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
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘608 PATENT AND APPLE’S CHALLENGES TO
`THE CLAIMS ................................................................................................ 2
`
`A. The ‘608 Patent ............................................................................................... 2
`
`B. Apple’s Challenges to the ‘608 Patent ........................................................... 4
`
`C. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 7
`
`III.
`
`THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ....................................................................... 8
`
`A. The Petition Fails to Demonstrate that Every Limitation of Each Challenged
`Claim is Found in the Prior Art Identified in Grounds 1-4 ........................... 8
`
`1. The prior art identified in Grounds 1-4 fails to disclose numerous claim
`elements .................................................................................................... 10
`
`2. Apple attempts to fill in the holes in the prior art through improper
`incorporation by reference ........................................................................ 17
`
`B. The Petition Fails to Establish That the Claims Are Obvious ...................... 20
`
`1. The Petition uses impermissible hindsight to combine Sukegawa
`and Dye ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`2. A POSITA would not have combined Sukegawa and Dye ....................... 25
`
`3. Even if the combination of Sukegawa and Dye were proper, the
`combination does not render obvious “preloading” “compressed boot
`data” from the “boot device,” as recited in independent Claims 1, 7, 22,
`and 27 ........................................................................................................ 28
`
`4. The Petition fails to demonstrate the challenged claims are obvious over
`Sukegawa and Dye and in further view of Settsu or Burrows .................. 30
`
`C. Sukegawa Does Not Disclose “Preloading… Boot Data…Prior to
`Completion of Initialization of [a/the] Central Processing Unit” ................. 32
`
`i
`
`

`
`D. The Petition Fails to Address All Limitations Recited in Independent
`The Petition Fails to Address All Limitations Recited in Independent
`Claim 27 ....................................................................................................... 36
`Claim 27 ..................................................................................................... .. 36
`
`IV.
`
`IV.
`
`THE PETITION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH REQUISITE STATUTORY
`THE PETITION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH REQUISITE STATUTORY
`AND RULE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................. 37
`AND RULE REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ .. 37
`
`A. The Petition Impermissibly Uses Cross-Referencing, Nested Citations, and
`The Petition Impermissibly Uses Cross-Referencing, Nested Citations, and
`Incorporation by Reference in Violation of the Board’s Rules .................... 37
`Incorporation by Reference in Violation of the Board’s Rules .................. .. 37
`
`B. The Petition Incorporates an Expert Declaration by Reference in Violation
`The Petition Incorporates an Expert Declaration by Reference in Violation
`of the Board’s Rules ..................................................................................... 44
`of the Board’s Rules ................................................................................... .. 44
`
`C. Grounds 2-4 Are Redundant of Ground 1 and Violate the Board’s Rules ... 48
`
`Grounds 2-4 Are Redundant of Ground 1 and Violate the Board’s Rules 48
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 51
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... .. 51
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Am. Megatrends, Inc. v. Kinglite Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01188, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2015) .............................. 25, 26, 28
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 9, 17
`
`Apple, Inc. v. ContenGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00453, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2015) ...................................... passim
`
`ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................. 43
`
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................. 34
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014) .................................... 45, 48
`
`Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever v. The Proctor & Gamble Comp.,
`IPR2013-00510, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2014) ...................................... 35, 36
`
`Ex parte Carlucci,
`Appeal 2010-006603, 2012 WL 4718549 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 28, 2012) ................... 9
`
`Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 44
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................... 21, 24, 43
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prod. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 21
`
`Helicos Biosciences Corp. v. Illumina, Inc.,
`888 F. Supp. 2d 519 (D. Del. 2012) .................................................................... 19
`
`In re Irani,
`427 F.2d 806 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ............................................................................. 23
`
`iii
`
`

`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 20
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................. 34
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 20
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 20
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 21, 24
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) .................................. 44, 49, 50
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 32
`
`Oxford Nanopore Techns. Ltd. v. University of Washington,
`IPR2014-00512, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 15, 2014) ................................... 18, 19
`
`Round Rock Research, LLC v. Sandisk Corp.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 339 (D. Del. 2015) .................................................................. 9, 18
`
`Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Astrazeneca Pharm. LP,
`IPR2016-00348, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 28, 2016) .......................................... 42
`
`Smart Modular Techs. Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01370, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2015) .......................................... 37
`
`Spansion Inc. v. Macronxi Int’l Co.,
`IPR2014-01116, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2014) ......................................... 35
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-00201, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. May 21, 2014) .......................................... 36
`
`W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ..................................................................... 24, 31
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................... 1, 9, 17
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ........................................................................................ 37, 38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................. 51
`
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ......................................................................................... 42
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................... 37, 38
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ......................................................................................... 38
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 .................................................................................................. 49
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ..................................................................................... 38, 43
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1) ........................................................................................... 48
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ............................................................................................. 45
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756-01 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................. 39
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The four references on which Apple relies do not disclose or suggest every
`
`element of the ‘608 Patent’s four independent claims. Apple attempts to fill these
`
`gaps via a fifth reference, the “Dye ‘284” Patent, 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 has held 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.”1 Here, Dye does neither. Accordingly, the Petition’s reliance on the
`
`Dye ‘284 Patent is misplaced, and Apple cannot establish invalidity. The Petition
`
`should thus be denied on this basis alone.
`
`If the Board does accept that Apple’s reliance on the Dye ‘284 Patent does
`
`not contravene Federal Circuit precedent, the Petition should be denied for several
`
`other reasons. For instance, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have
`
`combined Sukegawa with Dye because Dye teaches away from adding
`
`compression/decompression techniques to Sukegawa’s cooperative hard disk
`
`
`1 Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`1
`
`

`
`drive-flash memory system. Moreover, Apple’s combinations are based on
`
`impermissible hindsight. Further still, even if the references are combined in the
`
`manner Apple proposes, the combinations fail to disclose several claim elements.
`
`And finally, the Petition repeatedly violates the Board’s rules, employing the same
`
`pervasive cross-referencing, nested citations, and citations to expert declarations
`
`that the Board deemed impermissible in denying Apple’s petition in Apple v.
`
`ContentGuard Holdings.2
`
`Realtime thus respectfully requests that the Board decline to institute inter
`
`partes review on Grounds 1-4 of the Petition.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘608 PATENT AND APPLE’S CHALLENGES
`TO THE CLAIMS
`
`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.3 At the time of the invention, computer systems suffered from
`
`slow boot times. Also at that time, the widespread use of the Internet and
`
`
`2 IPR2015-00453, Paper 9 at 5-9 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2015); id. at 6-7 (“These
`
`nested citations to vast portions of the record obscure what exactly Petitioner is
`
`relying on as teaching or suggesting these elements.”).
`
`3 Ex. 1001 at 1:15-21.
`
`2
`
`

`
`multimedia applications led to an emphasis in the art on storage density,
`
`storewidth, and power consumption.4
`
`To address these concerns, the ‘608 Patent discloses and claims methods and
`
`systems 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.5 Another aspect of the inventions
`
`disclosed and claimed in 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.6 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 for the DSP and associated interfaces.7 These systems and
`
`methods result in a faster boot up of computer systems.
`
`
`4 Id. at 1:53-56.
`
`5 Id. at 3:34-52; 27:42-60; 28:9-25; 29:15-32; 30:4-26.
`
`6 Id. at 3:53-58; 28:1-8.
`
`7 Id. at 4:4-22: 28:9-33; 30:4-26.
`
`3
`
`

`
`B.
`
`Apple’s Challenges to the ‘608 Patent
`
`Apple challenges the validity of all 31 claims of the ‘608 Patent.8 Of these
`
`challenged claims, Claims 1, 7, 22, and 27 are independent. The proposed grounds
`
`of unpatentability are as follows:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Claims
`1-31
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`1-31
`
`1-31
`
`1-31
`
`References9
`U.S. Patent No. 5,860,083 to Sukegawa (“Sukegawa”)
`and U.S. Patent No. 6,145,069 to Dye (“Dye”)
`Sukegawa, Dye, and U.S. Patent No. 6,374,353 to
`Settsu (“Settsu”)
`Sukegawa, Dye, and Burrows et al., “On-line Data
`Compression in a Log-structured File System” (1992)
`(“Burrows”)
`Sukegawa, Dye, Settsu, and Burrows
`
`
`
`
`8 Petition at 2.
`
`9 Throughout this Preliminary Response, for ease of understanding, Realtime will
`
`refer to these references primarily by the names indicated above, rather than by
`
`exhibit number. Realtime reserves all rights to present further argument and
`
`evidence related to these references and the content of the Petition and supporting
`
`Exhibits if inter partes review is instituted, consistent with the Board’s Rules and
`
`practice. No waiver is intended by any argument withheld at this stage of the
`
`proceeding.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Apple relies upon Sukegawa as the foundation of Grounds 1-4. Sukegawa
`
`discloses a system coupled to a controller that in turn is coupled to a hard disk
`
`drive (“HDD”) and a flash memory unit.10 Sukegawa’s system purportedly
`
`provides high speed access to frequently-used programs, which normally reside on
`
`the system’s HDD, by permanently saving those frequently-used programs in flash
`
`memory.11 Because of the high-speed access performance of flash memory as
`
`compared to HDD memory, Sukegawa’s system purportedly allows for faster
`
`loading of those frequently-used programs.12 As acknowledged in the Petition,
`
`Sukegawa does not disclose or suggest a number of claim elements in the
`
`challenged claims.13 For example, Sukegawa does not disclose or suggest (a)
`
`preloading compressed boot data into cache memory, (b) servicing requests for
`
`boot data, which includes accessing compressed boot data from a boot device (such
`
`as an HDD) or cache memory, (c) decompressing compressed boot data at a rate
`
`that increases the effective access rate of the cache, (d) a data compression engine
`
`for compressing and decompressing boot data, (e) utilizing Huffman or Lempel-
`
`
`10 Sukegawa at 2:36-41; 4:2-11; 4:32-37: 4:47:53.
`
`11 Id. at 2:11-16; 5:50-53; 6:13-15; 7:40-46.
`
`12 Id. at 1:53-55; 6:54-57.
`
`13 Petition at 10; see, e.g., id.at 33-35, 37-41, 49-50, 53-64, 66-70.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Ziv encoding to compress boot data, and (f) utilizing a plurality of encoders to
`
`provide compressed boot data.14
`
`Apple also relies upon Dye in each of Grounds 1-4. Dye discloses flash
`
`memory having compression and/or decompression engines for use in Execute In
`
`Place and solid state disk computer architectures.15 Dye discloses a flash memory
`
`system with a flash memory array 100 and a Compression Enhanced Flash
`
`Memory Controller (“CEFMC”) 200.16 Embedded within CEFMC 200 are
`
`compression and decompression engines 260, 280.17 However, as discussed in
`
`more detail below, Dye does not disclose preloading or accessing compressed boot
`
`data from a boot device, such as an HDD, into cache memory, as set forth by the
`
`claims. Similarly, Dye fails to disclose servicing requests for boot data from the
`
`computer using the preloaded compressed data or that compressed boot data is
`
`accessed via direct memory access, as recited in the claims. Dye also does not
`
`teach decompressing compressed boot data at a rate that increases the effective
`
`
`14 Realtime expressly reserves the right to argue that Sukegawa fails to disclose
`
`additional claim elements if inter partes review is instituted.
`
`15 Dye at Abs.; Figs. 7-9; 2:32-39; 2:42-53.
`
`16 Id. at 8:29-31.
`
`17 Id. at Abs.; 8:48-52.
`
`6
`
`

`
`access rate of the cache, as required by the claims. While Dye arguably discloses a
`
`data compression engine, Dye fails to teach or suggest a data compression engine
`
`for compressing boot data on the boot device, or storing and/or providing
`
`compressed boot data to the boot device, as required by the claims.
`
`Apple relies upon Settsu and Burrows in Grounds 2-4. 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.18 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.19
`
`While Settsu and Burrows arguably disclose data compression to increase storage
`
`density, neither reference teaches or suggests using data compression engines,
`
`preloading boot data in compressed form from a boot device into cache memory,
`
`or preloading boot data prior to completion of initialization of the CPU.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Apple proposes that the claim term “boot data” should be construed “broadly
`
`enough to include and be met by data associated with data requests expected to
`
`
`18 Settsu at Abs.; 1:51-65; 3:6-12.
`
`19 Burrows at 8; 10.
`
`7
`
`

`
`result from a system power-on/reset.”20 Realtime does not dispute that
`
`construction at this time because the term “boot data” is not material to Realtime’s
`
`arguments in this Preliminary Response. Realtime’s decision not to dispute
`
`Apple’s proposed construction, however, does not indicate that Realtime agrees
`
`with Apple’s construction. Realtime reserves the right to object to any of Apple’s
`
`constructions and propose alternative constructions in the future.
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Fails to Demonstrate that Every Limitation of Each
`Challenged Claim is Found in the Prior Art Identified in
`Grounds 1-4
`
`Dye, Sukegawa, Burrows, and Settsu—the only references identified in
`
`Grounds 1-4—fail to disclose or render obvious all of the elements of each
`
`independent claim. Apple therefore asserts that another reference, U.S. Patent
`
`7,190,284 (“the ‘284 Patent”),21 is “part of Dye’s disclosure” and relies on the
`
`teachings of the ‘284 Patent as though those teachings are Dye’s teachings to fill in
`
`
`20 Petition at 20. Apple also appears to propose a construction for the claim term
`
`“list” as including file information. See id. at 26-27 (citing ¶¶ 98, 99 of the
`
`Neuhauser Declaration (Ex. 1003)). Realtime does not agree with this proposed
`
`construction of “list,” but will not dispute that construction at this time.
`
`21 Apple refers to the ‘284 Patent (Ex. 1009) in the Petition as “Dye ‘284.”
`
`8
`
`

`
`the gaps.22 Apple’s sole basis for relying on the ‘284 Patent is Dye’s statement that
`
`the patent application that issued as the ‘284 Patent is “incorporated by reference in
`
`its entirety.”23 But the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that in order for a host
`
`patent to incorporate another patent or publication by reference, the host patent
`
`must particularly identify the specific material incorporated by reference and
`
`clearly indicate where that material is found in the incorporated document.24 Here,
`
`Dye does not identify with particularity what specific material Dye incorporates
`
`
`22 Petition at 12-13.
`
`23 Id. at 12.
`
`24 Zenon Envtl., 506 F.3d at 1378; see also Apple, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 725
`
`F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (reversing an invalidity finding because host
`
`reference did not properly incorporate by reference a second reference needed to
`
`show certain claim limitations); Ex parte Carlucci, 2012 WL 4718549, at *2-*3
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 28, 2012) (reversing Examiner’s rejection because host patent did
`
`not incorporate by reference subject matter from a secondary patent with sufficient
`
`particularity); Round Rock Research, LLC v. Sandisk Corp., 81 F. Supp. 3d 339,
`
`352 (D. Del. 2015) (similar).
`
`9
`
`

`
`from the ‘284 Patent nor where that material is found in the ‘284 Patent.25
`
`Accordingly, the Petition’s reliance on teachings of the ‘284 Patent in Grounds 1-4
`
`is improper. And without the ‘284 Patent, Apple cannot establish invalidity, as the
`
`references identified in Grounds 1-4 fail to disclose all of the claim elements of the
`
`independent claims. The Petition should therefore be denied.
`
`1.
`
`The prior art identified in Grounds 1-4 fails to disclose
`numerous claim elements
`
`Apple argues that Dye discloses compression and/or decompression
`
`technology used in flash memory.26 But, as Apple implicitly acknowledges, Dye
`
`fails to disclose claim elements found in every claim of the ‘608 Patent, as
`
`explained in detail below.27 Moreover, Apple does not allege that the claim
`
`
`25 While Dye cites to the application that issued as the ‘284 Patent in other sections
`
`of Dye’s specification, those citations do not indicate material of the ‘284 Patent to
`
`be incorporated by reference nor where specific material may be found in the ‘284
`
`patent.
`
`26 Petition at 10-12.
`
`27 Apple argues that the missing claim elements are disclosed by the ‘284 patent, a
`
`reference that Apple argues is incorporated by reference into Dye. However, as
`
`explained below, Dye does not incorporate the ‘284 patent by reference, and the
`
`‘284 Patent therefore cannot be used to fill in the gaps in Dye.
`
`10
`
`

`
`elements missing from Dye are disclosed, or rendered obvious, by the other three
`
`references identified in Grounds 1-4: Sukegawa, Settsu, and Burrows.28
`
`Accordingly, Apple has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success, and
`
`the Petition should be denied.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “preloading the boot data comprising accessing
`
`compressed boot data from a boot device,” as recited in Claim 1: Apple asserts
`
`Dye discloses compression and decompression technology coupled to flash
`
`memory.29 Dye, however, does not teach that such technology could or should be
`
`used to access compressed data from “a boot device” (such as a hard disk drive), as
`
`recited in the claim element which the Petition refers to as 1.4. Indeed, Apple does
`
`not assert that Dye discloses this claim element.30 Moreover, Apple does not assert
`
`that this claim element is disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, or
`
`Burrows.31 Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-4 does not render
`
`obvious claim 1, or claims 2-6, and 9-17, which depend from claim 1.
`
`
`28 Petition at 6-10, 16-19, 33-35, 37-41, 48-49, 53-64, 66-71.
`
`29 Id. at 10-12.
`
`30 Id. at 12-14, 33-34 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent).
`
`31 While Apple asserts Settsu and Burrows would have motivated a person of skill
`
`to modify Sukegawa to further reduce boot up time, neither reference discloses
`
`11
`
`

`
`Dye fails to disclose “servicing requests comprises accessing compressed
`
`boot data from the cache” and decompressing “compressed boot data,” as
`
`recited in Claims 1, 7, and 22: Apple asserts Dye discloses a controller with
`
`compression and/or decompression capability.32 Dye, however, does not teach that
`
`the controller services requests for boot data wherein the requests comprise
`
`“accessing compressed boot data from the cache” and “decompressing…
`
`compressed boot data,” as recited in claim elements 1.6, 7.6, and 22.6. Indeed,
`
`Apple does not assert that Dye discloses these claim elements.33 Moreover, Apple
`
`does not assert that these claim elements are disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa,
`
`Settsu, or Burrows. Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-4 does not
`
`render obvious claims 1, 7, or 22, or claims 2-6, 8-21, and 23-26, which depend
`
`from claims 1, 7, or 22.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “servicing requests for boot data from the computer
`
`system…at a rate that increases the effective access rate of the cache,” as
`
`recited in Claims 1 and 7: Apple asserts Dye discloses a controller with
`
`
`“preloading boot data” or that preloading includes “accessing compressed boot
`
`data from a boot device.” See Petition at 68-69.
`
`32 Id. at 11.
`
`33 Id. at 12-14, 37-38 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent).
`
`12
`
`

`
`compression and/or decompression capability.34 Dye, however, does not teach that
`
`the controller services requests for boot data “at a rate that increases the effective
`
`access rate of the cache,” as recited in claim elements 1.7 and 7.7. Indeed, Apple
`
`does not assert that Dye discloses this claim element.35 Moreover, Apple does not
`
`assert that this claim element is disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, or
`
`Burrows. Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-4 does not render
`
`obvious claims 1 or 7, or claims 2-6 and 8-21, which depend from claims 1 or 7.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “preloading the compressed boot data into the
`
`cache memory device,” “preloading boot data in compressed form…from a
`
`boot device into a cache memory,” and “preloading compressed boot
`
`data…into the cache memory,” as recited in Claims 7, 22, and 27: Apple
`
`asserts Dye discloses a controller with compression and/or decompression
`
`capability.36 Dye, however, does not teach that the controller preloads
`
`“compressed boot data” or “boot data in compressed form” into “cache memory,”
`
`as recited in claim elements 7.5, 22.3, and 27.6. Indeed, Apple does not assert that
`
`
`34 Id. at 11.
`
`35 Id. at 12-14, 38-41 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent).
`
`36 Id. at 11.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Dye discloses these claim elements.37 Moreover, Apple does not assert that these
`
`claim elements are disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, or Burrows.
`
`Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-4 does not render obvious claims
`
`7, 22, or 27, or claims 8, 18-21, 23-26, and 28-31, which depend from claims 7, 22,
`
`or 27.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “servicing requests for boot data from the computer
`
`system using the preloaded compressed boot data,” as recited in Claim 22:
`
`Apple asserts Dye discloses a controller with compression and/or decompression
`
`capability.38 Dye, however, does not teach that the controller “servic[es] requests
`
`for boot data from the computer system using the preloaded compressed boot
`
`data,” as recited in claim element 22.5. Indeed, Apple does not assert that Dye
`
`discloses this claim element.39 Moreover, Apple does not assert that this claim
`
`element is disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, or Burrows. Accordingly,
`
`
`37 Id. at 12-14, 34, 49, 62, 63, 65 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the
`
`‘284 Patent).
`
`38 Id. at 11.
`
`39 Id. at 12-14, 35, 36, 63 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284
`
`Patent).
`
`14
`
`

`
`the prior art identified in Grounds 1-4 does not render obvious claims 22, or claims
`
`23-26, which depend from claim 22.
`
`Dye fails to disclose a “data compression engine” for “compress[ing]
`
`boot data” and for “[storing/providing] compressed boot data to the boot
`
`device,” as recited in Claims 10, 12, 22, and 27: Apple asserts Dye discloses a
`
`controller with compression and/or decompression capability. Dye, however, does
`
`not teach that the controller includes a “data compression engine” for
`
`“compress[ing] boot data” and for “[storing/providing] compressed boot data to the
`
`boot device,” as recited in claim elements 10.0, 12.1, 22.6, 22.7, and 27.9. Indeed,
`
`Apple does not assert that Dye discloses these claim elements.40 Moreover, Apple
`
`does not assert that these claim elements are disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa,
`
`Settsu, or Burrows.41 Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-4 does not
`
`render obvious claims 10, 12, 22, or 27 or claims 23-26 and 28-31, which depend
`
`from claims 22 or 27.
`
`
`40 Petition at 12-14, 34, 55-58, 63, 66 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of
`
`the ‘284 Patent).
`
`41 While Apple asserts Burrows discloses increasing disk transfer rates by using
`
`compression, Burrows does not disclose a “data compression engine for
`
`decompressing compressed boot data.” See id. at 69-70.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Dye fails to disclose a “data compression engine for decompressing the
`
`compressed boot data accessed from the cache memory for use in responding
`
`to the servicing requests” and “decompressing is provided by [a/the] data
`
`compression engine,” as recited in claims 11, 12, and 27: Apple asserts Dye
`
`discloses a controller with compression and/or decompression capability. Dye,
`
`however, does not teach that the controller includes a “data compression engine”
`
`for “decompressing” compressed boot data, as recited in claim elements 11.0, 12.2,
`
`and 27.8. Indeed, Apple does not assert that these claim elements are disclosed by
`
`Dye.42 Moreover, Apple does not assert that these claim elements are disclosed or
`
`suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, or Burrows. Accordingly, the prior art identified in
`
`Grounds 1-4 does not render obvious claims 11, 12, or 27 or claims 28-31, which
`
`depend from claim 27.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “compressed boot data is accessed via direct
`
`memory access,” as recited in Claim 13: Apple asserts Dye discloses a controller
`
`with compression and/or decompression capability. Dye, however, does not teach
`
`the controller has “compressed boot data” that is “accessed via direct memory
`
`access” (such as accessing a hard disk drive), as recited in dependent claim 13.
`
`
`42 Id. at 12-14, 34, 58, 66 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284
`
`Patent).
`
`16
`
`

`
`Indeed, Apple does not assert that Dye discloses this claim element.43 Moreover,
`
`Apple does not assert that these claim elements are disclosed or suggested by
`
`Sukegawa, Settsu, or Burrows. Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-4
`
`does not render obvious claim 13.
`
`2.
`
`Apple attempts to fill in the holes in the prior art through
`improper incorporation by reference
`
`As explained above, the prior art on which Grounds 1-4 are based—Dye,
`
`Sukegawa, Settsu, and Burrows—fails to disclose or render obvious the claims of
`
`the ‘608 Patent. Apple accordingly relies on the ‘284 Patent to