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
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘862 PATENT AND APPLE’S CHALLENGES TO
`THE CLAIMS ................................................................................................ 2
`
`A. The ‘862 Patent ............................................................................................... 2
`
`B. Apple’s Challenges to the ‘862 Patent ........................................................... 4
`
`C. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 8
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ....................................................................... 9
`
`A. The Petition Fails to Demonstrate that Every Limitation of Each Challenged
`Claim is Found in the Identified Prior Art ...................................................... 9
`
`1. The prior art identified in Grounds 1-5 fails to disclose numerous claim
`elements .................................................................................................... 11
`
`2. Apple attempts to fill in the holes in the prior art through improper
`incorporation by reference ........................................................................ 18
`
`B. The Petition Fails to Establish That the Claims Are Obvious ...................... 21
`
`1. Apple uses impermissible hindsight to combine Sukegawa and Dye ....... 21
`
`2. A POSITA would not have combined Sukegawa and Dye ....................... 25
`
`3. Even if the combination of Sukegawa and Dye were proper, the
`combination does not render obvious “load[ing]…boot data in compressed
`form” into memory, as recited in independent Claims 1, 6, and 13 ......... 28
`
`4. Apple fails to demonstrate the challenged claims are obvious over
`Sukegawa and Dye and in further view of Settsu, Burrows, or Zwiegincew
` .................................................................................................................. 30
`
`C. Sukegawa Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious “Updat[ing] the Boot Data
`List” and Related Limitations ....................................................................... 37
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 6, and 13 ............................................................... 37
`
`  i
`
`

`
`2. Dependent Claims 2, 4, 95, 99, and 105 ................................................... 45
`
`3. Dependent Claims 3, 96, 100, and 106 ..................................................... 47
`
`D. Sukegawa Does Not Disclose Boot Data Containing “a Plurality of
`Files” ............................................................................................................. 50
`
`IV. THE PETITION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH REQUISITE STATUTORY
`AND RULE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................. 51
`
`A. The Petition Impermissibly Uses Cross-Referencing, Nested Citations, and
`Incorporation by Reference in Violation of the Board’s Rules .................... 51
`
`B. The Petition Also Violates the Board’s Rules to Specify Statutory Grounds
`and Governing Laws and Precedent ............................................................. 57
`
`C. The Petition Incorporates an Expert Declaration by Reference in Violation
`of the Board’s Rules ..................................................................................... 60
`
`D. Grounds 2-5 Are Redundant of Ground 1 and Violate the Board’s Rules ... 64
`
`E. The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Deny Follow-On Petitions that
`Present Same Arguments as Those Presented Here ..................................... 67
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 69
`
`
`
`
`
`  ii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases  
`Am. Megatrends, Inc. v. Kinglite Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01188, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2015) .................................... 26, 28
`
`Apple Inc. v. SmartFlash LLC,
`CBM2015-00029, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. May 28, 2015) ................................. 45, 48
`
`Apple, Inc. v. ContenGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00453, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2015) ...................................... passim
`
`Apple, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc.,
`IPR2015-00357, Paper 9 at 9 (P.T.A.B. June 29, 2015) ..................................... 32
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 10, 18
`
`ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................. 59
`
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................. 39
`
`Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC, v. Gevo, Inc.,
`IPR2014–00581, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) ............................................ 67
`
`Ex parte Carlucci,
`Appeal 2010-006603, 2012 WL 4718549 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 28, 2012) ........... 10, 18
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC & Abell Found., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00767, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2015) .......................................... 69
`
`Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 59
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................... 21, 25, 59
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prod. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 22
`
`  iii
`
`

`
`Helicos Biosciences Corp. v. Illumina, Inc.,
`888 F. Supp. 2d 519 (D. Del. 2012) .............................................................. 19, 20
`
`In re Irani,
`427 F.2d 806 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ............................................................................. 23
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 21, 48
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................. 39
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 21
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 21, 25, 43, 44
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. ATI Techs. ULC,
`IPR2015-00327, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. July 10, 2015) ........................................... 69
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ................................... passim
`
`Norman Int’l, Inc. v. Hunter Douglas Inc.,
`IPR2014-00282, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. June 20, 2014) ............................................ 32
`
`Oxford Nanopore Techns. Ltd. v. University of Washington,
`IPR2014-00512, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 15, 2014) ............................. 18, 19, 20
`
`Round Rock Research, LLC v. Sandisk Corp.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 339 (D. Del. 2015) ................................................................ 10, 18
`
`Samsung Elec. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP,
`IPR2015–00114, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2015) .......................................... 67
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC.,
`IPR2015-00820, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016) .......................................... 68
`
`Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Astrazeneca Pharm. LP,
`IPR2016-00348, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 28, 2016) .......................................... 57
`
`  iv
`
`

`
`Spansion Inc. v. Macronix Int’l Co.,
`IPR2014-01116, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2014) ......................................... 41
`
`TWR Automotive US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-00869, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2014) .............................................. 32
`
`Volkswagen Gp. of Am., Inc. v. Signal IP, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01116, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 29, 2015) ......................................... 32
`
`W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ..................................................................... 25, 34
`
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 1, 10, 18
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ........................................................................................ 52, 53
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................. 71
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .................................................................................................. 69
`
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ................................................................................................. 70
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ......................................................................................... 58
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................... 52, 53
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ......................................................................................... 52
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 .................................................................................................. 66
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ..................................................................................... 53, 59
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1) ........................................................................................... 65
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ............................................................................................. 61
`
`Regulations
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756-01 ............................................................................................ 54
`
`  v
`
`

`
`
`
`I.  
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The five references on which Apple relies do not disclose or suggest every
`
`element of the ‘862 Patent’s three independent claims at issue here. Apple attempts
`
`to fill these gaps via a sixth reference, the “Dye ‘284” Patent, arguing it is
`
`incorporated by reference into Dye. But Dye does not meet the Federal Circuit’s
`
`requirements for incorporating subject matter by reference. The Federal Circuit has
`
`held that, for a host patent to incorporate another patent or publication by
`
`reference, the host patent “must identify with detailed particularity what specific
`
`material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the
`
`various documents.”1 Here, Dye does neither. Accordingly, the Petition’s reliance
`
`on the Dye ‘284 Patent is misplaced, and Apple cannot establish invalidity. The
`
`Petition should thus be denied on this basis alone.
`
`If the Board determines that Apple’s reliance on the Dye ‘284 Patent does
`
`not contravene Federal Circuit precedent, the Petition should be denied for several
`
`other reasons. For instance, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have
`
`combined Sukegawa with Dye because Dye teaches away from adding
`
`compression/decompression techniques to Sukegawa’s cooperative hard disk
`
`
`1 Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`  1
`
`

`
`drive-flash memory system. Moreover, Apple’s combinations are based on
`
`impermissible hindsight. Further still, even if the references are combined in the
`
`manner Apple proposes, the combinations fail to disclose several claim elements.
`
`And finally, the Petition repeatedly violates the Board’s rules, employing the same
`
`pervasive cross-referencing, nested citations, and citations to expert declarations
`
`that the Board deemed impermissible in denying Apple’s petition in Apple v.
`
`ContentGuard Holdings.2
`
`Realtime thus respectfully requests that the Board decline to institute inter
`
`partes review on Grounds 1-5 of the Petition.
`
`II.   OVERVIEW OF THE ‘862 PATENT AND APPLE’S CHALLENGES
`TO THE CLAIMS
`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.3 At the time of the invention, computer systems suffered from
`
`
`2 IPR2015-00453, Paper 9 at 5-9 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2015) (referred herein as
`
`ContentGuard I); id. at 6-7 (“These nested citations to vast portions of the record
`
`obscure what exactly Petitioner is relying on as teaching or suggesting these
`
`elements.”).
`
`3 Ex. 1001 at 1:20-26.
`
`  2
`
`

`
`slow boot times. Also at that time, the widespread use of the Internet and
`
`multimedia applications led to an emphasis in the art on storage density,
`
`storewidth, and power consumption.4
`
`To address these concerns, the ‘862 Patent discloses and claims methods and
`
`systems directed to, inter alia, maintaining a list of boot data, loading boot data in
`
`compressed form that is associated with a portion of the boot data list into memory,
`
`accessing the loaded boot data, and decompressing the accessed boot data at a rate
`
`that decreases a boot time of the operating system.5 Another aspect of the claimed
`
`invention is updating the boot data list by associating additional boot data, as well
`
`as removing an association of additional boot data associated with the list.6 In yet
`
`another aspect of the invention, the system includes a memory and a processor
`
`configured to load boot data in compressed form associated with a boot data list, to
`
`access the loaded boot data, to decompress the accessed portion of boot data, and
`
`to update the boot data list.7 These systems and methods result in a faster boot up
`
`of computer systems.
`
`
`4 Id. at 1:58-61.
`
`5 Id. at 3:42-59; 26:38-59; 26:60-27:25; 27:35-54; 28:1-43.
`
`6 Id. at 3:65-4:3; 26:38-59; 28:30-43; 28:58-67.
`
`7 Id. at 4:4-19: 28:9-33; 30:4-26.
`
`  3
`
`

`
`B.   Apple’s Challenges to the ‘862 Patent
`
`Apple challenges the validity of Claims 1-4, 6-7, 13, 23-34, 47-58, 83-96,
`
`99-100, 105-111, 113, and 116 of the ‘862 Patent.8 Of these challenged claims,
`
`Claims 1, 6, and 13 are independent. The proposed grounds of unpatentability are
`
`as follows:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`References9
`U.S. Patent No. 5,860,083 to Sukegawa (“Sukegawa”) and
`U.S. Patent No. 6,145,069 to Dye (“Dye”)
`Sukegawa, Dye, and U.S. Patent No. 6,374,353 to Settsu
`(“Settsu”)
`Sukegawa, Dye, and Burrows et al., “On-line Data
`Compression in a Log-structured File System” (1992)
`(“Burrows”)
`Sukegawa, Dye, Settsu, and Burrows
`Sukegawa, Dye, and U.S. Patent No. 6,317,818 to
`Zwiegincew (“Zwiegincew”)
`
`8 Petition at 1.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`5
`
`9 Throughout this Preliminary Response, for ease of understanding, Realtime will
`
`refer to these references primarily by the names indicated above, rather than by
`
`exhibit number. Realtime reserves all rights to present further argument and
`
`evidence related to these references and the content of the Petition and supporting
`
`Exhibits if inter partes review is instituted, consistent with the Board’s Rules and
`
`practice. No waiver is intended by any argument withheld at this stage of the
`
`proceeding.
`
`  4
`
`

`
`
`
`Apple relies upon Sukegawa as the foundation of Grounds 1-5. Sukegawa
`
`discloses a system coupled to a controller that in turn is coupled to a hard disk
`
`drive (“HDD”) and a flash memory unit.10 Sukegawa’s system purportedly
`
`provides high speed access to frequently-used programs, which normally reside on
`
`the system’s HDD, by permanently saving those frequently-used programs in flash
`
`memory.11 Because of the high-speed access performance of flash memory as
`
`compared to HDD memory, Sukegawa’s system purportedly allows for faster
`
`loading of those frequently-used programs.12 As acknowledged in the Petition,
`
`Sukegawa does not disclose or suggest a number of claim elements in the
`
`challenged claims.13 For example, Sukegawa does not disclose or suggest (a)
`
`loading a portion of compressed boot data associated with a portion of a boot data
`
`list into a memory, (b) decompressing accessed boot data at a rate that decreases
`
`boot time, (c) a data compression engine to compress a portion of boot data, (d)
`
`
`10 Sukegawa at 2:36-41; 4:2-11; 4:32-37: 4:47:53.
`
`11 Id. at 2:11-16; 5:50-53; 6:13-15; 7:40-46.
`
`12 Id. at 1:53-55; 6:54-57.
`
`13 See, e.g., Petition at 13-15, 18-19, 28-38, 40-42, 48-51, 60-77.
`
`  5
`
`

`
`data compression encoders to compress boot data, (e) a decompression decoder,
`
`and (f) the portion of compressed boot data represents a plurality of files.14
`
`Apple also relies upon Dye in each of Grounds 1-5. Dye discloses flash
`
`memory having compression and/or decompression engines for use in Execute In
`
`Place and solid state disk computer architectures.15 Dye discloses a flash memory
`
`system with a flash memory array 100 and a Compression Enhanced Flash
`
`Memory Controller (“CEFMC”) 200.16 Embedded within CEFMC 200 are
`
`compression and decompression engines 260, 280.17 However, as discussed in
`
`more detail below, Dye does not disclose loading or accessing compressed boot
`
`data from a boot device, such as an HDD, into memory, as set forth by the claims.
`
`Similarly, Dye fails to disclose the compressed/decompressed boot data includes a
`
`portion of the operating system, a program code, or a plurality of files, or that the
`
`compressed boot data is accessed via direct memory access, as recited in the
`
`claims. Dye also does not teach decompressing compressed boot data at a rate that
`
`
`14 Realtime expressly reserves the right to argue that Sukegawa fails to disclose
`
`additional claim elements if inter partes review is instituted.
`
`15 Dye at Abs.; Figs. 7-9; 2:32-39; 2:42-53.
`
`16 Id. at 8:29-31.
`
`17 Id. at Abs.; 8:48-52.
`
`  6
`
`

`
`decreases a boot time of the operating system, as required by the claims. While
`
`Dye arguably discloses a data compression engine, Dye fails to teach or suggest a
`
`data compression engine configured to compress and provide a portion of boot
`
`data, as required by the claims.
`
`Apple relies upon Settsu and Burrows in Grounds 2-4. Settsu discloses a
`
`process for booting up a system that comprises a boot device divided into a mini-
`
`operating system (“OS”) module and an OS main body wherein modules of the OS
`
`main body may be stored as compressed files.18 Burrows discloses a log-structured
`
`file system aimed at improving performance by eliminating disk reads and writes
`
`wherein the system may use compression routines so data occupies less space.19
`
`While Settsu and Burrows arguably disclose data compression to increase storage
`
`density, neither reference teaches or suggests using data compression engines or
`
`loading compressed boot data associated with a boot data list into memory.
`
`Apple also relies upon Zwiegincew in Ground 5. Zwiegincew discloses a
`
`technique for pre-fetching pages, i.e., blocks of data, from a disk drive to save into
`
`virtual memory before a hard page fault sequence occurs.20 This technique may
`
`
`18 Settsu at Abs.; 1:51-65; 3:6-12.
`
`19 Burrows at 8; 10.
`
`20 Zwiegincew at Abs.; 6:5-23.
`
`  7
`
`

`
`create a scenario file 245, which either includes copies of pages likely subject to a
`
`hard page fault or includes references to where those pages are saved on the disk
`
`device.21 While Zwiegincew arguably discloses pre-fetching such pages, it does not
`
`teach or suggest loading boot data associated with a boot data list nor updating a
`
`boot data list. Zwiegincew also discloses a compressor/decompressor module
`
`265.22 While that module arguably compresses and decompresses data,
`
`Zwiegincew does not teach or suggest that module 265 loads compressed boot data
`
`associated with a boot data list into memory or includes a data compression engine,
`
`as required by the claims.
`
`C.   Claim Construction
`
`Apple proposes that the claim term “boot data” should be construed “broadly
`
`enough to include and be met by data associated with data requests expected to
`
`result from a system power-on/reset.”23 Realtime does not dispute that
`
`
`21 Id. at 6:62-7:39; see id. at 7:34-37 (disclosing that changes to the pages likely
`
`leading to hard page faults results in the creation of a new scenario file 245).
`
`22 Id. at 8:66-9:13.
`
`23 Petition at 3-4. Apple also appears to propose constructions for the claim term
`
`“list” and “direct memory access.” See id. at 11, 48 (citing Neuhauser Declaration
`
`  8
`
`

`
`construction at this time because the term “boot data” is not material to Realtime’s
`
`arguments in this Preliminary Response. Realtime’s decision not to dispute
`
`Apple’s proposed construction, however, does not indicate that Realtime agrees
`
`with Apple’s construction. Realtime reserves the right to object to any of Apple’s
`
`constructions and propose alternative constructions in the future.
`
`III.   THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS
`A.   The Petition Fails to Demonstrate that Every Limitation of Each
`Challenged Claim is Found in the Identified Prior Art
`
`Dye, Sukegawa, Burrows, Settsu, and Zwiegincew—the only references
`
`identified in Grounds 1-5—fail to disclose or render obvious all of the elements of
`
`each independent claim. Apple therefore asserts that another reference, U.S. Patent
`
`7,190,284 (“the ‘284 Patent”),24 is “part of Dye’s disclosure” and relies on the
`
`teachings of the ‘284 Patent as though those teachings are Dye’s teachings to fill in
`
`the gaps.25 Apple’s sole basis for relying on the ‘284 Patent is Dye’s statement that
`
`the patent application that issued as the ‘284 Patent is “incorporated by reference in
`
`
`at ¶¶ 122-124, 526-528). Realtime does not agree with these proposed
`
`constructions, but will not dispute them at this time.
`
`24 Apple refers to the ‘284 Patent (Ex. 1009) in the Petition as “Dye ‘284.”
`
`25 Petition at 14, n.3.
`
`  9
`
`

`
`its entirety.”26 But the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that in order for a host
`
`patent to incorporate another patent or publication by reference, the host patent
`
`must particularly identify the specific material incorporated by reference and
`
`clearly indicate where that material is found in the incorporated document.27 Here,
`
`Dye does not identify with particularity what specific material Dye incorporates
`
`from the ‘284 Patent or where that material is found in the ‘284 Patent.28
`
`
`26 Id.
`
`27 Zenon Envtl., 506 F.3d at 1378; see also Apple, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 725
`
`F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (reversing an invalidity finding because host
`
`reference did not properly incorporate by reference a second reference needed to
`
`show certain claim limitations); Ex parte Carlucci, 2012 WL 4718549, at *2-*3
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 28, 2012) (reversing Examiner’s rejection because host patent did
`
`not incorporate by reference subject matter from a secondary patent with sufficient
`
`particularity); Round Rock Research, LLC v. Sandisk Corp., 81 F. Supp. 3d 339,
`
`352 (D. Del. 2015) (similar).
`
`28 While Dye cites to the application that issued as the ‘284 Patent in other sections
`
`of Dye’s specification, those citations do not indicate material of the ‘284 Patent to
`
`be incorporated by reference nor where specific material may be found in the ‘284
`
`Patent.
`
`  10
`
`

`
`Accordingly, Apple’s reliance on teachings of the ‘284 Patent in Grounds 1-5 is
`
`improper. And without the ‘284 Patent, Apple cannot establish invalidity, as the
`
`references identified in Grounds 1-5 fail to disclose all of the claim elements of the
`
`independent claims. The Petition should therefore be denied.
`
`1.  
`
`The prior art identified in Grounds 1-5 fails to disclose
`numerous claim elements
`
`Apple argues that Dye discloses compression and/or decompression
`
`technology used in flash memory.29 But, as Apple implicitly acknowledges, Dye
`
`fails to disclose claim elements found in every claim of the ‘862 Patent, as
`
`explained in detail below.30 Moreover, Apple does not allege that the claim
`
`elements missing from Dye are disclosed by the other four references identified in
`
`Grounds 1-5: Sukegawa, Settsu, Burrows, and Zwiegincew.31 Accordingly, Apple
`
`
`29 Petition at 10-12.
`
`30 Apple argues that the missing claim elements are disclosed by the ‘284 patent, a
`
`reference that Apple argues is incorporated by reference into Dye. However, as
`
`explained below, Dye does not incorporate the ‘284 patent by reference, and the
`
`‘284 Patent therefore cannot be used to fill in the gaps in Dye.
`
`31 Petition at 59-73; see id. at 59 (“Grounds 2-5 simply rely on Settsu, Burrows,
`
`and/or Zwiegincew for additional motivation and guidance to arrive at the
`
`combination of Sukegawa and Dye presented in Ground 1.”).
`
`  11
`
`

`
`has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success, and the Petition should be
`
`denied.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “load[ing]…boot data in [a/the] compressed form
`
`that is associated with …a boot data list,” as recited in Claims 1, 6, and 13:
`
`Apple asserts Dye discloses compression and decompression technology coupled
`
`to flash memory.32 Dye, however, does not teach that such technology could or
`
`should be used to load compressed “boot data” associated with a “boot data list”
`
`into memory from a boot device, as recited in the claim elements 1.1, 6.4, and
`
`13.1. Indeed, Apple does not assert that Dye discloses this claim element.33
`
`Moreover, Apple does not assert that this claim element is disclosed or suggested
`
`by Sukegawa, Settsu, Burrows, or Zwiegincew.34 Accordingly, the prior art
`
`identified in Grounds 1-5 does not render obvious claim 1, 6, or 13, or claims 2-4,
`
`
`32 Id. at 13-15.
`
`33 Id. at 14-15 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent).
`
`34 While Apple appears to assert Settsu, Burrows, and Zwiegincew are relevant to
`
`claim element 1.1, the Petition does not address claim elements 6.4 and 13.1.
`
`Moreover, those references do not disclose using a “boot data list” to load
`
`compressed “boot data” into memory, as claimed. See Petition at 60-66.
`
`  12
`
`

`
`7, 23-34, 47-58, 83-96, 99, 100, 105-111, 113, and 116, which depend from claims
`
`1, 6, or 13.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “access[ing] the loaded…boot data in the
`
`compressed form,” as recited in Claims 1, 6, and 13: Apple asserts Dye
`
`discloses compression and decompression technology coupled to flash memory.35
`
`Dye, however, does not teach that such technology could or should be used to
`
`“access[] the loaded…boot data in the compressed form,” as recited in claim
`
`elements 1.2, 6.5, and 13.2. Indeed, Apple does not assert that Dye discloses these
`
`claim elements.36 Moreover, Apple does not assert that these claim elements are
`
`disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, Burrows, or Zwiegincew.37
`
`Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-5 does not render obvious claims
`
`1, 6, or 13, or the challenged claims, which depend from claims 1, 6, or 13.
`
`
`35 Id. at 13-15.
`
`36 Id. at 17 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent).
`
`37 While Apple appears to assert Settsu is relevant to claim element 1.2, the
`
`Petition does not address claim elements 6.5 and 13.2. Moreover, Settsu does not
`
`disclose accessing compressed “boot data” associated with a “boot data list,” as
`
`claimed. See Petition at 66-67.
`
`  13
`
`

`
`Dye fails to disclose “decompress[ing] the accessed…boot data in the
`
`compressed form at a rate that decreases a boot time of the [operating]
`
`system,” as recited in Claims 1, 6, and 13: Apple asserts Dye discloses a
`
`controller with compression and/or decompression capability.38 Dye, however,
`
`does not teach that the controller decompresses accessed boot data “at a rate that
`
`decreases a boot time of the [operating] system,” as recited in claim elements 1.3,
`
`6.6, and 13.3. Indeed, Apple does not assert that Dye discloses this claim
`
`element.39 Moreover, Apple does not assert that this claim element is disclosed or
`
`suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, Burrows, or Zwiegincew.40 Accordingly, the prior
`
`art identified in Grounds 1-5 does not render obvious claims 1, 6, or 13, or the
`
`challenged claims which depend from claims 1, 6, or 13.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “the decompressed portion of boot data comprises a
`
`portion of the operating system,” as recited in Claim 1: Apple asserts Dye
`
`
`38 Id. at 13-15.
`
`39 Id. at 18-20 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent).
`
`40 While Apple appears to assert Settsu is relevant to claim element 1.3, the
`
`Petition does not address claim elements 6.6 and 13.3. Moreover, Settsu does not
`
`disclose decompressing compressed “boot data” associated with a “boot data list,”
`
`as claimed. See Petition at 67-68.
`
`  14
`
`

`
`discloses compression and decompression technology coupled to flash memory.41
`
`Dye, however, does not teach that such technology could or should be used such
`
`that “the decompressed portion of boot data comprises a portion of the operating
`
`system,” as recited in claim element 1.5. Indeed, Apple does not assert that Dye
`
`discloses this claim element.42 Moreover, Apple does not assert that this claim
`
`element is disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, Burrows, or Zwiegincew.43
`
`Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-5 does not render obvious claim
`
`1, or claims 2-4, 23-34, 95, 96, and 107-111, which depend from claim 1.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “the processor is configured…to load…boot data in
`
`the compressed form…for booting the system into the first memory,” as
`
`recited in Claim 6: Apple asserts Dye discloses compression and decompression
`
`technology coupled to flash memory.44 Dye, however, does not teach that such
`
`technology could or should be used such that the processor is configured to
`
`
`41 Id. at 13-15.
`
`42 Id. at 23-24 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent).
`
`43 While Apple appears to assert Settsu would have motivated a POSITA to
`
`combine Sukegawa and Dye, Settsu does not disclose decompressing compressed
`
`“boot data” associated with a “boot data list,” as claimed. See Petition at 69.
`
`44 Id. at 13-15.
`
`  15
`
`

`
`“load…boot data in the compressed form…for booting the system into…memory,”
`
`as recited in claim element 6.4. Indeed, Apple does not assert that Dye discloses
`
`this claim element.45 Moreover, Apple does not assert that this claim element is
`
`disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, Burrows, or Zwiegincew.
`
`Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-5 does not render obvious claim
`
`6, or claims 7, 47-58, 99, 100, and 113, which depend from claim 6.
`
`Dye fails to disclose a “data compression engine…configured to
`
`compress the portion of the boot data to provide the portion of the boot data
`
`in the compressed form,” as recited in Claim 7: Apple asserts Dye discloses a
`
`controller with compression and/or decompression capability.46 Dye, however,
`
`does not teach that the controller includes a “data compression engine…configured
`
`to compress the portion of the boot data to provide the portion of the boot data in
`
`the compressed form,” as recited in claim element 7.0. Indeed, Apple does not
`
`assert that Dye discloses these claim elements.47 Moreover, Apple does not assert
`
`that these claim elements are disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu,
`
`
`45 Id. at 31 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent).
`
`46 Id. at 13-15.
`
`47 Id. at 12-14, 34, 55-58, 63, 66 (appearing to