`
`
`
`
`
`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 LIST OF
`PETITIONER’S IMPROPER REPLY ARGUMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s authorization on October 10, 2017, Patent Owner
`
`Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO (“Realtime”) submits the following list of the
`
`locations and concise descriptions of the portions of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 23)
`
`that exceed the proper reply scope. If the Board were to rely on these arguments
`
`and evidence in finding the challenged claims unpatentable, Realtime would not
`
`have had sufficient opportunity to respond.
`
`1)
`
`At pages 7-8 of the Reply, Petitioner argues that Sukegawa renders obvious
`
`the limitation “boot data list.” For example:
`
`•
`
`“As Dr. Neuhauser explained and the Institution Decision credited, a
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious that Sukegawa’s files of OS and AP
`
`control information are lists of boot data.” (Reply at 7.)
`
`•
`
`“As Dr. Neuhauser explained, a list is an obvious representation for a
`
`collection of information and, thus, Sukegawa’s files represent lists of
`
`control information.” (Id. at 8.)
`
`2)
`
`At pages 5-7 and 13-16 of the Reply, Petitioner argues that “non-accessed
`
`boot data” should be construed to mean “boot data that was not accessed” and that
`
`Sukegawa’s deletion of control information from table 3A renders obvious the
`
`“disassociating non-accessed boot data” limitations. For example:
`
`•
`
`“[U]nder BRI, a POSITA would have viewed the term ‘non-accessed
`
`boot data’ per its ordinary meaning as simply boot data that was not
`
`accessed.” (Id. at 5.)
`
`•
`
`“[A] POSITA would have found Sukegawa’s user deletion of control
`
`1
`
`
`
`information obviously (and most likely) to include control information that
`
`was not accessed (or not requested during system boot-up).” (Id. at 14.)
`
`•
`
`“[B]ecause a POSITA would have found user deletion of ‘non-
`
`accessed’ boot data to be an obvious part of Sukegawa’s user deletion,
`
`Sukegawa renders obvious disassociating non-accessed boot data from the
`
`boot data list.” (Id. at 14.)
`
`•
`
`“Thus, Sukegawa’s automated deletion of AP control information
`
`from cache area 10C involves disassociation of non-accessed boot data from
`
`the boot data list. And, Realtime’s argument ignores the presence of OS
`
`control information in Sukegawa and the obviousness of managing the OS
`
`control information similarly to the AP control information.” (Id. at 15.)
`
`•
`
`“…Realtime does not properly assess obviousness and ignores the
`
`other possibility – that the LRU algorithm could discard items not requested
`
`during system boot-up. Indeed, as Dr. Neuhauser explained, the entire point
`
`of an LRU algorithm is to remove data that has not been accessed and, thus,
`
`a POSITA would have found Sukegawa’s automatic deletion of control
`
`information obviously (and most likely) to include control information that
`
`was not accessed (or not requested during system boot-up).” (Id. at 15-16.)
`
`3)
`
`At page 16 of the Reply, Petitioner argues Zwiegincew renders obvious the
`
`“disassociating non-accessed boot data” limitations. For example:
`
`•
`
`“…Realtime cannot overcome the reasonable likelihood of success
`
`established for Zwiegincew’s rendering obvious disassociating non-accessed
`
`boot data from the boot data list in Ground 5.” (Id. at 16.)
`
`4)
`
`At pages 16-17 of the Reply, Petitioner argues that the limitation “loading”
`
`2
`
`
`
`boot data “that is associated with a boot data list” does not require the “boot data”
`
`be associated with the “boot data list” prior to loading. For example:
`
`•
`
`“Indeed, claim 13 merely recites loading boot data ‘associated with a
`
`boot data list’ and, under BRI, places no restriction on whether that boot data
`
`becomes associated with the boot data list prior to, or at the time of,
`
`loading.” (Id. at 16-17.)
`
`5)
`
`At pages 16-17 of the Reply, Petitioner argues that Sukegawa’s files of
`
`control information disclose the limitation “loading” boot data “that is associated
`
`with a boot data list.” For example:
`
`•
`
`“Indeed, when Sukegawa loads a file of control information from
`
`HDD2 to flash memory 1, the control information in the file is associated
`
`with the file prior to its loading.” (Id. at 17.)
`
`6)
`
`At pages 16-18 of the Reply, Petitioner argues that Sukegawa’s table 3A
`
`renders obvious the limitation “loading” boot data “that is associated with a boot
`
`data list.” For example:
`
`•
`
`“[E]ach of Sukegawa, Settsu, and Zwiegincew render obvious this
`
`feature, even under Realtime’s overly-narrow interpretation.” (Id. at 17.)
`
`•
`
`“In fact, both operations must occur at relatively the same time and, as
`
`such, a POSITA would have found it obvious to perform either operation
`
`(table update or data load) just prior to the other.” (Id. at 17.)
`
`•
`
`“As Dr. Neuhauser explained, a POSITA would have found it obvious
`
`that, to generate this list, Sukegawa’s system receives a user selection of
`
`data to preload, updates table 3A to indicate the selection, and then loads the
`
`3
`
`
`
`user-selected data into area.” (Id. at 18.)
`
`•
`
`“In this way, a POSITA would have found it obvious that the user-
`
`selected data is associated with table 3A prior to its loading.” (Id. at 18.)
`
`7)
`
`At pages 17-18 of the Reply, Petitioner argues that Settsu and Zwiegincew
`
`render obvious the limitation “loading” boot data “that is associated with a boot
`
`data list.” For example:
`
`•
`
`“[E]ach of Sukegawa, Settsu, and Zwiegincew render obvious this
`
`feature, even under Realtime’s overly-narrow interpretation.” (Id. at 17.)
`
`•
`
`“In the Petition, Dr. Neuhauser explained how Settsu and Zwiegincew
`
`each describe loading boot data that is associated with a boot data list.” (Id.
`
`at 18.)
`
`•
`
`“…Realtime cannot overcome the reasonable likelihood of success
`
`established for Settsu and Zwiegincew rendering obvious loading boot data
`
`that is associated with a boot data list in Grounds 2, 4, and 5.” (Id. at 18.)
`
`8)
`
`At pages 22-23 of the Reply, Petitioner argues that Dye’s compression
`
`engines and components that perform encoding operations meet the “plurality of
`
`encoders” limitations. For example:
`
`•
`
`“Indeed, a component that performs encoding operations is commonly
`
`understood to be an encoder. Because Realtime admits that Dye has a
`
`plurality of components that each perform encoding operations, Realtime
`
`itself acknowledges that Dye includes a plurality of encoders.” (Id. at 23
`
`(internal citations omitted).)
`
`•
`
`“Specifically, Dye contemplates multiple compression engines.
`
`Because Dye’s compression engine is an encoder (as Realtime admits),
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dye’s multiple compression engines represent multiple encoders.” (Id. at 23
`
`(internal citations omitted).)
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Date: October 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Joseph F. Edell/
`Joseph F. Edell (Reg. No. 67,625)
`Richard Z. Zhang (Reg. No. 73,397)
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`Phone: (202) 362-3527
`Fax: (202) 362-3501
`Email: Joe.Edell.IPR@fischllp.com
`Email: Richard.Zhang.IPR@fischllp.com
`
`Desmond S. Jui (pro hac vice)
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`96 North Third Street
`Suite 260
`San Jose, CA 95112
`Phone: (650) 362-8209
`Email: Desmond.Jui.IPR@fischllp.com
`
`William P. Rothwell (Reg. No. 75,522)
`Noroozi PC
`2245 Texas Drive, Suite 300
`Sugar Land, TX 77479
`Phone: (281) 566-2685
`Email: William@nooozipc.com
`
`Kayvan B. Noroozi (pro hac vice)
`Noroozi PC
`1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Phone: (310) 975-7074
`Email: Kayvan@noroozipc.com
`
`5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 13, 2017, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s List of Petitioner’s Improper Reply Arguments is being
`
`served electronically to the Petitioner at the correspondence email addresses of
`
`record provided in the Petition as follows:
`
`W. Karl Renner (Lead Counsel) IPR39521-0025IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Date: October 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
` /Joseph F. Edell/
`Joseph F. Edell (Reg. No. 67,625)
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`Phone: (202) 362-3527
`Fax: (202) 362-3501
`Email: Joe.Edell.IPR@fischllp.com
`
`
`
`