MCKONE and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`DAVID M. KRINSKY, ESQUIRE
`ADAM D. HARBER, ESQUIRE
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`SCOTT W. CUMMINGS, ESQUIRE
`MARTIN A. BRUEHS, ESQUIRE
`Denton US, LLP
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`March 25, 2019, commencing at 1:30 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before Donna Jenkins,
`Notary Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`CLERK: All rise.
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Good afternoon. You can be seated.
`Okay. Good afternoon. We are here for a case under IPR2016-00850,
`IPR2016-00851. With me today are Judges McKone and Boudreau who are
`appearing remotely. And Dropbox, Inc is Petitioner and Synchronoss
`Technologies, Inc is the Patent Owner for patent number 6,671,757.
`Following remand from the Federal Circuit, we are here for 30 minutes of
`argument for each side for the issues that were not instituted upon in the
`prior proceedings. But each party will have 30 minutes to make their case.
`The Petitioner can reserve some rebuttal time on those issues in which bares
`the burden. You can let me know at the outset and I will do my best to keep
`track with those times in the room. If you’re going to be using it -- we have
`your demonstratives which we received. If you’re going to be using any
`evidence that -- it’s best that you refer to the page number and exhibit
`number so that the judges appearing remotely can follow along.
`Let’s start with Petitioner. Can you make the appearances?
`MR. KRINSKY: David Krinsky from Williams and Connolly LLP on
`behalf of Petitioner, Dropbox. With me at counsel table is Adam Harber,
`also Williams and Connolly.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Good afternoon. And for Patent Owner?
`MR. CUMMINGS: Good afternoon. Scott Cummings for Patent Owner,
`Synchronoss and with me at the counsel table is my partner, Martin Bruehs,
`also attorney record for the Patent Owner.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`MR. BRUEHS: Good afternoon.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon.
`If we have any -- unless we have any housekeeping issues or questions,
`Petitioner can --
`MR. KRINSKY: The only housekeeping issue, Your Honor, is I have hard
`copies of the demonstratives. I know two of the judges are remote, but if
`Your Honor would like one, I’m happy to pass one on.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: I will take one actually.
`MR. KRINSKY: Sure. Just one or would you like
`one for your colleagues?
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Just one for me.
`MR. KRINSKY: May I approach, Your Honor?
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Yes. Thank you.
`MR. KRINSKY: And Your Honor, if I may, I’d like to reserve 10 minutes
`for rebuttal.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay.
`MR. KRINSKY: Please.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: You can begin when you’re ready.
`MR. KRINSKY: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Board. With
`the Board’s permission, I think it would make sense to start with the CVS
`grounds, grounds 3 and 4, which pertain to the CVS documentation
`reference that was not previously before the Board and with which the Board
`may therefore have a little bit less familiarity since we’re back here for the
`second time. So I’m going to start at Slide 11.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`The CVS documentation teaches a system that clearly teaches all of the
`elements of the claims from the -- based on the argumentation in the
`briefing, there really doesn’t seem to be a serious argument about the overall
`structure of the system and how it performs synchronization. The CVS
`system is designed to allow multiple clients to commit to use the CVS
`terminology changes to a central repository and then for other clients to
`receive the changes from that repository in the form of CVS update
`messages. I’ve put on Slide 11, Figure 3 of the 757 Patent showing, sort of,
`the overall structure of the system just to remind Your Honors that this sort
`of -- all of the claims are directed to this system of multiple clients with sync
`engines, to use the language of the claims, and a central data store in which
`you see these little deltas changes are sent in the form of difference
`information from one client to the data store and then from the data store to a
`second client. The CVS system as embodied in the documentation and as
`implemented as of the date of the documentation, uses difference
`information to convey changes from the repository to a client that’s doing an
`update. So the system corresponding to system B in Figure 3 of the 757
`Patent.
`I’ve indicated that by highlighting the little delta here. And I wanted to flag
`for Your Honors before we get into what I think is the key disputed
`limitation, which is the committing of difference information from system A
`to the repository, how the system goes about sending those changes from the
`repository to the second client because I think it illustrates why
`Synchronoss’ arguments against anticipation here are off base. CVS
`includes this functionality called “CVS diff,” which generates the
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`differences between an old and a new version of the data, and takes those
`differences, and instructions for where to put them, and can simply be used
`at the command line in the form of the CVS diff command, but is also used
`as Exhibit 1004, which describes the CVS client server protocol is also used
`to communicate differences and instructions for how to apply them from the
`central server to a client that’s doing an update. That’s the RCS diff
`command that I have at the bottom of Slide 11. So that functionality is
`already present in the CVS system that is described in Exhibit 1005. The
`dispute concerns the teachings of the CVS documentation to modify the
`CVS system and use difference information from the first client to the
`repository. One way to do this, which is the way that is described in Exhibit
`1005, is simply to upload the whole file if a file has changed and that was, I
`believe, the focus of the Board’s Institution Decision declining to institute
`on this ground originally.
`It was also the focus of Synchronoss’ argumentation as well CVS doesn’t
`embody the claim. It doesn’t teach the required difference information. But
`the very same references we’re talking about here, the one reference there
`split across two documents, Exhibit 1004 could hardly have a more express
`teaching of what to do to this system to use difference information. It
`teaches, on Page 31, I have it up on Slide 12, that the modified request,
`which is undisputedly the client server protocol request used to
`communicate changes from a client to the repository, could be speeded up
`by sending diffs rather than entire files. I submit to you that this is a
`teaching to do exactly on the upload side what CVS already does on the
`download side and with that minor change, CVS does exactly what the
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`claims require. It allows information to be synchronized from System A to
`the repository to System B using difference information at both steps and in
`fact using the same difference information at both steps assuming the -- you
`have an old version of the file at System A and System B and then
`somebody changes it on System A. Synchronoss’ response to this argument
`is -- takes, I think, a couple of forms. One is that this would somehow be
`difficult to do. That there is an inadequate teaching here of to make this an
`enabling disclosure of how to use difference information in this manner, but
`I submit to you that CVS -- excuse me, Synchronoss is off base.
`
`And I moved on to Slide 13, which calls out some of the arguments
`they made in their POPR. Synchronoss argues that client’s local computers
`would need to be provided with sufficiently robust storage capabilities to
`handle all of these, you know -- keeping around a previous version of a file
`that could be used to generate difference information in this manner. That is
`something that the very same text we’re relying on calls out. It says the
`client would need some way to keep the version of the file which was
`originally checked out. So the reference already recognizes how to go about
`doing this. Keep a version of the file which was originally checked out. I
`want to emphasize that it says, “Of the file.” It’s not saying keep a copy of
`every file someone might want to edit. It’s keeping a copy of the version of
`the file that someone is editing. And it says after the semicolon, “The way
`to do that is to use the CVS edit command,” which as the documentation
`explains it’s called out at Exhibit 1005, Page 64, is a command that provides
`exclusive access to files when a user -- ordinarily, in the CVS system, you
`have any user can edit any file and then their changes are committed as the
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`documentation explains when a user types “CVS commit.” It is also
`possible though to use the system in an exclusive access mode where you
`have -- you lock a file. And to do that, that’s what the CVS edit command is
`for. That would give you the ability to make a copy of the data so that you
`keep around a previous version of the data as this ports construction of
`difference transaction generator requires before committing the change.
`
`There is also a -- that also addresses the second criticism that CVS
`system would have to have the capability of maintaining a pristine original
`copy of a modified document. Synchronoss suggests also that this is some
`kind of big problem. Big, big change to the -- that would be necessary to the
`system that the disclosure hasn’t enabled. Well, the CVS system, in fact,
`already provides this functionality moving forward to Slide 14. There are
`circumstances that the documentation describes. One example is at Exhibit
`1004, Page 60, where a copy of the original working file is saved in place so
`that code to do that is already there. Likewise, the code to generate
`differences is already there because the CVS client software and the CVS
`server software, as the documentation describes, and I’ve called out. This is
`from the documentation at Exhibit 1005 at Page 5. It’s all one program
`that’s invoked different ways to be used as a client or a server. So under the
`governing test here which is not, does the documentation describe in every
`minute detail how to go about making this change, but rather is this an
`enabling disclosure of how to make the change that is taught. This clearly
`passes the test. You could hardly have a clearer teaching of changing a
`system in order to improve upon the system here by speeding it up than you
`have in Exhibit 1004.
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`Let me briefly address the question of whether this is anticipation or
`
`whether this is obviousness. I’ve just described modification to a system
`and then there was a good deal of debate about whether this is one reference
`or two. We would submit to you that this is all one reference because they
`were distributed together. The two documents, Exhibit 1004 and 1005,
`really are best looked at as chapters of a book, or maybe a manual and an
`appendix, to the manual one is a documentation for the system and the other
`is -- describes the protocol. But they were distributed together as part of one
`download package. They’re properly seen as one reference and that one
`reference teaches every limitation of the claim through a combination of
`describing the system as it has been implemented, and a to do list, if you
`will, of changes to be made to that system that is anticipation. But if it is not
`anticipation and if the Board can --
`
`JUDGE MCKONE: What evidence do you have that the -- these two
`documents were distributed together?
`
`MR. KRINSKY: Dr. Bestavros explains -- lays out all the evidence in
`his declaration around Paragraph 148. He explains how these were together
`in a CVS download package called CVS1103.tar.g.zip and then describes the
`directory structure there. So it’s in his declaration Exhibit 1002, and then
`the various materials he cites. He cites a number of documents that are
`directory listings and the like laying all that out.
`
`JUDGE MCKONE: Now, he acquired this software package after the
`critical date; is that correct?
`
`MR. KRINSKY: He acquired it after the -- he acquired this exact
`version of it after the critical date. He had personally used it before the
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`critical date and laid out his experience with it. But, yes, this copy of it is
`one that he located on the web. It has its own internal date information and
`it also -- he referred to the Wayback machine and described based on his
`knowledge of how this was distributed at the time by Cyclic software. So as
`I said, the information is laid out there but he, I mean, he hasn’t been sitting
`on this copy of the software since, you know, since the critical date.
`
`JUDGE MCKONE: I’ll let you make your obviousness argument, but
`I will want to circle back to the point
`of publication issue.
`
`MR. KRINSKY: Sure. Sure. The obviousness argument really is
`just to say it’s the same as the anticipation argument and it doesn’t really
`matter what legal label Your Honors choose to apply to it. If there is a
`concern about whether these are one -- these are two references rather than
`one, you could hardly have a stronger motivation to combine two references
`than one reference describing something, and a second reference describing
`the changes that you would make to that exact thing that were distributed
`together. They were also describing the same exact system, so it’s a “to do”
`list for how to modify the system described in Exhibit 1005.
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: What,in the claims that you are
`claiming,could you state are combination then of the two CVS documents?
`
`MR. KRINSKY: I mean, I think the one limitation would be the use
`of difference information to communicate from what’s described in various
`ways the first system, or the first client, or the first device to the data store.
`Our view is that they’re all present, they’re all talking about the same system
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`but that is the one limitation that’s a prophetic teaching rather than a
`description of a system that’s already been implemented.
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: And what of Patent Owner’s arguments of the
`modified request which is the sync engine in particular has to contain both a
`copy of the original data and a -- some kind of difference information
`extracted from the changes between the original file or original document
`and changed file; is that correct? So at least it would be -- should be three
`things or two things that are present in the difference transaction generator
`which is part of the sync engine. Just to be at that first sync engine on the
`first system it should therefore, contain both the changed data -- the original
`file, the changed data, and the current file. Am I understanding that
`correctly?
`
`MR. KRINSKY: I believe, if I understand Your Honor’s question
`correctly, I believe the answer is yes. I mean, the patent doesn’t lay out with
`any clarity where exactly you draw a box around what is the sync engine
`versus what is not the sync engine. The sync engine is some piece of
`software on the client side that is among other things capable of
`communicating difference information that it has generated by comparing a
`previous state of the data to the current state of the data. That’s exactly what
`the -- is taught back on Slide 12 or 13 the -- with the modified request. The
`idea would be that just as is done from repository to client, the client would
`save a prior copy of the data, as is taught in the second sentence there,
`generating diff between the old and the new and communicate that
`difference. Those are the elements of the sync engine.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`JUDGE JEFFERESON: And so that -- when invoking this modified
`
`request that means in the information showing Slide 12, which I believe uses
`the 757 description, but System A is called System A, the client, I guess, 300
`there is the server or some device (in between.
`
`MR. KRINSKY: Yeah. The data store. The claim language.
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Each of these data -- each of these locations
`will contain the original document, the original file as described as the
`original version that is being maintained; is that the argument? That if I
`send the difference information and only the difference information that the
`recipient would then know where to start.
`
`MR. KRINSKY: That’s right. The presence of the prior state of the
`data is described as already being present on the repository and already
`being present on System B. That’s how changes are already sent from the
`repository to the second client through this RCS diff message that I
`described. The change would be, as is described in this paragraph, keeping a
`local copy of the data when you intend to edit the file by using the CVS edit
`command you could just, you know, copy the file. It’s not a difficult
`operation. And then use that to generate a CVS diff, the difference
`information, and the instruction for how to apply it, and ship that up to the
`repository instead of shipping up the whole file. And again, since the two
`CVS client’s and the CVS server are literally the same software package, as
`is described here, that functionality is already there. It’s a matter of tying it
`together in a slightly different way. I would like to use my remaining time
`before I -- so I can reserve some for rebuttal to address briefly the Nickels
`ground.
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`Nickels is a reference that we --
`
`JUDGE MCKONE: As I mentioned before, I would like to hear what
`
`you have to say on whether CVS was publicly accessible. I mean, you can
`use that time however you want but I think that it’s something that is of
`interest to me at least.
`
`MR. KRINSKY: Certainly, Your Honor and I didn’t mean to move
`on prematurely. If you take a look at Slide 17, I think that lays out in
`summary form the evidence that we’ve brought to bare on this. CVS was a
`system that our expert Dr. Bestavros had personal knowledge of. He went
`to, sort of, verify that this particular version that we were submitting was
`available at the correct times, consulted both the Wayback machine and the
`dates therein for --
`
`JUDGE MCKONE: Now, the Wayback machine only shows that
`there was a directory that had the version name on it, correct? The actual
`documents that you relied on, they were not achieved; is that correct?
`
`MR. KRINSKY: I don’t believe that’s correct, Your Honor. Dr.
`Bestavros used the Wayback machine, and that directory entry that Your
`Honor is referring to to date when this package was built, and when this
`package was publicly available on the Cyclic website, but this is the --
`
`JUDGE MCKONE: But he obtained -- you’re arguing that he
`obtained this software from the Wayback machine?
`
`MR. KRINSKY: Your Honor, I don’t remember off hand exactly
`where the tarball was downloaded from, but it is available as a discernible
`particular version number, the date of which he authenticated using the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`Wayback machine as well as its own internal date information. All of which
`is consistent and all of which is undisputed. So I --
`
`JUDGE MCKONE: Do you have any evidence of how this
`information would have been found on the internet assuming that it was in
`fact on the page achieved by the Wayback machine? Is there any evidence
`of indexing or how a skilled artisan would’ve found first the tarball and the
`documents within it?
`
`MR. KRINSKY: So I don’t know that that’s an issue that has been
`particularly briefed among the parties. I don’t think that’s an issue
`Synchronoss has raised, but Dr. Bestavros opined that this was a well-known
`package that would’ve been available through all the usual internet search
`engines and that, as I said, that was widely used in software development
`that he personally had been using. He wasn’t affiliated in any way with
`Cyclic software, he was, for these purposes, a random member of the public
`and a person of ordinary skill in the art he found it and used it. So I think
`that answers Your Honors question, I hope.
`
`JUDGE MCKONE: So we would have to rely on your expert’s
`memory on this?
`
`MR. KRINSKY: Well, he has personal knowledge of it that’s not
`disputed. I mean, it’s his testimony as well as the various documents that he
`cite, that all consistently point in one direction. So it’s not just some
`uncorroborated memory of his. It is, you know, several exhibits in the
`record combined with his uncontested testimony. He’s not just trying to
`remember the date. That’s why he went back to these other sources and also
`analyzed the tarball itself to look at the dates within it. All of which point to
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`public availability in 1999. So unless there are other questions on CVS, let
`me just very briefly address --
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Well, on the --
`
`MR. KRINSKY: Oh, sure.
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: -- Looking at CVS. How do you address the
`argument that the diff command is only a command that compares the
`modified version of the client and that there is no local comparison approach
`that meet the limitations of having a sync engine at each individual location?
`
`MR. KRINSKY: So I think the best evidence that that is incorrect is
`the RCS diff protocol message that is described on Slide 11. It’s Exhibit
`1004 at 23. The CVS diff command as a command that a user can type, can
`just spit out the differences for human -- a human to read, but that same
`exact functionality which is described here that it says, “The changed text is
`produced by diff minus n.” That’s referring to a CVS diff argument. So the
`CVS diff command and functionality for how to apply the changes that it
`generates is already what’s used to communicate from a repository to a
`client. All we’re talking about is using it also in the other direction.
`
`Just very very briefly on Nichols, I know that’s an issue that the Board
`has already addressed in its prior ruling and that we previously had a oral
`argument about, but I think it’s important to emphasize here the response by
`Synchronoss is largely a procedural one that somehow we didn’t raise as an
`obviousness argument. Our position was and is that Nichols anticipates, as
`Your Honor knows. The Board has disagreed with that, but in its final
`written decision, it took -- it held that our arguments were obviousness
`arguments rather than anticipation arguments.
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`We were talking about what the person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve
`understood what the reference teaches but does not have within the four
`corners of the reference spelled out in sufficient language. And given that,
`the notion that we haven’t made this argument is simply wrong. It’s sort of
`a heads we win, tails you lose type argument by Synchronoss. This either
`sounds in anticipation or in obviousness, and if it doesn’t sound in
`anticipation, it sounds in obviousness, and for all the reasons we’ve
`previously argued, and that we addressed further in our reply, Nichols as a
`single reference obviousness teaching renders obvious all of the challenged
`claims. So unless there are questions on that, I’ll reserve the remainder of
`my time for rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Is it the copy of the previous state of the data
`that Nichols --
`
`MR. KRINSKY: Yeah. So the --
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: -- Nichols closed it down by saying it that
`express but here you’re saying well, at least it sounds in obviousness. What
`part of that testimony supports that conclusion? Is it more than just saying,
`“Well, if it’s not there expressly it must be there obviously -- out of
`obviousness”?
`
`MR. KRINSKY: Well, so the one, you know, assertedly missing
`limitation last time is that we don’t really disagree that it’s missing, but the
`limitation that was the subject of the argument last time was the use of a
`prior copy of the data in order to perform a comparison and communicate
`the difference information. And if you take a look at Slide 11, you know,
`the argumentation hinged on -- excuse me, Slide 7. I think I may have
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`misspoken. The argument hinged on this replace message that was used by
`TextEdit widgets. The replace message, Dr. Bestavros explained how in
`order to generate this, you would need to have and would have the obvious
`way to do this would have been to compare to a prior state of the data. The
`replace message itself, at Page 114 of the Nichols reference, is described as a
`message that says, “Replace this region of text with this value.” It’s
`expressly referring to the prior version when it says, “This region of text.”
`And it says, “Take this region of text from the previous version and update it
`with a particular value.” This is the one and only message, by the way, that
`is used by TextEdit widgets in order to communicate information. This
`notion that they somehow aggregate all of the users key strokes or send, you
`know, messages in other forms is just wrong according to the undisputed
`record and the teachings of Nichols, particularly it’s Table 3.
`
`So I think that answers Your Honors question. The issue was just
`what do you call that? You know, the testimony from -- which is on Slide 8.
`This is from Paragraph 16 of Dr. Bestavros’ reply declaration, talked about
`what Nichols teaches and what the person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand and the Board held that those were obviousness arguments rather
`than anticipation arguments. So now that we’re back here and you’re -- the
`Board has an obviousness ground in front of it, we would submit the claim
`should be cancelled for that reason, if not for anticipation.
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you.
`
`MR. KRINSKY: Thank you.
`
`JUDGE MCKONE: But I think as far as it being an obviousness
`argument, we were also looking at that as you were not willing to commit to
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`this feature being inherent. So I think that’s part of the concern here is that
`we have an expert that testified that a skilled artisan would’ve understood it
`this way, but not that the reference itself explicitly discloses this. So how is
`this -- how would you cast this as an obviousness argument now?
`
`MR. KRINSKY: Well, I mean it --
`
`JUDGE MCKONE: As far as what is missing from the prior art that
`would have been modified or changed based on the knowledge of a skilled
`artisan.
`
`MR. KRINSKY: So, with respect, Your Honor, we don’t think
`anything is missing. That was the gravamen of our anticipation argument,
`but if it doesn’t quite meet the standards for inherency then at the very least
`comparing the prior state of the data to the current state of the data to
`keeping them both around is, you know, the only way that Dr. Bestavros
`could come up with and certainly it’s an obvious way to go about generating
`these differences. So I think it’s a -- I don’t see it as a traditional
`obviousness argument that requires a modification to a reference. This is a -
`- and that’s by the way why the Synchronoss’ citations to the that line of
`cases is off base. This is talking about how the person of ordinary skill in
`the art would either understand the system described by Nichols to function
`or if they were seeking to just replicate what Nichols describes how they
`would go about doing it. And the obvious way, as it were, to generate a
`message that refers to a prior state of the data and says replace part of it with
`some new value is by comparing the old and the new.
`
`JUDGE MCKONE: So your expert is not testifying that one would
`have modified or changed Nichols? Your expert is testifying that Nichols
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2016-00850 & IPR 2016-00851
`Patents 6,671,757 B1
`
`would have been understood this way and essentially, expressly discloses
`this limitation?
`
`MR. KRINSKY: I mean, our expert is testifying this is what he and
`the person of ordinary skill in the art understand Nichols already to do. So I
`don’t know what modification would be necessary. To the extent that isn’t
`there, to the extent the Board concludes there isn’t an express teaching to do
`that. He is saying a person of ordinary skill in the art would do that.
`
`JUDGE MCKONE: Where is the second part? It could be -- it may
`be the case then your expert testified only as anticipation and that our
`mentioning of obviousness was our misunderstanding his testimony. So I
`want to make sure I understand what you think his testimony was.
`
`MR. KRINSKY: So his testimony was that because this replace
`message refers expressly to a prior region of text. It says, “Replace this
`region of text.” That can only be the region of text in the old data. “Replace
`it with this value,” he’s saying the person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that if all changes to a TextEdit widget are communicated using
`this replace message, the way to do that, and the way Nichols does do that is
`by keeping around a prior state of the data and using some sort of
`comparison to get from the old to the new and generate difference
`information. And the other side’s expert never addresses that head on. Dr.
`Keller talked about other types of widgets such as the numeric widget, which
`don’t do this, and also talked about how you would -- you know, you could
`aggregate key strokes and send, you know, only the key strokes that are
`necessary to update the widget. That isn’t a replace message. That’s not
`w
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
