`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`__________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737
`Patent 8,880,862
`
`______________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0025IP1
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner hereby requests rehearing under 37 CFR § 42.71(d), in response to
`
`the Final Written Decision (“Decision”) in proceeding IPR2016-01737. The
`
`Decision indicates that “Petitioner fails to establish that proposed substitute claims
`
`118-173 are obvious” over prior art and combinations of prior art set forth in
`
`Petitioner’s Papers 24, 37, and 43. Pap. 57, 46. Petitioner requests reconsideration
`
`of the Decision finding these claims patentable because the Decision
`
`misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s arguments explaining how Settsu
`
`preloads during the same boot sequence in which a boot device controller receives
`
`a command to load.
`
`Specifically, the Decision states that “we do not agree with Petitioner’s
`
`reading of Settsu to include preloading during the same boot sequence in which a
`
`boot device controller receives a command over a computer bus to load …
`
`[r]ather, we understand Settsu to load after a command has been received over a
`
`computer bus.”1 Pap. 57, 53. Here, the claimed “preloading … during the same
`
`boot sequence” is tacitly construed to cover something other than “load[ing] …
`
`after a command has been received over a computer bus.” Id. This result cannot
`
`be reached without misapprehension or oversight of:
`
`(a) the plain language of the substitute claims themselves, which recite that
`
`
`1 Throughout this paper, unless indicated, emphases in quotations is added.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0025IP1
`“preloading occurs during the same boot sequence in which a boot device
`
`controller receives a command over a computer bus to load” (Pap. 19, iii-v
`
`(presenting substitute independent claims 118, 122, and 124));
`
`(b) intrinsic evidence related to specification description relevant to preloading
`
`during the same boot sequence, in particular, a portion of the ’862 Patent
`
`specification noting that “the preloading process may be … continued after
`
`the boot process begins (in which case booting and preloading are
`
`performed simultaneously)” (’862 Patent, 21:48-52; see also Pap. 19, 6-7);
`
`and
`
`(c) deposition testimony of Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Back who, when asked
`
`whether a POSITA would have understood that the ’862 Patent receives
`
`requests for preloaded boot data while it is preloading other boot data,
`
`testified on cross-examination that: “[y]es, that is correct,” adding that “it is
`
`possible for the data storage controller to … engage in the preloading
`
`process while already servicing requests for preloaded data during that
`
`second phase where booting and preloading may be performed
`
`simultaneously” (Ex. 1046, 120:13-121:11; see also Pap. 47, 5-6).
`
`Indeed, as demonstrated in this request and the arguments advanced
`
`throughout this proceeding, no claim language or record evidence justifies a
`
`narrowed construction of “preloading … during the same boot sequence” that
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0025IP1
`excludes “load[ing] … after a command has been received over a computer bus.”
`
`Rather, this construction is reached only through oversight or misapprehension of
`
`the intrinsic record, which, as indicated above, demonstrates the opposite by
`
`establishing that preloading encompasses processes performed before or “after a
`
`command has been received over a computer bus,” as disclosed by Settsu. Pap. 24,
`
`10-19; Pap. 31, 7-8.
`
`As the Decision notes, “[i]n an inter partes review, claim terms in an
`
`unexpired patent are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.” Pap. 57, 6 (citing
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46
`
`(2016)). As such, and absent any special definitions, claim terms are given “their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention.” Pap. 57, 6 (citing In re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
`
`Under this standard, proper consideration of the full record compels a
`
`conclusion that Settsu describes “preloading … during the same boot sequence in
`
`which a boot device controller receives a command over a computer bus to load
`
`the portion of boot data,” as recited in the substitute claims. Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board reconsider its Decision with respect to the
`
`substitute claims based upon the full record, and respectfully submits that the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0025IP1
`Board should find that substitute claims 118-173 are obvious over Settsu, as set
`
`forth in Petitioner’s Papers 24, 37, and 43.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 CFR §
`
`42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision
`
`for an abuse of discretion.” 37 CFR § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion is found
`
`if the decision: (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an
`
`erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact finding; or (4)
`
`involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally
`
`base its decision.” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821
`
`F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac
`
`Science Operating Co., 590 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`III. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`The Decision erred in interpreting “preloading … during the same boot
`
`sequence” to cover something other than the preloading performed by Settsu. As
`
`set forth in Papers 24, 37, and 43, Petitioner explained how Settsu meets (1) the
`
`plain language of the substitute claims, (2) Settsu aligns with disclosed examples in
`
`the ’862 Patent’s specification, and (3) Settsu aligns with the explanation of the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0025IP1
`substitute claim language offered by Patent Owner’s own expert. Pap. 24, 10-25;
`
`Pap. 37, 8-12; Pap. 43, 1-3. As explained below, the Decision misapprehended or
`
`overlooked these arguments.
`
`A. The Decision misapprehended or overlooked the plain language of
`the substitute claims, as well as Petitioner’s arguments and Dr.
`Neuhauser’s testimony regarding the same
`The Decision credited the substitute claims with language that was not
`
`recited. Notably, the claims fail to require preloading to occur prior to receipt of a
`
`command to load; indeed, this limitation is narrower than (and thereby inconsistent
`
`with a broadest reasonable interpretation of) the temporal limitation on preloading
`
`that appears within the plain language of the amended claims, which recite only
`
`that “preloading occurs during the same boot sequence in which a boot device
`
`controller receives a command … to load.” See, e.g., Pap. 57, 53; Pap. 19, iii-v.
`
`Language indicating that preloading must begin before a request for the boot
`
`data has been received over the computer bus, as the Decision requires, is different
`
`from alternative and expressly-stated timing requirements set forth by the claims.
`
`Pap. 43, 1 (quoting Pap. 39, 10-11); see also Ex. 1043, ¶¶ 63-71. That is, the
`
`claims are not without timing requirements; they simply include different timing
`
`requirements than applied in the Decision. Instead of imposing a requirement that
`
`preloading occur before receipt of any command, the substitute claims specify that
`
`preloading must occur “during the same boot sequence in which a boot device
`
`5
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0025IP1
`controller receives a command over a computer bus to load the portion of boot data
`
`….” Pap. 37, 8-9; Ex. 1043, ¶¶ 63-71.
`
`Indeed, in related IPR2016-01738, the Board squarely rejected a
`
`construction of “preloading” proposed by Realtime in both the IPR2016-01737 and
`
`the IPR2016-01738 proceedings, explaining that, “[g]iven the plain language of the
`
`proposed amended claims, we do not agree that preloading requires a process to
`
`begin before a request, because the claim only requires it to [occur] during the
`
`same boot sequence.” IPR2016-01738 Pap. 59, 54
`
`Consistent with this understanding, and as Dr. Neuhauser explained, “one of
`
`ordinary skill would have understood that preloading in the substitute claims is
`
`broad enough to include transfer of data from disk into memory based on a
`
`command to load that is received by the controller over a computer bus.” Ex.
`
`1043, ¶ 71. This is true because the plain language of the claims requires
`
`preloading to occur “during the same boot sequence” in which the command to
`
`load is received, but does not specify where in that boot sequence the preloading
`
`must occur relative to the command to load; squarely leaving open the potential for
`
`the preloading to occur before or after the command. Pap. 19, 6-7; Pap. 37, 8-9.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner requests reconsideration because the Decision
`
`misapprehended or overlooked the plain language of the substitute claims, and
`
`misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Neuhauser’s
`
`6
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0025IP1
`testimony addressing that language. See, e.g., Pap. 19, iii-v; Pap. 24, 11-19; Pap.
`
`37, 8-9; Pap. 43, 1; Ex. 1043, ¶¶ 63-71.
`
`B. The Decision misapprehended or overlooked relevant disclosure
`from the ’862 Patent’s specification, and overlooked Petitioner’s
`arguments and Dr. Neuhauser’s testimony regarding the same
`The meaning attributed by the Decision to “preloading ... during the same
`
`boot sequence” is defied by the very embodiment cited by Patent Owner when
`
`offering that language in its Motion to Amend. Specifically, when offering support
`
`for the limitation where “preloading occurs during the same boot sequence,” Patent
`
`Owner cited to the embodiment depicted in Fig. 7B of the ’862 Patent, which is
`
`reproduced below. See Pap. 19 (citing Ex. 2017, 41:7-9, 42:17-20, 43:13-14, FIG.
`
`7B).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0025IP1
`The Fig. 7B embodiment cited by Patent Owner involves
`
`preloading/prefetching boot data at step 77, and then receiving a request for the
`
`preloaded boot data over a computer bus at step 79, after an intervening step 78 in
`
`which “the boot process begins (i.e., the storage controller is initialized and the
`
`system bus reset is deasserted).” ’862 Patent, 21:24-22:4.
`
`Notably, this same embodiment contemplates that, “depending on the
`
`resources of the given system (e.g., memory, etc.), the preloading process may be
`
`completed prior to commencement of the boot process, or continued after the boot
`
`process begins (in which case booting and preloading are performed
`
`simultaneously).” ’862 Patent, 21:48-52; Pap. 37, 8 (quoting ’862 Patent, 21:43-
`
`22:4).
`
`Thus, the very embodiment cited by Patent Owner to demonstrate enabling
`
`disclosure of “preloading … during the same boot sequence,” like the claim
`
`language itself, fails to suggest that preloading is temporally limited with respect to
`
`when a command is received over a computer bus. Instead, the specification
`
`explicitly contemplates both before (“prior to commencement of the boot
`
`process”) and after (“continued after the boot process begins”). ’862 Patent,
`
`21:48-52; Pap. 37, 8. Indeed, from the ’862 Patent’s specification, a POSITA
`
`would have understood that preloading is broad enough to include transfer of data
`
`from disk into memory based on a command to load that is received by the
`
`8
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0025IP1
`controller over a computer bus. Pap. 37, 8-9 (citing Ex. 1043, ¶¶63-71).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner requests reconsideration because the Decision
`
`misapprehended or overlooked relevant disclosure from the ’862 Patent’s
`
`specification, and misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s arguments and Dr.
`
`Neuhauser’s testimony regarding that disclosure. See, e.g., ’862 Patent, 21:24-
`
`22:4, 21:48-52, FIG. 7B; Pap. 37, 8-9 (citing Ex. 1043, ¶¶63-71).
`
`C. The Decision misapprehended or overlooked the deposition
`testimony of Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Back, and Petitioner’s
`arguments regarding the same
`The Decision misapprehended or overlooked the deposition testimony of
`
`Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Back, who admitted under cross-examination that the
`
`data storage controller may engage in the preloading process while already
`
`servicing requests for preloaded data (i.e., after a command to load). Specifically,
`
`when asked whether a POSITA would have understood that the data storage
`
`controller may receive requests for preloaded boot data while it is preloading other
`
`boot data, Dr. Back testified as follows: “[y]es, that is correct,” adding that “it is
`
`possible for the data storage controller to … engage in the preloading process
`
`while already servicing requests for preloaded data during that second phase
`
`where booting and preloading may be performed simultaneously.” Ex. 1046,
`
`120:13-121:11; see also Pap. 47, 5-6. Here, by confirming that preloading in the
`
`’862 Patent occurs after a command has been received, Dr. Back endorsed an
`
`9
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0025IP1
`understanding of “preloading” that is broader than the implicit construction
`
`required by the Decision.
`
`Further demonstrating that it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the BRI
`
`standard to inject the relied-upon temporal limitation into the claim, in related
`
`proceeding IPR2016-01365, Dr. Back offered an alternative construction of
`
`“preloading” that was also without the temporal limitation relied upon in the
`
`instant Decision. In that proceeding, Dr. Back asserted, in light of the same
`
`specification, that the broadest reasonable interpretation of preloading is
`
`“transferring data in anticipation of immediate or near-in-time use,” without further
`
`temporal qualification. Pap. 43, 1 (citing IPR2016-01365, Ex. 2003, ¶¶47-55); see
`
`also Pap. 47, 4-5.2
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner requests reconsideration because the Decision
`
`overlooked Dr. Back’s deposition testimony, in which he admitted under cross-
`
`examination that the data storage controller may engage in the preloading process
`
`
`2 Notably, when Dr. Back was asked whether a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`had the same understanding of the meaning of the term “preloading” when reading
`
`the claims of the ’608 patent and the amended claims of the ’862 patent, Dr. Back
`
`testified on cross-examination that “I would say they would have the same
`
`understanding.” Pap. 47, 4-5 (citing Ex. 1046, 82:4-83:8).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0025IP1
`while already servicing requests for preloaded data (i.e., after a command to load).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner submits that, under the BRI standard,
`
`proper consideration of the full record compels a conclusion that Settsu teaches
`
`and suggests “preloading … during the same boot sequence in which a boot device
`
`controller receives a command over a computer bus to load the portion of boot
`
`data,” as recited in the substitute claims. Pap. 24, 10-25; Pap. 37, 8-12; Pap. 43, 1-
`
`3. Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the Board reconsider its Decision with
`
`respect to the substitute claims based upon the full record, and respectfully submits
`
`that the Board should find that substitute claims 118-173 are obvious over Settsu,
`
`as set forth in Petitioner’s Papers 24, 37, and 43.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 12, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/W. Karl Renner/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Jeremy Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Andrew B. Patrick, Reg. No. 63,471
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`11
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0025IP1
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(1) and 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on April 12, 2018, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Request for Rehearing was provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`email correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joseph F. Edell, Richard Z. Zhang, Desmond S. Jui (pro hac vice)
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`
`William P. Rothwell, Kayvan B. Noroozi (pro hac vice)
`Noroozi PC
`2245 Texas Drive, Suite 300
`Sugar Land, TX 77479
`
`Email:
`
`
`
`
`
`Joe.Edell.IPR@fischllp.com
`Richard.Zhang.IPR@fischllp.com
`Desmond.Jui.IPR@fischllp.com
`William@noroozipc.com
`Kayvan@noroozipc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`