UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ROSETTA WIRELESS CORP.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Patent No. 7,149,511
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION
`to Institute an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,511
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ iii 
`I. 
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ........................... 1 
`II. 
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 1 
`III.  MANDATORY NOTICES .............................................................................. 3 
`IV. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES ........................................................ 4 
`V. 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’511 PATENT .............................................................. 8 
`A.  Overview ............................................................................................... 8 
`B. 
`The ’511 Patent ...................................................................................... 8 
`C. 
`Challenged Claims of the ’511 Patent ................................................. 10 
`D. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 11 
`E. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 12 
`VI.  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 12 
`VII.  GROUND 1—CLAIMS 1-12 AND 58-67 OF THE ’511 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ......................................................................................... 13 
`A.  Overview of Cited References ............................................................ 13 
`1. 
`Saldanha .................................................................................... 13 
`2. 
`Ditzik ......................................................................................... 18 
`3. 
`NFS-related Art (Callaghan Patent and Callaghan Book) ........ 18 
`(i) 
`Callaghan Patent ............................................................. 18 
`(ii)  Callaghan Book .............................................................. 19 
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 20 
`1. 
`“a wireless intelligent personal network server” ...................... 23 
`2. 
`“a radio frequency (RF) receiver for receiving downstream data
`transmitted over a first wireless communications channel;” .... 25 
`“a memory;” .............................................................................. 27 
`“a central processing unit (CPU);” ........................................... 28 
`“a set of embedded machine language instructions within said
`personal network server, said set of embedded machine
`
`3. 
`4. 
`5. 
`
`B. 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`6. 
`
`language instructions being executable by said CPU for
`processing said downstream data to provide at least one
`electronic file in said memory;” ................................................ 28 
`“a first interface for allowing an application on an external
`display device to pick and open said at least one electronic file
`while said at least one electronic file remains resident on said
`personal network server,” .......................................................... 29 
`“wherein said personal network server is hand-portable.” ....... 33 
`7. 
`Claim 58 .............................................................................................. 34 
`C. 
`D.  Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 35 
`1. 
`Claims 2 and 59 ......................................................................... 35 
`2. 
`Claims 3 and 60 ......................................................................... 37 
`3. 
`Claims 4 and 61 ......................................................................... 38 
`4. 
`Claims 5 and 62 ......................................................................... 39 
`5. 
`Claims 6 and 63 ......................................................................... 40 
`6. 
`Claims 7 and 64 ......................................................................... 41 
`7. 
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 42 
`8. 
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 43 
`9. 
`Claims 10 and 65....................................................................... 44 
`10.  Claims 11 and 66 ....................................................................... 46 
`11.  Claims 12 and 67....................................................................... 47 
`Secondary Considerations ................................................................... 48 
`E. 
`VIII.  Ground 2—Claims 1-12 and 58-67 of the ’511 Patent Are Unpatentable .... 48 
`A.  Overview of Cited References ............................................................ 49 
`1. 
`Kato ........................................................................................... 49 
`2. 
`Ditzik ......................................................................................... 49 
`3.  Microsoft SMB ......................................................................... 49 
`4.  Masden ...................................................................................... 51 
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 52 
`
`B. 
`
`iii
`
`

`
`1. 
`2. 
`
`3. 
`4. 
`5. 
`
`“a wireless intelligent personal network server” ...................... 54 
`“a radio frequency (RF) receiver for receiving downstream data
`transmitted over a first wireless communications channel;” .... 54 
`“a memory;” .............................................................................. 55 
`“a central processing unit (CPU);” ........................................... 56 
`“a set of embedded machine language instructions within said
`personal network server, said set of embedded machine
`language instructions being executable by said CPU for
`processing said downstream data to provide at least one
`electronic file in said memory;” ................................................ 56 
`“a first interface for allowing an application on an external
`display device to pick and open said at least one electronic file
`while said at least one electronic file remains resident on said
`personal network server,” .......................................................... 57 
`“wherein said personal network server is hand-portable.” ....... 60 
`7. 
`Claim 58 .............................................................................................. 60 
`C. 
`D.  Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 61 
`8. 
`Claims 2 and 59 ......................................................................... 61 
`9. 
`Claims 3 and 60 ......................................................................... 62 
`10.  Claims 4 and 61 ......................................................................... 62 
`11.  Claims 5 and 62 ......................................................................... 62 
`12.  Claims 6 and 63 ......................................................................... 63 
`13.  Claims 7 and 64 ......................................................................... 63 
`14.  Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 63 
`15.  Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 64 
`16.  Claims 10 and 65....................................................................... 64 
`17.  Claims 11 and 66 ....................................................................... 65 
`18.  Claims 12 and 67....................................................................... 65 
`IX.  EACH GROUND IS INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT AND SHOULD BE
`INSTITUTED ................................................................................................ 65 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 66 
`
`6. 
`
`X. 
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Reference
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,149,511 (filed Aug. 31, 2000) (issued on Dec. 12,
`2006) (the “’511 patent”)
`
`“A New File System for Mobile Computing” by John Saldahna,
`Dissertation, Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
`University of Notre Dame (November, 1996) (“Saldanha”)
`
`“Mobile Computing Personae” by A. Banerji, D.L. Cohn, and D.C.
`Kulkarni, Proc. 4th Workshop on Workstation Operating Systems,
`Napa, CA, October 1993, pp. 21-29
`
`Presentation given at IBM Mobile Computing Workshop on January
`24, 1994 by David Cohn.
`
`“Realizing Mobile Computing Personae,” by Michael Raymond
`Casey, Dissertation, Department of Computer Science and
`Engineering, University of Notre Dame (April, 1995)
`
`“A hybrid model for mobile file systems,” by Saldanha, John, and
`David L. Cohn, Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, 1994
`Proceedings, IEEE (1994)
`
`“A File System for Mobile Computing,” by John Saldanha, A
`Dissertation Proposal, Technical Report 93-17, University of Notre
`Dame, December 1993
`
`Ex.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`Cohn Expert declaration
`
`1009
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 7, IPR2016-00616
`
`1010
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 8, IPR2016-00622
`
`1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,983,073 (filed Apr. 4, 1997) (issued Nov. 9, 1999)
`(“Ditzik”)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`1012 Microsoft Networks, SMB File Sharing Protocol, Document Version
`6.0p (Jan. 1, 1996) (“Microsoft SMB” or “SMB”)
`
`1013 WIPO Publication No. WO 91/003024 (filed Aug. 14, 1990)
`(published Mar. 17, 1991) (“Masden”)
`
`1014
`
`“A File System for Mobile Computing,” by Carl Downing Tait,
`Dissertation, 1993 Columbia University
`
`1015
`
`’511 Prosecution history
`
`1016
`
`’511 Reexamination history
`
`1017
`
`D.I. 109 (November 10, 2015 Opinion and Order) in Case No. 1-15-
`cv-00799
`
`1018 Mangione-Smith Declaration, Exhibit Rosetta-2001 to Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response, Paper 7, IPR2016-00616
`
`1019 Mangione-Smith Declaration, Exhibit Rosetta-2001 to Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response, Paper 8, IPR2016-00622
`
`1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,737,523 (issued Apr. 7, 1998) (“Callaghan Patent”)
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,730 (filed Jan. 12, 1998) (issued Jul. 11, 2000)
`(“Kato”)
`
`Disconnected Operation in the Coda File System, by James J. Kistler
`and M. Satyanarayanan, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems,
`Vol. 10, No. 1, February 1992, Pages 3-25 (“Coda”)
`
`1023
`
`Declaration of Crystal Daugherty
`
`1024
`
`Declaration of William Baer
`
`1025
`
`Stanski, Peter, Stephen Giles, and Arkady Zaslavsky. “Document
`archiving, replication and migration container for mobile Web users.”
`Proceedings of the 1998 ACM symposium on Applied Computing.
`ACM, 1998.
`
`iv
`
`

`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`PDF of Wayback archive page https://web.archive.org/web/http://
`www.cse.nd.edu/tech_reports/1993.html
`
`NFS Illustrated by Brent Callaghan (ISBN 0-201-32570-5)
`(“Callaghan Book”)
`
`D.I. 112 (November 30, 2015 Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s
`Order Regarding Motion to Sever) in Case No. 1-15-cv-00799
`
`1029
`
`D.I. 117(December 7, 2015 Minute Entry) in Case No. 1-15-cv-00799
`
`1030
`
`D.I. 118 (December 7, 2015 Minute Entry) in Case No. 1-15-cv-
`00799
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`I. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners, LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`(collectively “LG” or “Petitioners”), respectfully request that the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) institute inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., and cancel claims 1–
`
`12 and 58–67 of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,511 (“the ’511 patent”) (Ex-1001), assigned
`
`to Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation (“TSST-K” or “Patent
`
`Owner”), as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Pre-AIA) in light of the
`
`grounds presented herein.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners hereby certify that the ’511 patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for IPR. Specifically: (1) none of the Petitioners is an owner of the ’511
`
`patent, see § 42.101; (2) before the date on which this Petition for review was filed,
`
`none of the Petitioners or Petitioners’ real parties-in-interest filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of a claim of the ’511 patent, see § 42.101(a); (3)
`
`Petitioners requesting this proceeding have not filed this Petition more than one
`
`year after the date on which at least one of the Petitioners, Petitioners’ real party-
`
`in-interest, or a privy of Petitioners was served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the ’511 patent, see § 42.101(b); and (4) Petitioners, Petitioners’
`
`1
`
`

`
`real parties-in-interest, or a privy of Petitioners are not estopped from challenging
`
`the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition, see § 42.101(c).
`
`Patent Owner initially filed a complaint for infringement of the ’511 Patent
`
`against Petitioners on January 27, 2015, in Rosetta-Wireless Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`Case No. 1-15-cv-00799 (N.D. Ill.). That action was dismissed without prejudice,
`
`as to Petitioners, on November 10, 2015. See Ex-1017 at 10 (November 10, 2015
`
`Opinion and Order in Case No. 1-15-cv-00799).1 Following the Court’s indication
`
`that it could file new suits against the dismissed defendants, and because the action
`
`had been dismissed without prejudice, Patent Owner later filed another complaint
`
`for infringement of the ’511 Patent against Petitioners on November 24, 2015, in
`
`Rosetta-Wireless Corp. v. LG Elecs. Co. et al., Case No. 1-15-cv-01608 (N.D. Ill.).
`
`In response to the Patent Owner’s improperly designating its new suits as
`
`continuations of the dismissed case, causing them to be assigned to the same judge
`
`(Judge Lefkow) as the dismissed case, the Court referred the new suits to the
`
`Executive Committee for random reassignment. Ex. 1029.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners have not filed this Petition more than one year after
`
`the date on which at least one of the Petitioners, Petitioners’ real party-in-interest,
`
`or a privy of Petitioners was served with a complaint alleging infringement of
`
`
`1 Indeed, Rosetta filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal without prejudice (Ex-
`
`1028), which the Court denied without a hearing. See Ex-1030.
`
`2
`
`

`
`the ’511 patent. See Oracle Corp. v. Click-to-Call Techs, LP, IPR2013-00312,
`
`Paper 26 at 17 (October 30, 2013) (precedential as to Section III.A) (holding in
`
`precedential Section III.A that dismissal without prejudice “nullifies the effect of
`
`the service of the complaint and, as a consequence, does not bar” IPR review)
`
`(citing Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The dismissal of
`
`an action without prejudice leaves the parties as though the action had never been
`
`brought”)).
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioners are the real parties-in-interest
`
`for this Petition. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), the other judicial or
`
`administrative matters that would likely affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
`
`proceeding are: Rosetta-Wireless Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 1-15-cv-00799
`
`(N.D. Ill.), Rosetta-Wireless Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 1-
`
`15-cv-01605 (N.D. Ill.), Rosetta-Wireless Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Case
`
`No. 1-15-cv-01611 (N.D. Ill.), Rosetta-Wireless Corp. v. LG Elecs. Co. et al., Case
`
`No. 1-15-cv-01608 (N.D. Ill.), Rosetta-Wireless Corp. v. High Tech Computer
`
`Corp. et al., Case No. 1-15-cv-01603 (N.D. Ill.), IPR2016-00616, and IPR2016-
`
`00622.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioners provide the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Email:
`
`Postal:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Brian A. Tollefson (Reg. #
`46,338)
`
`Steven Lieberman (pro hac vice)
`
`btollefson@rothwellfigg.com
`
`slieberm@rothwellfigg.com
`
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Hand
`Delivery:
`
`Same as Postal
`
`Same as Postal
`
`Telephone: 202-783-6040
`
`Facsimile: 202-783-6031
`
`
`202-783-6040
`
`202-783-6031
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be served
`
`on either Brian Tollefson or Steven Lieberman as identified above, and as
`
`appropriate to the foregoing mailing/email addresses.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`
`Petitioners are requesting inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12
`
`and 58-67 of the ’511 patent (the “challenged claims”) because they are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Pre-AIA) because they were already taught
`
`by the prior art. The following prior art references evidence the unpatentability of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`Prior Art Description
`
`Prior Art Date
`
`4
`
`

`
`Saldanha
`
`“A New File System for Mobile
`Computing” by John Saldahna, Dissertation,
`Department of Computer Science and
`Engineering, University of Notre Dame
`
`11/1996 (§ 102(b))
`
`Kato
`
`Ditzik
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,730
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,983,073
`
`Microsoft
`SMB
`
`Microsoft Networks, SMB File Sharing
`Protocol, Document Version 6.0p
`
`01/12/1998 (§ 102(e))
`
`04/04/1997 (§ 102(e))
`
`01/01/1996 (§ 102(b))
`
`Masden WIPO Publication No. WO 91/003024
`
`03/17/1991 (§ 102(b))
`
`Callaghan
`Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,737,523
`
`04/07/1998 (§ 102(b))
`
`Callaghan
`Book
`
`NFS Illustrated by Brent Callaghan (ISBN
`0-201-32570-5)
`
`12/28/1999 (§ 102(a))
`
`
`
`Saldanha is prior art under at least § 102(b) because it was publicly available
`
`from both ProQuest (formerly UMI) and the University of Notre Dame by early
`
`1997, and at least by March 1997, well before the August 31, 1999 critical date.
`
`Ex-1023; Ex-1024. Additionally, a 1998 ACM paper described and cited to
`
`Saldanha, both establishing that it was available to the public and also providing a
`
`roadmap for the public to find Saldanha. Ex-1025.
`
`Saldanha was first available for sale from ProQuest on February 5, 1997,
`
`and within a month of that date a record would have been published in the print
`
`publication Dissertations Abstracts International (DAI). Ex-1023, ¶¶4-6. The
`
`5
`
`

`
`record consisted of “an abstract, index record and citation.” Ex-1023, ¶3. DAI
`
`was widely available. Ex-1023, ¶6.
`
`Saldanha was also available from the University of Notre Dame, and would
`
`have been available to the public within a couple months of February 1997, when
`
`the library created a record of Saldanha. Ex-1024, ¶3-4. The public would have
`
`had access to the dissertation based on at least the author’s name and the
`
`dissertation title. Ex-1024, ¶ 5.
`
`Additionally, Saldanha was cited by a paper published in the 1998
`
`proceedings of the ACM symposium on Applied Computing, which described
`
`Saldanha as similar to the Coda file system and allowing peer-to-peer file sharing
`
`and Coda like operation while disconnected from a file server. Ex-1025. The
`
`paper included the following express citation to Saldanha:
`
`J. Saldanha, 1996, “A New File System For Mobile Computing” –
`Thesis, Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
`University of Notre Dame, Indiana
`
`Thus, the ACM paper effectively provides a “roadmap” to the public for locating
`
`Saldanha. See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (“[A] published article with an express citation to [a] potentially invalidating
`
`reference would…provide the necessary guidance [to lead the public to the
`
`invalidating reference].”).
`
`6
`
`

`
`Additionally, and independently, Saldanha’s availability at Notre Dame is
`
`further distinguishable from cases where a thesis was indexed only by name and
`
`title and the public had no way of associating the specific subject matter with the
`
`author’s name. A dissertation proposal was available to the public detailing Dr.
`
`Saldanha’s proposed work and associating his name with that work. Ex-1026
`
`(archive of link containing dissertation proposal, available at least by 1997). Also,
`
`Drs. Cohn and Saldanha had published an article in 1994 describing their
`
`continuing work. Ex-1006. Thus, the public could easily have associated Dr.
`
`Saldanha with the subject matter contained in Saldanha, and would have been
`
`motivated to find his completed dissertation.
`
`The grounds of invalidity of claims 1-12 and 58-67 are summarized below:
`
`Ground No. Claim No(s). Statutory Grounds for Unpatentability
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`1-12, 58-67 Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`Saldanha alone, or in combination with one or
`more of Ditzik, Callaghan Patent, and Callaghan
`Book
`
`1-12, 58-67 Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`Kato alone, or in combination with and one or
`more of Ditzik, Microsoft SMB, and Masden
`
`7
`
`

`
`V. SUMMARY OF THE ’511 PATENT
`
`A. Overview
`
`The ’511 patent issued December 12, 2006, and is entitled “Wireless
`
`Intelligent Personal Server.” The ’511 patent identifies Edward F. Bachner III,
`
`John Major, and Xin Du as inventors. Claims 1 and 58 of the ’511 patent were
`
`amended in an ex parte reexamination; the reexamination certificate issued on
`
`January 10, 2012.
`
`B. The ’511 Patent
`
`The ’511 Patent describes and claims a server that receives and
`
`electronically stores computer files, and provides remote access to those files. The
`
`server is referred to as the “wireless intelligent personal server,” the “wireless
`
`intelligent personal network server,” and the “WIPS.” Ex-1001, 1:7-12; claims 1,
`
`58. The purpose of the claimed invention is to provide “up-to-date versions of
`
`important electronic files when [workers are] outside of the office environment.”
`
`Ex-1001, 1:29-33; Ex-1008, ¶48.
`
`In other words, the WIPS is a sort of personal server for users trying to work
`
`remotely at disconnected computers. Ex-1008, ¶49.
`
`The WIPS receives files from an office enterprise IT system over a
`
`conventional wireless network, such as by using conventional FM transmissions,
`
`television transmissions, and/or a conventional one-way paging network (none of
`
`which were developed by the inventors of the ’511 Patent). Ex-1001, 4:9-46; 8:17-
`
`8
`
`

`
`33. The WIPS allows another device (called the “external display device”) to
`
`access the received files by transmitting the file data stored in the WIPS memory to
`
`and from the other device. Ex-1001, 4:44-51. The ’511 Patent does not describe
`
`new storage devices, new methods for storage, or new external display device. For
`
`example, the claims of the ’511 Patent describe the external display device as
`
`nothing more than a desktop PC, laptop PC, or personal digital assistant (PDA).
`
`Ex-1001, claim 6, 63. See also Ex-1008, ¶50.
`
`Rosetta also did not invent any new processes or techniques for data access
`
`and transfer. Rather, the ’511 patent describes only commonplace, conventional
`
`ways for data access and transfer. Ex-1001, 5:8-34 (data transfer may be (a)
`
`electrical, such as using standard USB connectors; (b) wireless, such as using
`
`conventional infrared ports or short-range RF communication like Bluetooth; or (c)
`
`by using a generic flash memory card), 6:25-28 (“Preferably, display device 32
`
`accesses the memory in WIPS 30 as it would an external device, such as an
`
`external hard drive or a server on a local area network (LAN).”), 8:41-46 (e.g.,
`
`IrDA or Bluetooth), 9:64-10:8 (copying), 13:10-14 (conventional access); Ex-1008,
`
`¶51.
`
`The ’511 Patent explains that by “copy[ing] portions of the requested file
`
`and transmit[ting] the copied portions to the display device 32, via interface 130, as
`
`needed by the particular application” “the electronic file is [in this way] maintained
`
`9
`
`

`
`in memory system 106 so that it will be available for later use.” Ex-1001, 9:64-
`
`10:8; Ex-1008, ¶52.
`
`C. Challenged Claims of the ’511 Patent
`
`The claims of the ’511 patent recite a wireless intelligent personal network
`
`server. Claim 1, the first independent claim of the ’511 patent that is challenged,
`
`reads:
`
`1. A wireless intelligent personal network server, comprising:
`
`a radio frequency (RF) receiver for receiving downstream data
`transmitted over a first wireless communications channel;
`
`a memory;
`
`a central processing unit (CPU);
`
`a set of embedded machine language instructions within said personal
`network server, said set of embedded machine language instructions
`being executable by said CPU for processing said downstream data to
`provide at least one electronic file in said memory; and
`
`a first interface for allowing an application on an external display
`device to pick and open said at least one electronic file while said at
`least one electronic file remains resident on said personal network
`server, wherein said personal network server is hand-portable.
`
`Ex 1001, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 1:21-2:9.
`
`Claim 58, the second and last independent claim of the ’511 Patent that is
`
`challenged, differs from claim 1 only in that rather than reciting the RF receiver as
`
`in claim 1, claim 58 recites an RF transceiver.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Claims 2-12 depend directly, or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims 59-67
`
`depend directly, or indirectly, from claim 58. The dependent claims are largely
`
`directed to well-known principles of operation of the personal network server of
`
`claims 1 and 58 and obvious design choices. Aside from claim 10, the challenged
`
`dependent claims do not add any additional structure to the personal network
`
`server of independent claims 1 and 58. Rather, they recite the function of the
`
`personal network server.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`For purposes of inter partes review, each challenged claim must be given
`
`“its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b) ; see also Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 579 U.S. ___, slip op. at 17-20
`
`(June 20, 2016). BRI must be consistent with the construction that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would reach and must take into account any special definition given
`
`to a claim term in the specification. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
`
`1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). All terms of the challenged claims should be given
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning. Ex-1008, ¶68. Petitioners reserve the right to
`
`address any claim construction issue raised by Patent Owner.
`
`11
`
`

`
`E. Prosecution History2
`
`The application leading to the ’511 Patent was filed as U.S. Application No.
`
`09/652,734 on August 31, 2000. Ex-1015. On March 14, 2011, Rosetta requested
`
`ex parte reexamination of claims 1 and 58 based on various Nokia 9110
`
`Communicator references. Ex-1016, 3-4. In response to a rejection of the claims,
`
`Rosetta amended to require “an application” on the external display device to “pick
`
`and open” the file “while said at least one electronic file remains resident on said
`
`personal network server.” Ex-1016, 105-09. Rosetta also amended to require that
`
`the personal network server be “hand-portable.” Id.
`
`VI.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The relevant field of the challenged claims of the ’511 patent is network
`
`computing, including, but not limited to, mobile computing devices, network and
`
`wireless communications, computer operating systems, and distributed file
`
`systems. Ex-1008, ¶31. One of ordinary skill in the art is someone who would
`
`have an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or
`
`a comparable field of study, and at least two years of professional experience in the
`
`areas of portable computing and wireless telecommunications. Ex-1008, ¶32.
`
`
`2 A detailed explanation of the file history is provided at Ex-1008, ¶¶53-58.
`
`12
`
`

`
`VII. GROUND 1—CLAIMS 1-12 AND 58-67 OF THE ’511 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`Claims 1-12 and 58-67 of the ’511 patent would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Saldanha in view of Ditzik,
`
`Callaghan Patent and/or Callaghan Book. See Ex-1008, ¶¶76-208, Appendix B.
`
`A. Overview of Cited References
`
`Each of the references described here belong to the same field of endeavor
`
`(network computing, including mobile computing devices, network and wireless
`
`communications, computer operating systems, and distributed file systems) and
`
`each is readily combinable. Ex-1008, ¶82.
`
`1. Saldanha
`
`Saldanha is directed to a system for expanding the availability of distributed
`
`file system access to isolated computers that may never connect to the distributed
`
`system. Ex-1002, 3; Ex-1008, ¶84. This expanded access is achieved through a
`
`device, called a persona carrier, which is carried with the user—like a portable
`
`office—at all times and can preferably be worn. Ex-1002, 43, 45-46, 49; Ex-1008,
`
`¶84. In other words, Saldanha is directed to precisely the same system as the ’511
`
`Patent. Ex-1008, ¶¶84, 97-103.
`
`Distributed file systems separate the point of storage from the point of
`
`access. Ex-1002, 2; Ex-1008, ¶85. That is, a user accesses on one computer a file
`
`that is stored remotely on another computer. This classically required a network
`
`13
`
`

`
`connection to the distributed file system. Ex-1008, ¶85. However, “[s]ome recent
`
`systems [as of the time of Dr. Saldanha’s dissertation] do allow continued access to
`
`a distributed file system at a portable computer even while it is disconnected from
`
`its home network” such “access … is only available at computers that at least
`
`periodically connect to the distributed system.” Ex-1002, 2-3; Ex-1008, ¶85.
`
`Accordingly, the focus of Dr. Saldanha’s dissertation was to “expand[] the
`
`availability of distributed file system access to isolated computers that may never
`
`connect to the distributed system.” Ex-1002, 3; Ex-1008, ¶85. Dr. Saldanha
`
`achieved this goal through the introduction of the persona carrier, which could act
`
`as an intermediary between where files are stored and where users are accessing
`
`those files. Ex-1008, ¶85.
`
`Like the WIPS, the persona carrier (also called a “PCar”) is interposed
`
`between a source computer and a remote device. Ex-1008, ¶86. It “hoards” files
`
`from the source computer, meaning it pro-actively caches or pre-fetches copies of
`
`files from the source computer, without requiring any action or request from a user
`
`of the system. Ex-1008, ¶86. The persona carrier allows a user to access these
`
`cached copies of files from a remote device, even when the remote device is
`
`disconnected from the network. Ex-1008, ¶86. That is, just like the WIPS, the
`
`persona carrier provides source server data locally to a user. Ex-1002, 44 (“The
`
`permanent home of the user’s files is on the servers of a distributed file system
`
`14
`
`

`
`such as Coda, and the PCar is used as a link between the distributed file system and
`
`the file systems of other independent computers operated by the user.”); Ex-1008,
`
`¶86. It acts as a personal server for users trying to work at disconnected
`
`computers. Ex-1002, 98; Ex-1008, ¶86.
`
`The persona carrier periodically updates the cached files in its memory to
`
`reflect changes made by the source server or changes otherwise propagated to the
`
`source server from other users or devices. Ex-1008, ¶87. This ensures that the
`
`cached files maintained by the persona carrier are current. Additionally, changes
`
`made to local copies on the persona carrier by a disconnected device will be
`
`propagated back to the source server from the persona carrier, updating the
`
`original or source file. Ex-1002, 54; Ex-1008, ¶87.
`
`Saldanha’s persona carrier is portable and is preferably carried with the user
`
`at all times. Ex-1002, 49 (“Of course, a wearable computer would be the ideal
`
`choice for a persona carrier.”); Ex-1008, ¶88.
`
`The persona carrier can operate in two modes: first, where it is being used
`
`by a computer connected to the file system servers (“connected workstation”); and
`
`second, where it is being used by a computer that is not connected to