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 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`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 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Arthur M. Keller, do hereby declare:
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Scope
`
`1.
`
`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 was
`
`also asked to consider the differences between the two manuals cited as the
`
`CVS documentation (Exhibits 1004 and 1005). I express those opinions in
`
`this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been advised that my declaration is being used in support
`
`of a preliminary response to petitions filed by Dropbox. Thus, I have not
`
`been asked to provide all of my opinions concerning the claims of the ’757
`
`patent and the documents cited by Dropbox in their petitions at this time.
`
`Should the Patent Office decide to proceed with one or more trials, I have
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`been advised that I may be called upon in the future to supplement the
`
`opinions that I express in this declaration. Thus, 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.
`
`3.
`
`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 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.
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`I obtained a Master of Science degree and doctorate degree in
`
`Computer Science from Stanford University in 1979 and 1985, respectively.
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`In 1980, I worked at IBM as a Summer Research Assistant. In
`
`1981, I again worked at IBM, as an Academic Associate.
`
`9.
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`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.
`
`11. 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.
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12. 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.
`
`13. 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.
`
`14. 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, attached as
`
`Exhibit 2002.
`
`15. 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 updated relational databases through views. I have
`
`published papers on various aspects of database systems, including
`
`distributed databases, parallel databases, object-oriented and object-
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`relational databases, database integration, database security, and database
`
`implementation, as well as various applications of database technology.
`
`16. 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.
`
`17.
`
`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
`
`CommerceOne in January 2000. I was also organized instructor for courses
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on electronic commerce and Internet security at the Western Institute for
`
`Computer Science in the mid-1990s.
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`19. 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,
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Zippering: Managing Intermittent connectivity in DIANA,” Exhibit 2002, p.
`
`10. The term zippering 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.
`
`20. My publications are listed in my curriculum vitae, attached at
`
`Exhibit 2002.
`
`D. Materials Considered
`
`21.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have considered:
`
`(a) U.S. Patent No. 6,671,757 (“the ’757 Patent”; Exhibit 1001);
`
`(b)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’757 Patent (Exhibit 2003);
`
`(c)
`
`Prosecution History excerpt of inter partes reexamination no.
`
`95/002,339 (Exhibit 1008);
`
`(d) The Nichols document (“Nichols”; Exhibit 1003);
`
`(e) The CVS documentation (“CVS”; Exhibits 1004 - 1005);
`
`(f)
`
`The Kistler document (“Kistler”; Exhibit 1006);
`
`(g) The Burns document (“Burns”; Exhibit 1007);
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(h)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,671,757 (April 7, 2016; IPR2016-00850; “’850 Petition”);
`
`(i)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims 16-29 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,671,757 (April 7, 2016; IPR2016-00851; “’851 Petition”); and
`
`(j)
`
`The Declaration of Azer Bestavros, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1002).
`
`22.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(a) The documents listed above;
`
`(b) The relevant legal standards, including the standards for anticipation
`
`and obviousness, and any additional documents cited in the body of
`
`this declaration; and
`
`(c) My knowledge and experience in this area as described below.
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`23.
`
`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 the Petitioner.
`
`24.
`
`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
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`be arranged in the same way in the prior art as they are in the claim.
`
`25.
`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`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
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`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.
`
`28.
`
`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
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`innovations are made; the sophistication of the technology; and the
`
`educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`29.
`
`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.
`
`30.
`
`I also understand that Synchronoss believes that the CVS
`
`documentation actually constitutes two separate documents. I have been
`
`asked to provide my analysis and opinion on this issue, and will discuss this
`
`question below.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`31. 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
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 experience with
`
`networked computer systems and/or distributed computing, including
`
`aspects of client-server coordination. I would also consider a person with a
`
`Masters degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent course of study, with
`
`at least 2 years 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
`
`32. The ’757 Patent is directed to systems that provide for data
`
`synchronization amongst a plurality of users or clients that are connected
`
`through a network. The ’757 Patent discussed the need for efficiently
`
`synchronizing data or information between different devices available to one
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or more users, that potentially operate on different platforms using different
`
`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, and provide
`
`instructions for implementing these differences as a result of a 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.
`
`33. 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 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:
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(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;
`
`
`
`(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
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
`(f) a copy of a previous state of said data,
`
`(g) and a difference transaction generator.
`
`
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`34.
`
`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 take
`
`to avoid unnecessarily importing limitations into the claims. I have been
`
`advised that limitations from the specification may be imported into the
`
`claims, consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`
`where the term at issue has been given an explicit definition in the
`
`specification, or where there is a clear disclaimer of subject matter
`
`associated with the term at issue. 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.
`
`35. For any claim terms that I have not expressly defined, I
`
`considered their meaning according to their ordinary and customary meaning,
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. Claim 1 — “Difference Information”
`
`36.
`
`I understand that Dropbox has taken the position that this term
`
`is defined in the specification of the ’757 Patent as “information that
`
`comprises only the changes to one system’s data which have occurred on
`
`that system, and instructions for implementing those changes.” Upon review
`
`of the ’757 Patent specification, it would appear that the term is described in
`
`this manner. Specifically, the ’757 Patent specification states:
`
`Difference information ∆ comprises only the changes to System B’s
`
`data which have occurred on System B and instructions for
`
`implementing those changes.
`
`Exhibit 1001, column 6, lines 8-11.
`
`37. This definition of “difference information” is consistent with its
`
`use in the language of claim 1 itself, as well as throughout the specification
`
`of the ’757 Patent.
`
`38. For example, with regard to the language “only the changes to
`
`one system’s data,” the ’757 Patent contrasts synchronization using
`
`“difference information” with previous synchronization techniques that rely
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`upon: “copying of full records between systems” (Exhibit 1001, column 2,
`
`lines 22-23); systems that “replaces the older file with the newer file to
`
`achieve synchronization” (Exhibit 1001, column 2, lines 39-42); “[t]his
`
`consequently increases the speed at which such transactions can take place
`
`since the data which need to be transmitted is substantially smaller than it
`
`would be were entire files transferred between the systems” (Exhibit 1001,
`
`column 8, lines 34-38); and “[i]n this manner, the information on System B
`
`is updated without the need to transfer the entire binary files between the
`
`Systems” (Exhibit 1001, column 6, lines 28-30). Also, Dropbox’s definition
`
`of difference information encompasses the situation also described in the
`
`specification of the ’757 Patent where new data is created on a system:
`
`Exhibit 1001, column 6, lines 11-16 (“. . . If the data does not exist at all on
`
`System B, the difference information ∆ will be the entire file.”). Thus, the
`
`abovementioned portions of the ’757 Patent inform the understanding of the
`
`“only the changes . . .” portion of the definition by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.
`
`39. Based on my experience, as confirmed by consultation with
`
`counsel, the term “comprising” is an “open” term used in patent application
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`drafting, signaling the possibility of the inclusion of additional items or
`
`features other than those specifically enumerated after the use of this word.
`
`Therefore, consistent with the construction of difference information as
`
`comprising only the changes to one system’s data which have occurred on
`
`that system, and instructions for implementing those changes, the presence
`
`of other items or information as part of “difference information” is not
`
`precluded under this construction.
`
`40. For example, the ’757 Patent explains that the difference
`
`information is output to the server in the form of a data package. Exhibit
`
`1001, column 12, lines 36-38. Such data packages may include additional
`
`items, information and/or metadata, such as folder information, item fields,
`
`source information, data package identifiers, object identifiers (Universally
`
`Unique Identifiers), compression and/or encryption information, headers, etc.
`
`Exhibit 1001, Figure 12, and column 39, line 12 - column 40, line 44.
`
`41. Dropbox states on page 9 of the ’850 Petitioner that the
`
`prosecution history of the ’757 Patent confirms that difference information
`
`“is limited to information describing the content and location of changes to
`
`data.” However, Dropbox’s construction is open through the use of the term
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“comprising.” Thus, their construction is not limited to information
`
`describing the content and location of changes to data. Also, Dropbox’s
`
`construction of difference information as comprising “instructions for
`
`implementing those changes” is in no way limited to “location of changes to
`
`data.”
`
`
`
`42.
`
`I understand that Dropbox has also provided essentially the
`
`same opinion regarding the construction of the term “difference information”
`
`in its petition related to claims 16-29 of the ’757 Patent. See, the ’851
`
`Petition at page 9. However, as evident from the above, neither claims 16
`
`nor 24 contain the term “difference information.” Furthermore, Dropbox
`
`fails to explain how its definition of “difference information” is relevant to
`
`any of the other terms appearing in claim 16 or 24.
`
`B. Claims 1, 16 and 24 -- “Difference Transaction”
`
`43. Dropbox provides a construction of the term “difference
`
`transaction” as one or more pieces of difference information communicated
`
`together. See, for example, page 10 of the ’850 Petition. Dropbox’s expert
`
`testifies that, in the field of computer science, the term “transaction” at its
`
`simplest level refers to “a single unit of work.” Exhibit 1002, ¶48. While
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this characterization is not necessarily inaccurate as a general proposition, it
`
`is not accurately reflected in Dropbox’s construction.
`
`44. To the extent that a specific definition of the term “difference
`
`transaction” is necessary, the term should be defined in a manner that is
`
`consistent with the context of how it is used in the language of claim 1.
`
`According to the actual language of claim 1, in the context of the first sync
`
`engine (emphasis added):
`
`the first sync engine on the first system interfacing with data on the
`
`first system to provide difference information in a difference
`
`transaction
`
`45.
`
`In the context of the second sync engine (emphasis added):
`
`a second sync engine on the second system coupled to receive the
`
`difference information in the difference transaction . . .
`
`46. The term “transaction” is a common term that I view as self-
`
`explanatory those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`47. Dropbox’s view that “difference transaction,” as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, may include “one or more
`
`pieces of difference information,” would appear consistent with the
`
`specification of the ’757 Patent. However, the construction of the term
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“difference transaction” that includes the notion that the difference
`
`information is actually communicated is not consistent with the specification
`
`of the ’757, or the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. This
`
`construction is inconsistent with Dropbox’s own expert’s testimony that, in
`
`the field of computer science, a transaction is “a single unit of work,” and is
`
`inconsistent with the use of the term “difference transaction” in the plain
`
`language of claim 1 itself. As evident from the above, other portions of the
`
`element embody any necessary notions of communication by the use of the
`
`terms “to provide” (first sync engine) and “to receive” (second sync engine).
`
`48. Moreover, the term “transaction” as used in the specification of
`
`the ’757 Patent does not call for the transaction itself to be an actual form of
`
`a communication. For example, the ’757 Patent specification describes the
`
`“Change Log” as “a data file which contains a series of synchronization
`
`transactions.” Exhibit 1001, column 17, lines 22-23 (emphasis added). In
`
`addition, the ’757 Patent specification describes: “[o]ne or more storage
`
`servers 1415 may be used to communicate transaction[s] amongst a
`
`collection of devices.” Exhibit 1001, column 34, lines 22-23 (emphasis
`
`added). According to the ’757 Patent specification, consistent with the
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`understanding of the term “transaction” by one of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`while a “transaction” can be the subject of a communication, or included in a
`
`communication, it does not form the act of a communication in and of itself.
`
`49. Thus, in my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand, consistent with the specification of the ’757 Patent, that
`
`“difference transaction” is simply “one or more pieces of difference
`
`information.” I would also consider “one or more pieces of difference
`
`information that can be communicated together” as a proper alternative
`
`construction.
`
`50. Dropbox also construes the term “difference transaction” as
`
`being “one or more pieces of difference information communicated together”
`
`in its Petition directed to claims 16-29 of the ’757 Patent. See, ’851 Petition
`
`at page 10. However, neither independent claim 16 nor 24 contains the term
`
`“difference transaction.” Furthermore, it does not appear that Dropbox
`
`provides any explanation of how its construction of “difference transaction”
`
`is relevant to any of the terms appearing in claims 16 or 24.
`
`51.
`
`I note that claims 16 and 24 each include the term “difference
`
`transaction generator.” As discussed earlier, “difference transaction” refers
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2001
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00851
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to one or more pieces of difference information, or one or more pieces of
`
`difference information that can be communicated together. A “difference
`
`transaction” necessarily includes “difference information,” and therefore a
`
`“difference transaction generator” also necessarily implicates “difference
`
`information.”
`
`VI. GROUNDS BASED UPON THE CVS DOCUMENTATION
`
`A. Claims 1, 16 and 24 — The Two Cited CVS Manuals are Separate
`Documents
`
`52. What Dropbox refers to as the “CVS documentation” is actually
`
`two separate manuals that appear to be related to version 1.10.3 of the
`
`Concurrent Versions System (“CVS”). The first document is a manual
`
`describing the CVS protocol for client-server interactions, or “CVS
`
`client/server,” cited by Dropbox as Exhibit 1004. The second document is a
`
`more general users manual, or “Version Management with CVS,” cited by
`
`Dropbox as Exhibit 1005.
`
`53. Dropbox’s expert has stated the opinion that the two documents
`
`should be considered as the same reference, due at least in part, to the view
`
`that a
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
