UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC D/B/A/ IXO
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01365
`Patent 7,181,608
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER REALTIME DATA, LLC D/B/A IXO’S RESPONSE
`
`

`

`I.  
`
`II.  
`
`III.  
`
`IV.  
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1  
`
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 3  
`
`A.   THE ’608 PATENT ...................................................................................... 3  
`B.   THE INSTITUTED PRIOR ART ...................................................................... 7  
`1.   Sukegawa ........................................................................................... 7  
`2.   Dye ..................................................................................................... 9  
`3.   Settsu and Burrows .......................................................................... 10  
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 11  
`
`A.   PROPER INTERPRETATION OF “PRELOADING” .......................................... 12  
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 16  
`
`A.   GROUNDS 1-4 ARE EACH DEFECTIVE BECAUSE PETITIONER’S
`COMBINATIONS FAIL TO DISCLOSE “PRELOADING.” ................................ 16  
`1.   Sukegawa Does Not Disclose “Preloading,” But Rather Discloses
`Permanent Storage in Flash Memory for Later Access. .................. 16  
`2.   The ’608 Claims Distinguish “Preloading” from Other Types of
`Data Transfer and Storage. .............................................................. 26  
`B.   GROUNDS 1-4 ARE EACH DEFECTIVE BECAUSE PETITIONER’S
`COMBINATIONS FAIL TO DISCLOSE PRELOADING “PRIOR TO COMPLETION
`OF INITIALIZATION.” ................................................................................ 27  
`1.   Sukegawa Discloses “Initializing” and “Preloading” Occur During
`the Different Power-On Cycles. ...................................................... 28  
`’608 Claim 1 Requires “Initializing” and “Preloading” Occur During
`the Same Power-On Cycle. .............................................................. 29  
`3.   Sukegawa Fails to Disclose “Prior to Completion of Initialization of
`the Central Processing Unit.” .......................................................... 33  
`
`
`2.  
`
`

`

`4.   Sukegawa Fails to Disclose Claims 7, 22, and 27 for the Same
`Reasons. ........................................................................................... 35  
`C.   GROUNDS 1-4 ARE EACH DEFECTIVE BECAUSE DYE DOES NOT TEACH “A
`PLURALITY OF ENCODERS.” .................................................................... 37  
`D.   GROUND 1 IS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE APPLE IMPROPERLY RELIES ON DYE
`’284 FOR THE “COMPRESSED DATA” RESIDING ON “THE BOOT DEVICE”
`ELEMENT. ................................................................................................ 42  
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 48  
`
`
`
`
`
`V.  
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases  
`
`Apple Inc. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`IPR2015-00161, Paper 18 (PTAB May 8, 2015) ................................................ 30
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 46
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 26
`
`Augme Tech., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 26
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 36
`
`CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................... 26
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................. 1
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 11
`
`Ex parte Carlucci,
`Appeal 2010-006603, 2012 WL 4718549 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 28, 2012) ................. 47
`
`Ex Parte Chen,
`Appeal 2014-005461, 2016 WL 3877149 (PTAB July 13, 2016) ...................... 27
`
`Ex Parte Fenner Investments, Ltd.,
`Appeal 2015-006923, 2015 WL 5317395 (PTAB Aug. 27, 2015) ..................... 27
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`

`

`In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 12
`
`In re Cortright,
`165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................... 11
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 47
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 11
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974) ................................................................................... 1
`
`Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`450 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 31
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Grp., Inc.,
`554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................... 32
`
`Kingston Technology Co., Inc. v. Imation Corp.,
`IPR2015–00066, Paper 19 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2016) ............................................. 26
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 11
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 30
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comms. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Round Rock Research, LLC v. Sandisk Corp.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 339 (D. Del. 2015) ...................................................................... 47
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.,
`IPR2016-00808, Paper 6 (PTAB Sep. 19, 2016) ................................................ 30
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................... 11, 12
`
`
`
`

`

`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................... 2, 46
`
`Rules  
`
`37 CFR § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Declaration of David Saunders in support of Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Godmar Back
`
`Declaration of Dr. Godmar Back
`
`2004
`
`
`2005
`
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`
`2008
`
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`
`2011
`
`
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition,
`Houghton Mifflin (1982)
`
`Dictionary of Computer and Internet Words, Houghton Mifflin
`(2001)
`
`IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary, IEEE (1990)
`
`IEEE Standard Glossary of Computer Hardware Terminology,
`IEEE (1995)
`
`IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology,
`IEEE (1990)
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Ed., Microsoft (2002)
`
`Oxford Dictionary of Computing, 5th Ed., Oxford University
`Press (2004)
`
`The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating
`System, Marshall Kirk McKusick et al., Addison-Wesley
`Longman (1996)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.  
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A claim is not obvious if even a single element is not disclosed or taught by
`
`the prior art.1 Here, the Petition alleges that the prior art expressly discloses
`
`“preloading,” a term found in every independent claim.2 The Petition also alleges
`that the prior art necessarily discloses “prior to completion of initialization of the
`central processing unit” of the host system, another term found in every
`independent claim.3 The Petition’s arguments, however, are premised on incorrect
`interpretations of these claim terms that broaden the terms well beyond their
`broadest reasonable interpretation. When properly interpreted, neither of these
`terms is disclosed by the prior art on which this review was instituted, and the
`claims are not obvious.
`
`The Petition’s asserted obviousness combinations also fail to disclose other
`
`claim elements. For instance, the prior art references on which Ground 1 was
`
`instituted—Sukegawa and Dye—fail to disclose “compressed data” residing on a
`
`
`
`1 CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`(explaining that “obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”)
`
`(citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).
`
`2 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at claims 1, 7, 22, 27.
`
`3 Id.; Petition at 30-33.
`
`1
`
`

`

`“boot device,” as explained in further detail below. Apple attempts to fill this gap
`
`using another reference, the “Dye ’284” Patent, and arguing it is incorporated by
`
`reference into Dye. But Dye does not meet the Federal Circuit’s requirements for
`
`incorporating subject matter by reference. The Federal Circuit held in Zenon
`
`Envt’l, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp. that for a host patent to incorporate another patent
`
`or publication by reference, the host patent “must identify with detailed
`
`particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that
`
`material is found in the various documents.”4 Here, Dye does neither. Accordingly,
`
`the Petition’s reliance on Dye ’284 to provide elements missing from the instituted
`
`combinations is misplaced, and Apple cannot establish invalidity.5
`
`The Petition fails to establish invalidity for other reasons as well. For
`
`instance, the prior art fails to disclose a “plurality of encoders,” as required by
`
`claims 16, 17, 20, 21, 25, and 26 and improperly imports limitations from a
`
`reference that is not part of the instituted grounds.
`
`
`
`4 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`5 Moreover, the nonobviousness of claimed subject matter in view of Dye is further
`
`reinforced by the fact that Dye and Dye ’284 were both was considered by the
`
`Examiner during examination of the ’608 Patent.5
`
`2
`
`

`

`Accordingly, for all of these reasons, the Petition fails to establish that the
`
`claims of the ’608 Patent are invalid, and Apple’s request to invalidate the ’608
`
`Patent claims should be declined.
`
`II.   BACKGROUND
`A.   The ’608 Patent
`
`Realtime’s ’608 Patent is generally directed to systems and methods for
`
`providing accelerated loading of operating systems and application programs in a
`
`computer system.6
`
`One method of increasing computer performance at the time of invention
`
`and even today is use of onboard memory and onboard caches. These onboard
`
`memories and caches are faster than the common-place magnetic hard disk drives
`
`and thus allow devices to quickly access necessary data.7 Thus, data is temporarily
`
`stored in a cache or other high-speed memory, and devices do not have to wait for
`
`relatively slow hard drives to retrieve the needed data.
`
`
`
`6 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 1:15-21.
`
`7 See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 1:24-26, 21:31-44; Ex. 1005, Sukegawa at
`
`1:14-16, 42-49; Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶ 19.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Even with high-speed onboard memories and caches, computers at the time
`
`of invention still suffered from slow boot times.8 One reason for this is that upon
`
`reset, conventional boot device controllers would wait for a command before
`
`loading data for processing.9 Since boot device controllers are typically reset prior
`
`to bus reset and prior to the bus sending commands, the time spent by the boot
`
`device controller waiting for commands was unproductive.10 Similarly, once the
`
`CPU issued commands to the boot device controller for data, the CPU would then
`
`have to wait for the boot device to carry out the command.11 The time the CPU
`
`spent waiting for the boot device controller was also unproductive.12 This wasted
`
`processing time translated to slow boot times and therefore wasted the user’s
`
`time.13 As well, traditional high-speed memories of the time were volatile, and
`
`
`
`8 See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 21:40-43; Ex. 1005, Sukegawa at 1:46-49; Ex.
`
`2003, Back Dec. at ¶ 20.
`
`9 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 21:33-44.
`
`10 Id.
`
`11 Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶ 20.
`
`12 Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶ 20.
`
`13 Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶ 20.
`
`4
`
`

`

`were therefore erased upon power reset.14 Thus, storing desired information–such
`
`as boot information – ahead of time was not possible.
`
`To address the problem of wasted user time, the ’608 Patent discloses and claims
`
`methods and systems for preloading data. Specifically, the claims of the ’608 are
`
`directed to, inter alia, maintaining a list of boot data, preloading boot data in
`
`compressed form (based on the list) from a boot device into a cache memory, and
`
`decompressing the boot data prior to the time when the computer’s central
`
`processing unit begins to load the boot data.15 Another aspect of the inventions of
`
`the ’608 Patent is updating the list of boot data during the boot process by adding
`
`to the list any boot data requested by the computer which was not previously stored
`
`in the list, as well as removing from the list any boot data previously stored in the
`
`list but not requested by the computer.16 In yet another aspect of the invention, the
`
`system includes a boot device controller comprising a digital signal processor
`
`(“DSP”), programmable logic code, and a memory device for storing logic code
`
`
`
`14 See, e.g., Ex. 1005, Sukegawa at 1:21-26; Ex. 2003, Back Decl. at ¶ 20. See also
`
`Ex. 1003, Neuhauser Dec. at ¶ 44 (“[non-volatile] flash memory based designs
`
`were in 2000 still relatively expensive on a per bit basis”).
`
`15 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 3:34-52, 27:42-60, 28:9-25, 29:15-32, 30:4-26.
`
`16 Id. at 3:53-58, 28:1-8.
`
`5
`
`

`

`for the DSP and associated interfaces.17 These systems and methods result in a
`
`faster boot up. Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative:
`
`A method for providing accelerated loading of an operating
`1.
`system, comprising the steps of:
`
`maintaining a list of boot data used for booting a computer system;
`
`initializing a central processing unit of the computer system;
`
`preloading the boot data into a cache memory prior to completion of
`initialization of the central processing unit of the computer system,
`wherein preloading the boot data comprises accessing compressed
`boot data from a boot device; and
`
`servicing requests for boot data from the computer system using the
`preloaded boot data after completion of initialization of the central
`processing unit of the computer system, wherein servicing requests
`comprises accessing compressed boot data from the cache and
`decompressing the compressed boot data at a rate that increases the
`effective access rate of the cache.
`
`A system for providing accelerated loading of an operating
`7.
`system of a host system comprising:
`
`a digital signal processor (DSP) or controller;
`
`a cache memory device; and
`
`a non-volatile memory device, for storing logic code associated with the
`DSP or controller, wherein the logic code comprises instructions
`executable by the DSP or controller for maintaining a list of boot data
`used for booting the host system, for preloading the compressed boot
`data into the cache memory device prior to completion of initialization
`of the central processing unit of the host system, and for
`decompressing the preloaded compressed boot data, at a rate that
`
`
`17 Id. at 4:4-22, 28:9-33, 30:4-26.
`
`6
`
`

`

`increases the effective access rate of the cache, to service requests for
`boot data from the host system after completion of initialization of the
`central processing unit of the host system.
`
`As shown in the illustrative claims above, the invention is directed to
`
`“preloading” compressed boot data into the cache memory while the central
`
`processing unit is initializing. Indeed, the preloading must occur “prior to
`
`completion of initialization of the central processing unit [CPU]” so that the boot
`
`data is available to the CPU for processing once the CPU is initialized so as to
`
`reduce wasted CPU cycles.
`
`B.  
`
`The Instituted Prior Art
`
`The Board has instituted inter partes review based on the following grounds:
`
`103(a) Combination
`Ground Claims
`Sukegawa and Dye
`1
`1-31
`2
`1-6, 9-17 Sukegawa, Dye, Settsu
`3
`1-6, 9-17 Sukegawa, Dye, Burrows
`4
`1-6, 9-17 Sukegawa, Dye, Settsu, Burrows
`
`Apple did not seek institution based on the Dye ’284 reference, and the
`
`Board accordingly has not instituted based on Dye ’284 alone or in combination
`
`with any other references.
`
`1.  
`
`Sukegawa
`
`In contrast to the ’608 Patent’s preloading technique, Sukegawa teaches a
`
`“permanent storage” solution in which “information…necessary for starting
`
`7
`
`

`

`up…the OS and AP are permanently stored in the flash memory.”18 Sukegawa
`
`explains that the problem with then-existing cache systems is that they utilize a
`
`portion of the high-speed DRAM main memory as the cache, and such memory is
`
`cleared when the power to the system is switched off. As a result, “the cache
`
`system does not function when the power is switched on.”19 To overcome this
`
`drawback, Sukegawa proposes using a non-volatile memory to permanently store
`
`data needed for system startup instead of a traditional volatile cache.20
`
`Using Sukegawa’s approach, “preloading” is unnecessary, because the data
`
`that is needed or may be needed is permanently stored in non-volatile memory.
`
`Indeed, the data under Sukegawa’s approach is available before the computer is
`
`powered on, and does not need to be loaded into memory during initialization of
`
`the central processing unit.
`
`The petition contends that Sukegawa discloses the claim elements
`“preloading” and “prior to completion of initialization of the central processing
`
`
`
`18 Ex. 1005, Sukegawa at 2:11-16. (emphasis added).
`
`19 See, e.g., id. at 1:50-61.
`
`20 Id. at 1:53-61(Because “[t]he flash memory … is a non-volatile storage medium
`
`and has a higher access speed than the HDD,” “the cache function is effectively
`
`performed at the time of turning on power.”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`unit of the computer system.”21 The petition does not contend that either of the
`foregoing elements are disclosed by or obvious based on the remaining prior art
`references.22 However, as explained below, Apple’s argument is based on an
`overly-broad misinterpretation of the terms. When properly interpreted, Sukegawa
`discloses neither the “preloading” nor the “prior to completion of initialization”
`claim elements.
`
`2.  
`
`Dye
`
`Dye discloses a flash memory controller having a compression and/or
`
`decompression engine to support, for example, Execute-In-Place architectures,
`
`which results in improved memory density and bandwidth.23 Dye’s flash memory
`
`system comprises a flash memory array 100 and a Compression Enhanced Flash
`
`Memory Controller (“CEFMC”) 200.24 Dye’s memory controller (CEFMC 200)
`
`controls the transmission of small data segments (i.e., row and column data
`
`addressed in DRAM) to and from memory.25 Embedded within CEFMC 200 are
`
`
`
`21 See, e.g., Petition at 5-6, 30-33.
`
`22 Id. at 5-6.
`
`23 Ex. 1008, Dye at Abs., Figs. 7-9, 2:32-39; 2:42-53.
`
`24 Id. at 8:29-31.
`
`25 Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶ 27.
`
`9
`
`

`

`compression and decompression engines 260, 280.26 Dye does not teach or suggest
`
`using the disclosed compression/decompression system with traditional platter
`
`drives, and is instead limited to flash media.27 Nor does Dye teach or suggest using
`
`the disclosed system in a data storage controller, as in Sukegawa, for accessing
`
`disk sectors used to store and access operating system files.28
`
`3.  
`
`Settsu and Burrows
`
`Settsu discloses a process for booting up a system that comprises a boot
`
`device divided into a mini-operating system (“OS”) module and an OS main body
`
`wherein modules of the OS main body may be stored as compressed files.29
`
`Burrows discloses a log-structured file system aimed at improving performance by
`
`eliminating disk reads and writes wherein the system may use compression
`
`routines so data occupies less space.30
`
`
`
`26 Ex. 1008, Dye at Abs., 8:48-52.
`
`27 See, e.g., Ex. 1008, Dye at Abs., 2:42-47, 3:3-12, 4:44-55.
`
`28 Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶ 28.
`
`29 Ex. 1006, Settsu at Abs., 1:51-65; 3:6-12.
`
`30 Ex. 1007, Burrows at 8; 10.
`
`10
`
`

`

`III.   CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Since the ’608 Patent is not expired, the Board must interpret claims using
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.31 The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible definition.32 To be
`
`sure, the Federal Circuit explained in Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels that “[w]hile the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard is broad, it does not give the Board an
`
`unfettered license to interpret the words in a claim without regard for the full claim
`
`language and the written description.”33 The construction “cannot be divorced from
`
`the specification and the record evidence, and must be consistent with one that
`
`those skilled in the art would reach.”34 Thus, “[c]onstruing individual words of a
`
`claim without considering the context in which those words appear is simply not
`
`
`
`31 Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b).
`
`32 PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comms. RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 752
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`33 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`34 Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing
`
`In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and In re Cortright, 165
`
`F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`11
`
`

`

`‘reasonable.’”35 Rather, the construction must account for how the claims and the
`
`specification inform the ordinarily skilled artisan as to the meaning of the term.36
`
`A.  
`
`Proper Interpretation of “Preloading”
`
`The term “preloading,” as used in claims 1, 3, 7-9, 22, and 27, should mean
`
`“transferring data from storage to memory in anticipation of immediate or near-in-
`
`time use.”37 Indeed, this construction is consistent with the claims and the intrinsic
`
`record, and is the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
`
`
`
`35 Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1062. See also PPC Broadband, 815 F.3d at 756 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (“Given the context of the claims, the specification, and the technology
`
`of the ’060 patent, we conclude that the Board's construction of ‘reside around’ is
`
`unreasonable.”); In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148-50 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012) (finding the Patent Office’s construction unreasonably broad because it
`
`was “unreasonable and inconsistent with the language of the claims and the
`
`specification”).
`
`36 PPC Broadband, 815 F.3d at 752 (overturning the Board’s construction that
`
`failed to account for how the claims and the specification informed the meaning of
`
`the claim term at issue).
`
`37 Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶¶ 47-55.
`
`12
`
`

`

`The specification explains that “preloading” involves moving data from
`
`storage, such as a boot device, into memory, such as a cache memory. For
`
`example, claim 1 recites “preloading the boot data into a cache memory,” with
`
`“preloading” comprising “accessing compressed boot data from a boot device[.]”38
`
`Claim 9 recites “preloading the application data into the cache memory,” with
`
`“preloading” similarly comprising “accessing compressed application data from a
`
`boot device[.]”39 And claim 22 recites “preloading boot data . . . from a boot device
`
`into a cache memory[.]”40 Further, in certain embodiments, the specification
`
`explains that data is stored on a boot device,41 and that data is preloaded from a
`
`boot device into the onboard cache memory of an exemplary data storage
`
`controller.42
`
`In addition, a POSITA would have understood that this movement of data
`
`from storage into memory is performed in anticipation of immediate or near-in-
`
`
`
`38 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 27:49-53.
`
`39 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 28:37-41.
`
`40 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 29:20-21.
`
`41 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 3:60-61.
`
`42 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 21:50-54, 22:41-45.
`
`13
`
`

`

`time use.43 The ’608 Patent states that its systems and methods are designed to
`
`“provide[ ] accelerated loading of operating system and application programs upon
`
`system boot or application launch.”44 To this end, certain claims recite that boot or
`
`application data is preloaded, for example, to service requests for that data
`
`immediately or in the near future.45 Certain embodiments also describe
`
`“preloading” as loading data in anticipation of using that data.46
`
`This meaning, moreover, aligns with how a POSITA would have understood
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of “preloading,” consistent with the
`
`specification.47 Notably, in one embodiment, boot data is preloaded into the
`
`onboard cache memory of an exemplary data storage controller, in what the ’608
`
`Patent refers to as “step 77” of Figure 7b.48 Figure 7b, in turn, describes step 77 as
`
`“Prefetch Data Blocks Specified in List:”49
`
`
`
`43 Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶¶ 48-51.
`
`44 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 1:15-21; see also id. at Abs., 3:34-40.
`
`45 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at claims 1, 7-9, 22, 27.
`
`46 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at Abs., 21:56-62, 22:9-19, 23:13-38; Figs. 7b, 8b.
`
`47 Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶ 52.
`
`48 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 22:40-45; see also id. at 22:20-39.
`
`49 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at Fig. 7b.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`This disclosure indicates that “preloading” has a meaning similar to
`
`“prefetching.” 50 And “prefetching” refers to the process of retrieving data before it
`
`is needed.51 Consistent with this interpretation, the Examiner during prosecution of
`
`the ’608 Patent issued an initial rejection based on a prior art reference directed to
`
`
`
`50 Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶ 53.
`
`51 Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶¶ 53-54.
`
`15
`
`

`

`prefetching.52 Therefore, the Examiner also concluded that preloading and
`
`prefetching are similar.
`
`Accordingly, “preloading” should be accorded its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “transferring data from storage to memory in anticipation of
`
`immediate or near-in-time use.”53
`
`IV.   ARGUMENT
`A.   Grounds 1-4 Are Each Defective Because Petitioner’s
`Combinations Fail to Disclose “Preloading.”
`
`1.  
`
`Sukegawa Does Not Disclose “Preloading,” But Rather
`Discloses Permanent Storage in Flash Memory for Later
`Access.
`
`Each independent claim recites “preloading,” and therefore every claim of
`
`the ’608 Patent requires “preloading.” Apple relies on Sukegawa—and only
`
`Sukegawa—as allegedly disclosing “preloading,”54 stating that Sukegawa
`
`describes “two techniques for preloading boot data[.]”55 But neither of Sukegawa’s
`
`
`
`52 See, e.g., Ex. 1002, File History at 181.
`
`53 Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶ 55.
`
`54 Petition at 30-33; Ex. 1003, Neuhauser Dec. at ¶¶ 108, 111-15.
`
`55 Petition at 30-31; see also id. at 8-10 (citing Ex. 1003, Neuhauser Dec. at ¶¶ 55-
`
`58, 108-115).
`
`16
`
`

`

`two techniques constitute “preloading.” Accordingly, Sukegawa does not disclose
`
`“preloading,” and cannot invalidate any of the claims of the ’608 Patent.
`
`Specifically, in Sukegawa’s first technique, “permanent storage area 10A of
`
`flash memory unit 1 is used as a cache memory area.”56 A user starts a data storage
`
`utility program, which “reads specified data from” Sukegawa’s hard disk drive,
`
`HDD 2, and “stores the read data in a specified storage area in the flash memory
`
`unit 1,”57 which has a higher access speed than HDD 2.58 This data is then
`
`“permanently stored in the permanent storage area” of flash memory unit 1, where
`
`it remains for subsequent use “until the user instructs” otherwise.59
`
`Similarly, in Sukegawa’s second technique on which Apple relies, control
`
`information is stored in “non-volatile cache area 10C” of flash memory unit 1,
`
`rather than its “permanent storage area.”60 Apple asserts that this process is
`
`
`
`56 Ex. 1005, Sukegawa at 5:10-12.
`
`57 Ex. 1005, Sukegawa at 5:15-19 (emphasis added).
`
`58 Ex. 1005, Sukegawa at 1:17-20, 6:54-58.
`
`59 Ex. 1005, Sukegawa at 5:50-53 (emphasis added).
`
`60 Ex. 1005, Sukegawa at 9:21-11:19; Figs. 7A, 7B.
`
`17
`
`

`

`automated, rather than driven by user input.61 Regardless, like the first technique,
`
`data is permanently saved to non-volatile cache area 10C.62 Thus, by pointing to
`
`these two techniques, Apple asserts that the one-time act of “storing” or
`
`“permanently storing” data in a particular location corresponds to the term
`
`“preloading.” This interpretation of “preloading,” however, is unreasonably broad
`
`and contrary to the intrinsic record.
`
`The intrinsic record establishes that “preloading” means “transferring data
`
`from storage to memory in anticipation of immediate or near-in-time use,” as
`
`explained above. Thus, merely “storing” data in a particular location, as Sukegawa
`
`does, cannot comprise “preloading.” And indeed, the ’608 Patent draws a clear
`
`distinction between the concepts of “storing” and “loading,” and “storing” and
`
`“preloading.” For example, the specification explains that “[m]ass storage devices
`
`(such as a ‘hard disk’) typically store the operating system of a computer system,
`
`as well as applications and data[.]”63 The specification further explains that “boot
`
`
`
`61 Petition at 31-32 (citing Ex. 1005, Sukegawa at 7:28-55). See also Ex. 1003,
`
`Neuhauser Dec. at ¶¶ 110, 114-115.
`
`62 Id.; Ex. 1005, Sukegawa at 7:17-65. See also Petition at 31-32.
`
`63 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 1:39-41 (emphasis added).
`
`18
`
`

`

`data is stored in a compressed format on the boot device[.]”64 Once that data has
`
`been copied to a permanent storage medium, it remains in long-term persistent
`
`storage,65 regardless of whether that medium is a hard disk drive (like Sukegawa’s
`
`HDD 2), for example, or a flash memory (like Sukegawa’s flash memory unit 1).
`
`Thus, “storing” in the ’608 Patent and in Sukegawa carries the same meaning as
`
`“pre-installation,” which refers to the process of storing software or other data on a
`
`persistent storage medium.66
`
` On the other hand, the ’608 Patent takes a decidedly different view of what
`
`constitutes “loading.” For instance, the specification describes—and the patent
`
`claims—the “accelerated loading” of operating system and application programs,67
`
`which comprises multiple steps including maintaining data, initializing a CPU,
`
`preloading data, and servicing requests for data.68 Similarly, the specification
`
`discusses “turn-on and operating system load” and “loading application
`
`
`
`64 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 3:60-63 (emphasis added).
`
`65 See Ex. 1005, Sukegawa at 2:11-22, 35-64; 5:1-6:17; claims 2-3, 8-9, 15, 28.
`
`66 Ex. 2003, Back Dec. at ¶ 63.
`
`67 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at Abs., 1:15-21, 4:6-22.
`
`68 Ex. 1001, ’608 Patent at 3:41-51; claims 1, 7.
`
`19
`
`

`

`software.”69 Given that these