UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DROPBOX, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00851
`
`
`Patent 6,671,757
`
`DECLARATION OF ARTHUR M. KELLER, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DROPBOX, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00851
`
`
`Patent 6,671,757
`
`DECLARATION OF ARTHUR M. KELLER, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Arthur M. Keller, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Synchronoss
`
`Technologies, Inc. in the matters of IPR2016-00850 and IPR2016-00851, Inter
`
`Partes Reviews of U.S. Patent No. 6,671,757 (the “’757 Patent”) to David L.
`
`Multer, et al.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
`A.
`2.
`
`Scope
`
`I have been asked to review certain materials and give my opinion
`
`about whether claims 1-29 of the ’757 Patent are valid over certain documents. I
`
`was also asked for my opinions regarding the meaning of certain words of the
`
`claims and the level of ordinary skill in the art. I express those opinions in this
`
`declaration.
`
`3.
`
` I have been advised that my declaration is being used in support of a
`
`Response by Synchronoss to petitions filed by Dropbox. I reserve the right to
`
`further supplement my analysis and opinions as set forth therein, in the event that I
`
`am called upon to do so.
`
`4.
`
`I have been retained by Patent Owner, Synchronoss, as an expert and
`
`am being compensated for my time. My compensation is not dependent on the
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`outcome of this proceeding, the results of my analysis, or on the substance of my
`
`opinions and testimony. I have no interest in the outcome of this matter.
`
`5.
`
`I have no financial interest in Dropbox, Inc. or Synchronoss, Inc. I
`
`similarly have no financial interest in the ’757 Patent and I have had no contact
`
`with the named inventors of the ’757 Patent.
`
`B.
`6.
`
`Educational Background
`
`I was awarded a Bachelor of Science degree in 1977 from Brooklyn
`
`College, with majors in Mathematics and in Computer and Information Science.
`
`7.
`
`I obtained a Master of Science degree and doctorate degree in
`
`Computer Science from Stanford University in 1979 and 1985, respectively.
`
`C.
`8.
`
`Professional Experience
`
`From 1974 to 1977, I was a Systems Analyst at Brooklyn College. In
`
`1977, I also worked as an Instructor at Brooklyn College.
`
`9.
`
`In 1980, I worked at IBM as a Summer Research Assistant. In 1981, I
`
`again worked at IBM, as an Academic Associate.
`
`10. From 1977 to 1985, I worked in various roles in the Computer
`
`Science Department at Stanford University, mostly while a graduate student. My
`
`roles included working as a Research Associate, Research Assistant, Acting
`
`Assistant Chairman, and Instructor.
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I later continued my work at Stanford University in various other
`
`academic capacities. In particular, I was a Visiting Assistant Professor from 1987
`
`to 1989, a Research Associate from 1989 to 1991, a Research Scientist from 1991
`
`to 1992, and a Senior Research Scientist from 1992 to 1999.
`
`12. From 1985 to 1989, I worked as an Assistant Professor and an
`
`Adjunct Assistant Professor at the University of Texas at Austin in the Department
`
`of Computer Sciences.
`
`13. Since 2001, I have been a Visiting Associate Professor, Lecturer, and
`
`Researcher in various departments at the Baskin School of Engineering at the
`
`University of California, Santa Cruz.
`
`14. Furthermore, I have provided advice to startups, including as co-
`
`Founder, Board member, Chief Data Scientist, and CFO of PSYCHeANALYTICS,
`
`Inc., and co-Founder, Board member, and CFO of Active Ion Displays, Inc.
`
`15. Throughout my career, I have worked at various other institutions and
`
`businesses. For further details regarding my employment and academic history,
`
`please refer to my curriculum vitae, already of record in this case as Exhibit 2002.
`
`16. My experience in the field of database technology dates back to at
`
`least 1980, when I co-authored a paper on database implementation titled “FLASH:
`
`A Language-Independent, Portable File System.” My doctoral dissertation was on
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`updated relational databases through views. I have published papers on various
`
`aspects of database systems, including distributed databases, parallel databases,
`
`object-oriented and object-relational databases, database integration, database
`
`security, and database implementation, as well as various applications of database
`
`technology.
`
`17. Through my work on the Penguin project on object-relational
`
`databases at Stanford University, I became Chief Technical Advisor and Board
`
`member of Persistence Software, which went public in June 1999. Persistence
`
`Software commercialized object-relational database technology, and I co-authored
`
`several papers for Persistence Software starting in 1993. See, for example, my
`
`curriculum vitae, Exhibit 2002, pp. 12-13.
`
`18.
`
`I served as Stanford University’s project manager for CommerceNet,
`
`a consortium promoting electronic commerce on the Internet, between 1993 and
`
`1997. My research work at the time focused on cross-search of multiple electronic
`
`catalogs that were emerging on the Internet, particularly involving parameters and
`
`translation of terminology across multiple ontologies. I published papers on this
`
`work starting in 1994. See, for example, “CommerceNet: Overview and Electronic
`
`Catalogs,” Exhibit 2002, p. 15. I co-founded Mergent Systems with Prof.
`
`Genesereth to commercialize this technology, and the company was acquired by
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CommerceOne in January 2000. I was also organized instructor for courses on
`
`electronic commerce and Internet security at the Western Institute for Computer
`
`Science in the mid-1990s.
`
`19.
`
`In the early to mid-1990s, I co-authored papers regarding independent
`
`updates to replicated databases. These updates were commutable operations, that
`
`is, those that can be reordered without changing the effect on the data. For
`
`example, debit and credit operations can commute (if one ignores the potential to
`
`overdraft an account). This body of work involved peer-to-peer synchronization of
`
`updates that could occur at any replica, without use of a server. See, for example,
`
`“The Case for Independent Updates,” “Achieving Incremental Consistency among
`
`Autonomous Replicated Databases,” “Independent Updates and Incremental
`
`Agreement and Replicated Databases,” “A Classification of Update Methods for
`
`Replicated Database,” and “Independent Updates and Incremental Agreement in
`
`Replicated Databases.” Exhibit 2002, pp. 10, 13, and 15.
`
`20. Also in the early to mid-1990s, I coauthored papers on
`
`synchronization under intermittent connectivity using a technique I called
`
`“zippering.” In this project, a handheld computer could either operate connected to
`
`the server or in disconnected operation. See, for example, “Zippering: Managing
`
`Intermittent connectivity in DIANA,” Exhibit 2002, p. 10. The term zippering
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`because of the analogy to a partially open (i.e., “Y” shape) zipper. The
`
`synchronization process involves moving the zipper’s shuttle from the junction
`
`point while interleaving the teeth as the synchronization proceeds. See, for
`
`example, “The DIANA Approach to Mobile Computing,” and “Zippering:
`
`Managing Intermittent Connectivity in DIANA,” Exhibit 2002, pp. 11-12.
`
`21. My publications are listed in my curriculum vitae, attached at Exhibit
`
`2002.
`
`D. Materials Considered
`22.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have also considered:
`
`23. U.S. Patent No. 6,671,757 (“the ’757 Patent”; Exhibit 1001).
`
`24.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`
`
`Prosecution History of the ’757 Patent (Exhibit 2003);
`
`Prosecution History excerpt of inter partes reexamination no. 95/002,339
`
`(Exhibit 1008);
`
`The Nichols document (“Nichols”; Exhibit 1003);
`
`The Kistler document (“Kistler”; Exhibit 1006);
`
`The Burns document (“Burns”; Exhibit 1007);
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,671,757 (April 7, 2016; IPR2016-00850; “’850 Petition”);
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(g)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims 16-29 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,671,757 (April 7, 2016; IPR2016-00851; “’851 Petition”);
`
`The Declaration of Azer Bestavros, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1002);
`
`The Transcript of the Deposition of Azer Bestavros, Ph.D. (Exhibit
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`2009);
`
`(j)
`
`James W. Hunt and M. Douglas McIlroy, “An Algorithm for Differential
`
`File Comparison,” Bell Laboratories, Computing Science Technical
`
`Report 41 (1976) (Exhibit 1020);
`
`(k)
`
`Julie K. Peterson, The Telecommunications Illustrated Dictionary,
`
`Second Edition, CRC Press, 2002 (Exhibit 2010);
`
`(l) Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Microsoft Press, 1999
`
`(Exhibit 2011);
`
`(m) The relevant legal standards, including the standards for anticipation and
`
`obviousness, and any additional documents cited in the body of this
`
`declaration; and
`
`(n) My knowledge and experience in this area.
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`25.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the ’757 Patent would have been anticipated or obvious, in light of
`
`certain documents provided by Dropbox.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is patentable unless a single prior
`
`art reference describes every element of the claim, either expressly or inherently, to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that this is referred to as
`
`“anticipation.” I have also been informed that, to anticipate a patent claim, the
`
`prior art reference need not use the same words as the claim, but it must describe
`
`the requirements of the claim with sufficient clarity that a person of skill in the art
`
`would be able to make and use the claimed invention based on the single prior art
`
`reference. The claim elements must also be arranged in the same way in the prior
`
`art as they are in the claim.
`
`27.
`
`In addition, I was informed and understand that, in order to establish
`
`that an element of a claim is “inherent” in the disclosure of a prior art reference, it
`
`must be clear to one skilled in the art that the missing element is an inevitable part
`
`of what is explicitly described in the prior art, and that it would be recognized as
`
`necessarily present by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`It is my understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I also understand that the obviousness analysis takes into account
`
`factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claimed
`
`subject, and any secondary considerations or evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`29.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the following:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready
`
`for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, and
`
`some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30.
`
` I have been advised that the level of ordinary skill in the art can be
`
`determined by taking into consideration the type of problems encountered by those
`
`in this art; the solutions to those problems; the rate at which innovations are made;
`
`the sophistication of the technology; and the educational level of active workers in
`
`the field.
`
`31.
`
`I have also been advised that challenges to the claims of a granted
`
`patent in inter partes reviews are limited to challenges based on patents and printed
`
`publications. I have been advised that the Synchronoss believes that the
`
`documents cited by Dropbox have not been adequately shown to constitute printed
`
`publications. I do not express any opinion with regard to these issues. However,
`
`nothing contained in my declaration is intended to be considered any form of
`
`admission or concession that the documents cited by Dropbox constitute printed
`
`publications under the appropriate legal standards.
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that, as Petitioner, Dropbox bears the burden of
`
`demonstrating that the claims of the ’757 Patent are unpatentable by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`33. Taking into consideration the type of problems encountered by those
`
`in this art; the solutions to those problems; the rate at which innovations are made;
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the sophistication of the technology; and the educational level of active workers in
`
`the field; and based on my education and experience, I am familiar with the level
`
`of knowledge that one of ordinary skill would have possessed during the relevant
`
`time period. I consider that a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to
`
`the ’757 patent would have a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an
`
`equivalent course of study, and three or more years of experience with networked
`
`computer systems and/or distributed computing, including aspects of client-server
`
`coordination. I would also consider a person with a Master’s Degree in Computer
`
`Science, or an equivalent course of study, with at least two years of experience in
`
`the above-mentioned areas, to also be a person of ordinary skill in the art. Finally,
`
`I would consider someone with a doctorate degree in a course of study involving
`
`networked computer systems and/or distributed computing, including aspects of
`
`client-server coordination, to be a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’757 PATENT
`34. The ’757 Patent is directed to systems that provide for data
`
`synchronization amongst a plurality of users, clients or devices that are connected
`
`through a network. The ’757 Patent discussed the need for efficiently
`
`synchronizing data or information between different devices available to one or
`
`more users, that potentially operate on different platforms using different
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`applications. Exhibit 1001, column 1, lines 36-47; and column 2, lines 46-54 and
`
`61-65. For example, the ’757 Patent discloses a system that includes a first sync
`
`engine on a first system, a second sync engine on a second system, and a data store
`
`coupled to a network in communication with the first and second systems. The
`
`first sync engine may interface with data on the first system to identify changes or
`
`differences in data by comparing the data on the system to a previous version of
`
`the data on the sync engine thereby generating difference information and
`
`difference transactions, and provide instructions for implementing these
`
`differences as a result of the data comparison. The second system is coupled to
`
`receive the difference information from the data store via a network, and update
`
`the date on the second system with difference information identified by the first
`
`sync engine. Exhibit 1001, column 3, lines 32-42. The ’757 patent recognizes that
`
`an important part of the efficiency and effectiveness of a synchronization system is
`
`the ability to transfer data between devices or systems in a form that is independent
`
`of the form in which the data is kept on a respective system; i.e., using a universal
`
`format. Exhibit 1001, 1:16-21, 2:61-65, and 12:1-10.
`
`35. The ’757 Patent has 29 claims, with claims 1, 16 and 24 being the
`
`main or independent claims. Claims 1, 16 and 24 are reproduced below, annotated
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with subsections corresponding to those contained in the claim charts of the
`
`Petitions.
`
`1. (a) A system for synchronizing data between a first system and a
`second system, comprising:
`
`(b) a first sync engine on the first system interfacing with data
`on the first system to provide difference information in a difference
`transaction;
`
`(c) a data store coupled to the network and in communication
`with the first and second systems; and
`
`(d) a second sync engine on the second system coupled to
`receive the difference information in the difference transaction from
`the data store via the network, and interfacing with data on the second
`system to update said data on the second system with said difference
`information;
`
`(e) wherein each said sync engine comprises a data interface,
`(f) a copy of a previous state of said data,
`(g) and a difference transaction generator.
`
`
`16. (a) A system, comprising:
`
`a first device including at least a first data file and first
`differencing code, the first device having an input and an output
`coupled to a network to receive first device data change transactions
`from, and provide change transactions generated by the first
`differencing code based on said at least one data file to, said network;
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) a data store coupled to the network having at least one data
`
`structure coupled to store change transactions; and
`
`(c) a second device including at least a second data file and
`second differencing code, the second device having an input and an
`output coupled to the network to receive said first device data change
`transactions from, and provide second change transactions generated
`by the second differencing code based on said at least second data file
`to, said data store;
`
`(d) wherein said first differencing code includes a first sync
`engine having a first data interface, a first copy of a previous state of
`said data, and a first difference transaction generator, and
`(e) said second differencing code includes a second sync engine
`having a second data interface, a second copy of a previous state of
`said data, and a second difference transaction generator.
`
`24. (a) An Internet synchronization system, comprising:
`
`(b) a storage server having an Internet connection;
`
`(c) a first device coupled to the Internet and including a first
`device sync engine interfacing with data on the first device, the first
`device in communication with at least the storage server; and
`
`(d) a second device coupled to the Internet and including a
`second device sync engine interfacing with data on the second device,
`the second device in communication with at least the storage server;
`
`(e) wherein each said device sync engine comprises a data
`interface,
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(f) a copy of a previous state of said data,
`(g) and a difference transaction generator.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`36.
`
`It is my understanding that in this proceeding, the claim terms of
`
`the ’757 patent are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with
`
`the specification of the ’757 Patent, as understood by one of ordinary skill the art.
`
`I have also been advised that although the claim terms should be interpreted
`
`consistently with the specification, care should be taken to avoid unnecessarily
`
`importing limitations into the claims. Thus, I have been advised that claim terms
`
`are normally given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is my understanding that claim terms that do
`
`not possess a special meaning to those of ordinary skill in that relevant art may be
`
`simply given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`37. For any claim terms that I have not expressly defined, I considered
`
`their meaning according to their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, to the extent necessary to formulate
`
`the opinions expressed in my declaration.
`
`A.
`38.
`
`“Difference Information”
`
`I understand that the Board construed this limitation as “information
`
`that comprises only the changes to one system’s data which have occurred on that
`15
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`system, and instructions for implementing those changes.” I have adopted this
`
`construction for purposes of this opinion.
`
`B.
`“Difference Transaction”
`39. The Board construed this limitation as “one or more pieces of
`
`difference information communicated together.” I have adopted this construction
`
`for purposes of this opinion.
`
`C.
` “Difference Transaction Generator”
`40. This term appears in each independent claim 1, 16 and 24.
`
`41. The broadest reasonable interpretation, as would be understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, and consistent with the specification of the ’757 patent
`
`is: “software that compares a current state of the data to a previous state of the
`
`data to generate difference information, and then places the difference information
`
`into a difference transaction.”
`
`42. The term “difference transaction generator” embodies data
`
`differencing. See, the ’757 patent, 4:23, 5:32, 5:36. Differencing, and a number of
`
`conjugations of this word, is a term of art. As the term is used in the art,
`
`differencing involves the comparison of data to derive or generate differences. For
`
`example, James W. Hunt and M. Douglas McIlroy, “An Algorithm for Differential
`
`File Comparison,” Bell Laboratories, Computing Science Technical Report 41
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(1976) (Exhibit 1020) discuss the generation of difference information by
`
`comparing two files. Dr. Bestavros agrees. See Exhibit 1002, ¶34. Dr. Bestavros
`
`also talks about comparing two files to “compute the difference between the two
`
`files.” Id., ¶35. See also Exhibit 1007, p. 26. Thus, the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of “difference,” as used in the ’757 patent specification and the term
`
`“difference transaction generator” in the claims, and as would be understood by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, involves the comparison of data to derive or
`
`generate the differences between them.
`
`43. The word “generator” in the term “difference transaction generator”
`
`implicates the manner by which the difference information present in the
`
`difference transaction is created or derived. The specification of the ’757 patent
`
`consistently uses “generating” difference information by comparison of data to a
`
`previous state of the data. For example, the specification describes “difference
`
`information” is the product of “extraction.” This extraction is performed by a
`
`“differencing transmitter” or “differencing synchronizer.” See, the ’757 patent,
`
`6:3-8, 6:33-37. The “differencing synchronizer” is further described in the ’757
`
`patent as a delta module or differencing engine. See, ’757 patent, 12:18-19. The
`
`delta module or differencing engine is consistently disclosed as “generating”
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`differences through comparison. See, ’757 patent, 12:14-53, 14:39-42, 28:26-31,
`
`17:57-61.
`
`44. Thus, the specification consistently characterizes the difference
`
`transaction generator as “generating” differences through comparison of the
`
`current state of the data to a previous state of the data.
`
`45. This understanding is further reinforced by the context of the plain
`
`language of the claims surrounding the use of the term. For example, claim 1
`
`recites both data on the first system (or second system) interfacing with a sync
`
`engine and a copy of a previous state of said data. The purpose of maintaining two
`
`separate versions of the data is to perform a comparison.
`
`46. Furthermore, claim 1 specifies that the sync engine, which includes
`
`the difference transaction generator and the copy of the previous state of said data,
`
`is characterized as “interfacing with data on the first system to produce difference
`
`information in a difference transaction.” Again, the claimed “interfacing” between
`
`the different versions of the data in the difference transaction generator is
`
`consistent with the notion of a comparison of the data as the process of “generating”
`
`difference information in difference transactions.
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. GROUNDS BASED ON NICHOLS
`A. Nichols Fails to Disclose a “Difference Transaction Generator”
`When Properly Construed
`47. This term appears in each independent claim 1, 16 and 24.
`
`48. Nichols is directed to a “collaboration system.” Essentially, Nichols
`
`only deals with changes to information made on a user’s display, which can then
`
`be propagated to other users of the collaboration system that are connected through
`
`a server. Thus, the system described by Nichols can be thought of as a virtual
`
`whiteboard. Exhibit 1003, p. 111. In other words, any “differences” in data
`
`created in the Jupiter system simply involve changing widget values; the user
`
`changes the state of the widget value through commands such as keyboard strokes
`
`or mouse movements. These commands are then immediately applied locally to
`
`the user’s version of the widget, the same changes then sent to the server that then
`
`updates its version of the widget’s value, and propagates the changes to other users
`
`operating on the system. Exhibit 1003, p.112. There is simply no notion, or
`
`disclosure whatsoever, of a difference transaction generator that creates or derives
`
`differences through comparison of different versions of data.
`
`49. Thus, Nichols fails to disclose or suggest a difference transaction
`
`generator, or software that compares a current state of the data to a previous state
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the data to generate difference information, and then places the difference
`
`information into a difference transaction.
`
`B. Nichols Fails to Disclose Both Versions of Data Required by
`Claims 1, 16 and 24 of the ’757 Patent
`50. Claim 1 reads in part a “sync engine on the first system interfacing
`
`with data on the first system,” as well as a “sync engine comprises . . . a copy of a
`
`previous state of said data.” A second system is mentioned that also includes the
`
`same two versions of the data.
`
`51. Claim 16 reads in part a “first device including at least a first data file,”
`
`as well as a first sync engine having . . . a first copy of a previous state of said data.”
`
`A second system is also claimed having similar requirements.
`
`52. Claim 24 specifies a first device including a “sync engine interfacing
`
`with data on the first device,” as well as a “sync engine comprises . . . a copy of a
`
`previous state of said data.” A second system is also mentioned having similar
`
`requirements.
`
`53. Thus, according to the plain language of the claims of the ’757 Patent,
`
`a copy of a previous state of the data associated with the first or second system or
`
`device, in addition to, a (current) version of the data that interfaces with the sync
`
`engine, is maintained on each of the first and second systems or devices.
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`54.
`
`It is these versions of the data that are compared by the sync engine’s
`
`difference transaction generator to create the difference information included in the
`
`difference transactions. Not surprisingly, Nichols fails to disclose this feature of
`
`the claimed invention. Nichols does not generate difference information through
`
`comparison. Instead, Nichols simply propagates changes from one user to a server,
`
`which then propagates changes to other users.
`
`55. During his Deposition, Dr. Bestavros, Dropbox’s expert, uses the
`
`description of widgets in Nichols in his attempt to show that Nichols reference
`
`discloses maintaining two versions of data at the same time and comparing these
`
`two versions of data. In particular, Dr. Bestavros stated:
`
`. . . And I just want to go back to something I said earlier. I was
`A
`actually looking for that one sentence: The Numeric widget does not
`send intermediate values while the slider is being moved, but waits
`until the mouse button is released to send the final widget value.
`This is a perfect example that a person of ordinary skill in the art, my
`reading of this patent says they must have another copy because there
`is a copy that is being displayed, which obviously has to change as
`you move your mouse. But then when it’s -- because I want to filter
`all of the stuff that happens in the middle when it is time to send the
`update message I certainly have to have an old copy of that object
`and the current state to decide what sort of thing to send. For
`example what to replace, you know, a part of your screen or
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`something else would be like. So there is a need to compute that and
`for that you have to maintain another copy. I think this was what I
`was looking for earlier when asked the question about where does it
`say, you know, you have a copy.
`Q
`But it doesn’t actually say that it saves an additional copy in
`those words?
`A
`All I said was a person of ordinary skill in the art reading this
`system description, it necessarily has to do that otherwise you cannot
`do what it says it can do. . .
`Exhibit 2009, 74:3-75:9 (emphasis added).
`
`56. Nichols contains the following description of how such widgets’
`
`values are updated:
`
`In addition, each widget type supplies a set of event notifications,
`most of which are result of user interactions. Buttons notify the
`application when they have been activated by the user. Numerics do
`so when the user chooses a new value for them. . . When any widget
`event occurs, a predetermined application routine is invoked with
`information about the event . . . Each change made by a user is
`reported to the application and automatically propagated to the other
`users.
`Exhibit 1003, p. 114.
`
`57.
`
`I do not agree with Dr. Bestavros’ interpretation of the disclosure of
`
`Nichols that, although not explicitly disclosing the presence of a separate copy of
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2008
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the data, as nevertheless requiring the presence of a separate copy in order to
`
`effect a change.
`
`58. For the Numeric widget, the widget sends the new (final) value to the
`
`application, which in turn sends that new (final) value to the server. The
`
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
