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 IPR2016-01737
`Patent 8,880,862
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER REALTIME DATA, LLC D/B/A IXO’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC D/B/A/ IXO,
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01737
`Patent 8,880,862
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER REALTIME DATA, LLC D/B/A IXO’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 3
`
`A. The ‘862 Patent ........................................................................................ 3
`
`B. The Instituted Prior Art ............................................................................ 7
`
`1. Sukegawa ........................................................................................... 8
`
`2. Dye ................................................................................................... 10
`
`3. Zwiegincew ...................................................................................... 11
`
`4. Settsu ................................................................................................ 16
`
`5. Burrows ............................................................................................ 16
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 18
`
`A. Proper Interpretation of “Boot Data List” .............................................. 19
`
`B. Proper Interpretation of “Non-Accessed Boot Data” ............................. 25
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 29
`
`A. Each Ground is Defective Because Petitioner’s Combinations Do Not
`Disclose or Render Obvious the “Boot Data List” Limitations. ............ 29
`
`1. Sukegawa does not disclose a “boot data list.” ................................ 29
`
`2. Zwiegincew does not teach a “boot data list.” ................................. 36
`
`3. Sukegawa does not render obvious “disassociating non-accessed
`boot data from the boot data list.” ................................................... 41
`
` i
`
`
`
`B. Each Ground is Defective Because Petitioner’s Combinations Fail to
`Disclose “Loading” Boot Data “That is Associated with a Boot Data
`List.” ....................................................................................................... 45
`
`1. The prior art fails to disclose Claim 13, which requires “a portion of
`boot data” be “associated with a portion of a boot data list” at the
`time the boot data is loaded into memory. ....................................... 45
`
`2. The prior art fails to disclose Claims 1 and 6 for the same
`reasons. ............................................................................................ 52
`
`C. Each Ground is Defective Because Petitioner’s Combinations Rest on
`Impermissible Hindsight ........................................................................ 53
`
`D. Each Ground is Defective Because Sukegawa Does Not Disclose “Boot
`Data Compris[ing] a Program Code Associated with…an Application
`Program.” ............................................................................................... 63
`
`E. Each Ground is Defective Because Dye Does Not Teach “a Plurality of
`Encoders.” .............................................................................................. 64
`
`F. Ground 1 is Defective Because Apple Improperly Relies on Dye ‘284
`for the “Compressed Data” Residing on “the Boot Device” Element. .. 69
`
`G. An Invalidity Ruling in This Case Constituted an Impermissible Taking
`of a Private Right Without Article III Oversight. ................................... 74
`
`H. Prior Art at Issue in Ground 5 Should be Limited to Sukegawa, Dye, and
`Zwiegincew References. ........................................................................ 76
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 77
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Apple, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
` IPR2015-00453, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2015) ............................................ 55
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 73
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 33, 48
`
`CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ..................................................................... 33, 48
`
`Cammeyer v. Newton,
`94 U.S. 225 (1876) .............................................................................................. 75
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................. 1
`
`Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int'l Sec. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 33, 48
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 18
`
`Ex parte Carlucci,
`Appeal 2010-006603, 2012 WL 4718549 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 28, 2012) ................. 73
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... 54, 57
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prod. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 54
`
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 19
`
` iii
`
`
`
`In re Cortright,
`165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................... 18
`
`In re Irani,
`427 F.2d 806 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ............................................................................. 55
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 53, 57
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 74
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 18
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974) ................................................................................... 1
`
`James v. Campbell,
`104 U.S. 356 (1881) ............................................................................................ 75
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 53
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 54, 57
`
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman,
`169 U.S. 606 (1898) ...................................................................................... 74, 75
`
`Mich. Land & Lumber Co. v. Rust,
`168 U.S. 589 (1897) ............................................................................................ 75
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 18
`
`Moore v. Robbins,
`96 U.S. 530 (1877) .............................................................................................. 75
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comms. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 18, 19
`
` iv
`
`
`
`Round Rock Research, LLC v. Sandisk Corp.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 339 (D. Del. 2015) ...................................................................... 73
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 18, 19
`
`United States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co.,
`128 U.S. 315 (1888) ............................................................................................ 75
`
`United States v. Palmer,
`128 U.S. 262 (1888) ............................................................................................ 75
`
`United States v. Schurz,
`102 U.S. 378 (1880) ............................................................................................ 75
`
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................... 2, 73
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................ 18
`
`
`
`
`
` v
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`
`Description
`Declaration of S. Desmond Jui in Support of Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Declaration of Kayvan B. Noroozi in Support of Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-773,
`dated August 14, 2012
`Deposition Exhibit - Declaration of Dr. Charles J. Neuhauser
`filed in IPR2016-01737 proceeding (Not Filed)
`Deposition Exhibit - Declaration of Dr. Charles J. Neuhauser
`filed in IPR2016-01738 proceeding (Not Filed)
`Deposition Exhibit - Declaration of Dr. Charles J. Neuhauser
`filed in IPR2016-01739 proceeding (Not Filed)
`Excerpt from Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Ed.,
`Microsoft (2002)
`Declaration of Dr. Godmar Back (“Back Dec.”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Godmar Back
`Prosecution History of U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`No. 60/801,114
`Deposition Transcript of Charles J. Neuhauser, dated June 2,
`2017
`Excerpt from Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement in matter Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. Apple
`Inc., C.A. No. 16-cv-02595-JB (N.D. Cal.)
`Excerpt from Operating System Concepts, Silberschatz et al.
`(2009)
`UNUSED
`UNUSED
`Application No. 11/551,211 as filed
`Application No. 09/776,267 as filed
`U.S. Patent No. 6,539,456 (“Stewart”)
`
` vi
`
`
`
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`
`2023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,173,381 (“Dye ’381”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,695 (“Esfahani”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,073,232 (“Kroeker”)
`Declaration of Dr. Godmar Back in Support of Motion to
`Amend
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No.
`7,181,608 (Application No. 09/776,267)
`
` vii
`
`
`
`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 a “boot
`
`data list,” a term found in every independent claim.2 The Petition also alleges that
`the prior art discloses “load[ing] boot data…that is associated with a boot data
`list,” 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, ‘862 Patent, claims 1, 6, 13.
`
`3 Id. Claim 1 recites the similar limitation “loading a portion of boot data…that is
`
`associated with a portion of a boot data list.”
`
`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 34, 58, and 94, as well as “a program code associated with…an application
`
`program,” as required by claims 29, 53, and 89.
`
`
`
`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 ‘862 Patent.5
`
`2
`
`
`
`Accordingly, for all of these reasons, the Petition fails to establish that the
`
`challenged claims of the ‘862 Patent are invalid, and Apple’s request to invalidate
`
`the ‘862 Patent claims should be declined.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. The ‘862 Patent
`
`Realtime’s ‘862 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
`
`was the 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 ‘862 Patent, 1:15-21.
`
`7 See, e.g., id., 1:24-26, 21:31-44; Ex. 1005, Sukegawa, 1:14-16, 42-49; Ex. 2008,
`
`Back Dec., ¶23.
`
`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., ‘862 Patent, 21:40-43; Sukegawa, 1:46-49; Back Dec., ¶24.
`
`9 862 Patent, 21:33-44.
`
`10 Id.
`
`11 Back Dec., ¶24.
`
`12 Id.
`
`13 Id.
`
`4
`
`
`
`were therefore erased upon power reset.14 Thus, storing desired information—such
`
`as boot information—ahead of time was not possible.
`
`To address these problems, the ‘862 Patent discloses and claims methods and
`
`systems for loading compressed boot data associated with a boot data list, and
`
`updating the boot data list as needed to accelerate the booting process. Specifically,
`
`the claims of the ‘862 are directed to, inter alia, loading boot data based on a boot
`
`data list, accessing the loaded boot data, and decompressing the boot data at a rate
`
`that decreases boot time of the operating system relative to loading the operating
`
`system with uncompressed boot data.15
`
`Another aspect of the inventions of the ‘862 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 CPU.16 In
`
`yet another aspect of the invention, the system includes a processor configured to
`
`
`
`14 See, e.g., Sukegawa, 1:21-26; Back Dec., ¶24. See also Ex. 1003, Neuhauser
`
`Dec., ¶44 (“[non-volatile] flash memory based designs were in 2000 still relatively
`
`expensive on a per bit basis”).
`
`15 ‘862 Patent, 3:35-52, cls. 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14.
`
`16 Id., 3:53-59, cls. 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14.
`
`5
`
`
`
`load compressed boot data associated with a boot data list into memory, to access
`
`the loaded boot data, to decompress the access portion of boot data, and to update
`
`the boot data list.17 These systems and methods result in a faster boot up.
`
`Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative:
`
`A method for providing accelerated loading of an operating
`1.
`system in a computer system, the method comprising:
`loading a portion of boot data in a compressed form that is associated
`with a portion of a boot data list for booting the computer system into
`a memory;
`accessing the loaded portion of the boot data in the compressed form
`from the memory;
`decompressing the accessed portion of the boot data in the compressed
`form at a rate that decreases a boot time of the operating system
`relative to loading the operating system utilizing boot data in an
`uncompressed form; and
`updating the boot data list,
`wherein the decompressed portion of boot data comprises a portion of
`the operating system.
`
`A system comprising:
`6.
`a processor;
`a [first] memory18; and
`
`
`
`17 Id., 4:4-22, 28:9-33, 30:4-26.
`
`18 See April 7, 2015 Certificate of Correction.
`
`6
`
`
`
`a second memory configured to store boot data in a compressed form
`for booting the system and a logic code associated with the processor,
`wherein the processor is configured:
`to load a portion of the boot data in the compressed form that is
`associated with a boot data list used for booting the system into the
`first memory,
`to access the loaded portion of the boot data in the compressed form,
`to decompress the accessed portion of the boot data in the compressed
`form at a rate that decreases a boot time of the system relative to
`booting the system with uncompressed boot data, and
`to update the boot data list.
`
`As shown in the illustrative claims above, the invention is directed to
`
`loading compressed boot data into memory wherein the boot data is associated
`
`with a boot data list. The invention also requires that the boot data list be updated
`
`accordingly, as also shown above.
`
`B.
`
`The Instituted Prior Art
`
`The Board instituted inter partes review on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Claims
`1-4, 6-7, 13, 23-34, 47–58, 83-96,
`99-100, 105-111, 113, 116
`1-4, 6-7, 13, 23-34, 47–58, 83-96,
`99-100, 105-111, 113, 116
`1-4, 6-7, 13, 23-34, 47–58, 83-96,
`99-100, 105-111, 113, 116
`
`103(a) Combination
`Sukegawa and Dye
`
`Sukegawa, Dye, and Settsu
`
`Sukegawa, Dye, and Burrows
`
`7
`
`
`
`4
`
`5
`
`1-4, 6-7, 13, 23-34, 47–58, 83-96,
`99-100, 105-111, 113, 116
`1-4, 6-7, 13, 23-34, 47–58, 83-96,
`99-100, 105-111, 113, 116
`
`Sukegawa, Dye, Settsu, and
`Burrows
`Sukegawa, Dye, and Zwiegincew19
`
`
`
`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 ‘862 Patent’s method of loading compressed boot data
`
`associated with a boot data list, Sukegawa20 teaches a “permanent storage” solution
`
`in which files of control information for OS and application programs are stored in
`
`flash memory 1 with the locations of the files referenced in a directory (table
`
`3A).”21 Sukegawa explains that the problem with then-existing cache systems is
`
`
`
`19 The Board’s Institution Decision appears to have inadvertently included Settsu
`
`as asserted prior art for Ground 5. See Paper 7, Institution Decision at 24 (Mar. 14,
`
`2017). Petition only identifies Sukegawa, Dye, and Zwiegincew as being asserted
`
`in Ground 5. Petition, 3.
`
`20 Ex. 1005, which is referred to herein as Sukegawa.
`
`21 Sukegawa, 2:11-16. (emphasis added).
`
`8
`
`
`
`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.”22 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.23
`
`The Petition contends that Sukegawa discloses the claim elements “boot data
`list” and “loading boot data…that is associated with a boot data list.”24 However,
`as explained below, Apple’s argument is based on an overly-broad
`misinterpretation of the terms. When properly interpreted, Sukegawa discloses
`neither the “boot data list” and “loading boot data…that is associated with a boot
`data list” claim elements.
`
`
`
`22 See, e.g., id., 1:50-61.
`
`23 Id., 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, the time of turning on power.”).
`
`24 See, e.g., Petition, 11-12.
`
`9
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Dye
`
`Dye25 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.26 Dye’s flash memory
`
`system comprises a flash memory array 100 and a Compression Enhanced Flash
`
`Memory Controller (“CEFMC”) 200.27 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.28 Embedded within CEFMC 200 are
`
`compression and decompression engines 260, 280.29
`
`Dye does not teach or suggest using the disclosed
`
`compression/decompression system with traditional platter drives, and is instead
`
`limited to flash media.30 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
`
`
`
`25 Ex. 1008, which is referred to herein as Dye.
`
`26 Dye, Abs., Figs. 7-9, 2:32-39; 2:42-53.
`
`27 Id., 8:29-31.
`
`28 Back Dec., ¶30.
`
`29 Dye, Abs., 8:48-52.
`
`30 See, e.g., Dye, Abs., 2:42-47, 3:3-12, 4:44-55.
`
`10
`
`
`
`and access operating system files.31 Accordingly, a POSITA would not have
`
`looked to Dye when considering whether to apply compression to a data storage
`
`controller for a traditional hard drive, such as Sukegawa’s HDD 2.
`
`3.
`
`Zwiegincew
`
`Zwiegincew32 is directed to the management of program code and data pages
`
`of application programs during hard page fault intensive scenarios. To understand
`
`hard page faults, it is helpful to understand virtual memory and paging in the
`
`context of modern computer systems.
`
`Virtual memory is a memory management technique that uses both hardware
`
`and software.33 When using virtual memory, program code utilizes virtual
`
`addresses that are mapped to the physical locations of the data in RAM.34 The
`
`blocks of data that are mapped in this way are known as pages.35
`
`
`
`31 Back Dec., ¶31.
`
`32 Ex. 1010, which is referred to herein as Zwiegincew.
`
`33 Back Dec., ¶37.
`
`34 Id.
`
`35 Id.
`
`11
`
`
`
`When a user or the system starts a new process, modern operating systems
`
`do not load the process’s program code into RAM all at once.36 Especially when a
`
`program is large, not all parts of the program may be needed, and loading them
`
`upfront would waste time and memory.37 Instead, these systems use a method
`
`called “on-demand paging”—parts of a program are not loaded until the process
`
`running the program actually tries to execute them.38 If and when this happens, the
`
`OS recognizes which part of the program is requested, loads it from disk into
`
`memory, and resumes the process.39 This memory management process is
`
`performed by the OS’s virtual memory management module, commonly referred to
`
`as “virtual memory manager.”40
`
`The virtual memory manager keeps track of which virtual addresses have
`
`been loaded to RAM and which ones have not.41 For virtual addresses that have
`
`
`
`36 Back Dec., ¶38.
`
`37 Id.
`
`38 Id.
`
`39 Id.
`
`40 Id.
`
`41 Id.
`
`12
`
`
`
`been loaded to RAM, the virtual memory manager instructs the CPU’s memory
`
`management unit (MMU) where to find the physical address of the page in RAM.42
`
`A hard page fault occurs when a process references a page in its virtual
`
`address space that has not been loaded to RAM.43 In this situation, the process is
`
`interrupted while the page is retrieved from the hard disk and loaded to RAM.44
`
`The virtual memory manager updates its table to indicate that the requested page is
`
`now available in RAM and identifies the location of that page in RAM.45 The
`
`process can then resume and utilize the page.46 Because handling a hard page fault
`
`requires accessing the hard disk (which is much slower than RAM), these hard
`
`page faults slow down the process.47 If the OS knew which pages the program was
`
`likely to access, it could prefetch those pages into memory.48 To reduce the
`
`occurrence of hard page faults, Zwiegincew discloses that a “scenario file” can
`
`
`
`42 Back Dec., ¶38.
`
`43 Id., ¶39.
`
`44 Id.
`
`45 Id.
`
`46 Id.
`
`47 Id.
`
`48 Id., ¶40.
`
`13
`
`
`
`prefetch pages of application programs prior to the occurrence of a potential hard
`
`page fault sequence.49 In other words, Zwiegincew attempts to prevent hard page
`
`faults from occurring through the use of these “scenario files.”50
`
`Zwiegincew’s “scenario file” is a file that identifies characteristics, markers,
`
`or other indicators that a hard page fault is likely to occur—a so-called “page fault
`
`scenario.”51 The scenario file can also include a copy or identification of the page
`
`file that is needed to avoid the impending hard page fault.52 The system is
`
`monitored based on the information in the scenario file and, when a hard page fault
`
`scenario is detected (meaning that a hard page fault is likely to occur), the system
`
`can load the page identified by the scenario file.53 Thus, the scenario file
`
`anticipates and prevents hard page faults, thereby increasing system speed.54
`
`
`
`49 Zwiegincew, 4:6-19.
`
`50 Id.
`
`51 Id., Abs., Fig. 3.
`
`52 Id., 6:64-67, 7:7-10.
`
`53 Id., 6:29-39.
`
`54 Id., 6:29-43.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Further, Zwiegincew discloses the idea of automatically refining the
`
`scenario file so it can more accurately identify page fault scenarios.55 Towards that
`
`end, Zwiegincew also discloses a mode in which hard page faults are recorded in a
`
`log, thus allowing a subsequent pattern-based algorithm to analyze this log to
`
`refine the page fault markers and indicators in the scenario file to better predict the
`
`occurrence of page faults.56
`
`The Petition contends that Zwiegincew suggests the claim elements “boot
`
`data list,” “loading boot data” into memory “that is associated with a boot data
`list,” and “updating the boot data list.”57 However, as explained below,
`Zwiegincew’s teachings are not directed to “boot data,” a “boot data list,” or
`“updating the boot data list,” as Zwiegincew relates to improving operation of
`application programs using virtual memory well after the start-up of a computer
`system.
`
`
`
`55 Id., 7:24-49.
`
`56 Id., 6:30-37, 7:25-39, cl. 2.
`
`57 See, e.g., Petition, 11-12.
`
`15
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Settsu
`
`Settsu58 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.59 Settsu
`
`also discloses a function definition file stored in one of the modules of the OS main
`
`body.60 However, Settsu’s function definition file does not teach or suggest
`
`“loading boot data…that is associated with a boot data list.”
`
`5.
`
`Burrows
`
`Burrows61 describes 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.62 Burrows’s analysis regarding
`
`its file system illustrates obstacles and challenges faced by a POSITA at the time
`
`
`
`58 Ex. 1006, which is referred to herein as Settsu.
`
`59 Settsu, Abs., 1:51-65; 3:6-12.
`
`60 Id., 16:26-30, Fig. 18.
`
`61 Ex. 1007, which is referred to herein as Burrows.
`
`62 Burrows, 8; 10.
`
`16
`
`
`
`of the ‘862 invention when attempting to integrate compression into file-system
`
`designs for hard disk drive.63
`
`In describing its file system, Burrows discloses that usage of Lempel-Ziv
`
`compression on data sectors of the hard disk drive results in slower execution of
`
`those data sectors compared to an unmodified hard disk drive having no
`
`compression.64 Burrows further discloses that test systems using compression on
`
`the hard drive experienced “pauses after file system activity” that were not
`
`experienced with the unmodified hard drive having no compression.65
`
`Accordingly, Burrows does not teach or suggest compressing boot data on a hard
`
`drive “at a rate that decreases a boot time of the operating system relative to
`
`loading the operating system utilizing boot data in an uncompressed form,” as
`
`claimed in the ‘862 Patent.
`
`
`
`63 Back Dec., ¶35.
`
`64 Burrows, 14.
`
`65 Id., 16.
`
`17
`
`
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Because the ‘862 Patent has not expired, the Board must interpret its claims
`
`using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.66 The
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible definition.67
`
`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.”68 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.”69 Thus, as the Trivascular court
`
`
`
`66 Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b).
`
`67 PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comms. RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 752
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`68 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`69 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).
`
`18
`
`
`
`further declared, “[c]onstruing individual words of a claim without considering the
`
`context in which those words appear is simply not reasonable.”70 Rather, the
`
`construction must account for how the claims and the specification inform the
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan as to the meaning of the term.71
`
`A.
`
`Proper Interpretation of “Boot Data List”
`
`The term “boot data list,” as used in claims 1-9, 11-14, 19-21, 95-106, and
`
`111-117, should mean “record used to identify and load boot data into memory.”
`
`Indeed, this construction is consistent with the claims and the intrinsic record, and
`
`is the br
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
