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 IPR2016-01738
`Patent 8,880,862
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER REALTIME DATA, LLC D/B/A IXO’S RESPONSE
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  
`
`II.  
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1  
`
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 3  
`
`A.   The ‘862 Patent ........................................................................................ 3  
`
`B.   The Instituted Prior Art ............................................................................ 6  
`
`1.   Sukegawa ........................................................................................... 7  
`
`2.   Dye ..................................................................................................... 8  
`
`3.   Zwiegincew ...................................................................................... 10  
`
`4.   Settsu ................................................................................................ 14  
`
`5.   Burrows ............................................................................................ 15  
`
`III.  
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 16  
`
`A.   Proper Interpretation of “Boot Data List” .............................................. 18  
`
`B.   Proper Interpretation of “Non-Accessed Boot Data” ............................. 23  
`
`IV.  
`
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 27  
`
`A.   Each Ground is Defective Because Petitioner’s Combinations Do Not
`Disclose or Render Obvious the “Boot Data List” Limitations. ............ 27  
`
`1.   Sukegawa does not disclose a “boot data list.” ................................ 27  
`
`2.   Zwiegincew does not teach a “boot data list.” ................................. 34  
`
`3.   Sukegawa does not render obvious “disassociating non-accessed
`boot data from the boot data list.” ................................................... 39  
`
`B.   Each Ground is Defective Because Petitioner’s Combinations Fail to
`Disclose “Accessing Boot Data” Before “Loading the Boot Data” and
`“Servicing a Request for the Boot Data.” .............................................. 43  
`
` i  
`
`

`

`C.   Each Ground is Defective Because Petitioner’s Combinations Fail to
`Disclose “Loading” or “Accessing” Boot Data “That is Associated with
`a Boot Data List.” ................................................................................... 47  
`
`1.   The prior art fails to disclose claim 14, which requires “accessing
`boot data…wherein a portion of the boot data is associated with a
`boot data list” before the boot data is loaded into memory. ............ 47  
`
`2.   The prior art fails to disclose claims 8 and 11, which requires boot
`data be “associated with a boot data list” at the time the boot data is
`loaded into memory. ........................................................................ 49  
`
`D.   Each Ground is Defective Because Petitioner’s Combinations Rest on
`Impermissible Hindsight ........................................................................ 56  
`
`E.   Each Ground is Defective Because Sukegawa Does Not Disclose “Boot
`Data Compris[ing] a Program Code Associated with…an Application
`Program.” ............................................................................................... 67  
`
`F.   Each Ground is Defective Because Dye Does Not Teach “a Plurality of
`Encoders.” .............................................................................................. 68  
`
`G.   Ground 1 is Defective Because Apple Improperly Relies on Dye ‘284
`for the “Compressed Data” Residing on “the Boot Device” Element. .. 73  
`
`H.   Each Ground is Defective Because Sukegawa Does Not Teach or
`Suggest “the Utilizing Comprises: Utilizing the Stored Additional
`Portion of the Operating System to at Least Further Partially Boot the
`Computer System.” ................................................................................ 78  
`
`I.   An Invalidity Ruling in This Case Constituted an Impermissible Taking
`of a Private Right Without Article III Oversight. ................................... 79  
`
`V.  
`
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 82  
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii  
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases  
`
`Apple, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
` IPR2015-00453, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2015) ............................................ 59
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 78
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 32, 52
`
`CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ..................................................................... 32, 52
`
`Cammeyer v. Newton,
`94 U.S. 225 (1876) .............................................................................................. 82
`
`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) ..................................................................... 32, 52
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 17
`
`Ex parte Carlucci,
`Appeal 2010-006603, 2012 WL 4718549 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 28, 2012) ................. 78
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... 58, 62
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prod. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 58
`
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 18
`
` iii  
`
`

`

`In re Cortright,
`165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................... 18
`
`In re Irani,
`427 F.2d 806 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ............................................................................. 59
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 58, 61
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 78
`
`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) ............................................................................................ 82
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 58
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 58, 62
`
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman,
`169 U.S. 606 (1898) ...................................................................................... 81, 82
`
`Mich. Land & Lumber Co. v. Rust,
`168 U.S. 589 (1897) ............................................................................................ 82
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 18
`
`Moore v. Robbins,
`96 U.S. 530 (1877) .............................................................................................. 82
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comms. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................. 17, 18, 19
`
` iv  
`
`

`

`Round Rock Research, LLC v. Sandisk Corp.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 339 (D. Del. 2015) ...................................................................... 78
`
`Seymour v. Osborne,
`11 Wall. 516 (1870) ............................................................................................. 82
`
`Trivasuclar, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 18
`
`United States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co.,
`128 U.S. 315 (1888) ...................................................................................... 81, 82
`
`United States v. Palmer,
`128 U.S. 262 (1888) ............................................................................................ 82
`
`United States v. Schurz,
`102 U.S. 378 (1880) ............................................................................................ 81
`
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................... 2, 77
`
`
`
`Regulations  
`
`37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b) ............................................................................................ 17
`
`
`
`
`
` v  
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`
`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 (“Dr. 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
`
` vi  
`
`

`

`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`
`2023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,539,456 (“Stewart”)
`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. 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
`
`“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
`
`
`
`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.”).
`
`2 ‘862 Patent, cls. 8, 11, 14.
`
`1
`
`

`

`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.”3 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.
`
`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 70 and 82, as well as “a program code associated with…an application
`
`program,” as required by claims 17, 65, and 77.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`3 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`2
`
`

`

`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.4
`
`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.5 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.
`
`Even with high-speed onboard memories and caches, computers at the time
`
`of invention still suffered from slow boot times.6 One reason for this is that upon
`
`reset, conventional boot device controllers would wait for a command before
`
`
`
`4 ’862 Patent, 1:20-26.
`
`5 See, e.g., ‘862 Patent, 1:29-31, 20:36-49; Sukegawa, 1:14-16, 42-49; Ex. 2008,
`
`Back Dec., ¶21.
`
`6 See, e.g., ‘862 Patent, 20:45-49; Sukegawa, 1:46-49; Back Dec., ¶22.
`
`3
`
`

`

`loading data for processing.7 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.8 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.9 The time the CPU
`
`spent waiting for the boot device controller was also unproductive.10 This wasted
`
`processing time translated to slow boot times and therefore wasted the user’s
`
`time.11 As well, traditional high-speed memories of the time were volatile, and
`
`were therefore erased upon power reset.12 Thus, storing desired information—
`
`such as boot information—ahead of time was not possible.
`
`
`
`7 862 Patent, 20:38-49.
`
`8 Id.
`
`9 Back Dec., ¶22.
`
`10 Id.
`
`11 Id.
`
`12 See, e.g., Sukegawa, 1:21-26; Back Dec., ¶22. See also Ex. 1003, Neuhauser
`
`Dec., ¶44 (“[non-volatile] flash memory based designs were in 2000 still relatively
`
`expensive on a per bit basis”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`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.13
`
`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.14 In
`
`yet another aspect of the invention, the system includes a processor configured to
`
`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.15 These systems and methods result in a faster boot up. Claim 1
`
`is illustrative:
`
`
`
`13 ‘862 Patent, 3:35-52, cls. 1, 5-6, 8, 11, 13-14.
`
`14 Id., 3:53-59, cls. 1, 5-6, 8, 11, 13-14.
`
`15 Id., 4:4-20.
`
`5
`
`

`

`As shown in the illustrative claim 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
`8–12, 14–22, 59–82, 101–104,
`114–115, and 117
`8–12, 14–22, 59–82, 101–104,
`114–115, and 117
`8–12, 14–22, 59–82, 101–104,
`114–115, and 117
`
`103(a) Combination
`Sukegawa and Dye
`
`Sukegawa, Dye, and Settsu
`
`Sukegawa, Dye, and Burrows
`
`6
`
`

`

`4
`
`5
`
`8–12, 14–22, 59–82, 101–104,
`114–115, and 117
`8–12, 14–22, 59–82, 101–104,
`114–115, and 117
`
`Sukegawa, Dye, Settsu, and
`Burrows
`Sukegawa, Dye, and Zwiegincew
`
`
`
`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, Sukegawa16 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).”17 Sukegawa explains that the problem with then-existing cache systems is
`
`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.”18 To
`
`
`
`16 Ex. 1005, which is referred to herein as Sukegawa.
`
`17 Sukegawa, 2:11-16.
`
`18 See, e.g., id., 1:50-61.
`
`7
`
`

`

`overcome this drawback, Sukegawa proposes using a non-volatile memory to
`
`permanently store data needed for system startup instead of a traditional volatile
`
`cache.19
`
`The Petition contends that Sukegawa discloses the claim elements “boot data
`list” and “loading boot data…that is associated with a boot data list.”20 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.
`
`2.  
`
`Dye
`
`Dye21 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.22 Dye’s flash memory
`
`
`
`19 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.”).
`
`20 See, e.g., Petition, 13-14.
`
`21 Ex. 1008, which is referred to herein as Dye.
`
`22 Dye, Abs., Figs. 7-9, 2:32-39; 2:42-53.
`
`8
`
`

`

`system comprises a flash memory array 100 and a Compression Enhanced Flash
`
`Memory Controller (“CEFMC”) 200.23 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.24 Embedded within CEFMC 200 are
`
`compression and decompression engines 260, 280.25
`
`Dye does not teach or suggest using the disclosed
`
`compression/decompression system with traditional platter drives, and is instead
`
`limited to flash media.26 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
`
`and access operating system files.27 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.
`
`
`
`23 Id., 8:29-31.
`
`24 Back Dec., ¶28.
`
`25 Dye, Abs., 8:48-52.
`
`26 See, e.g., Dye, Abs., 2:42-47, 3:3-12, 4:44-55.
`
`27 Back Dec., ¶29.
`
`9
`
`

`

`3.  
`
`Zwiegincew
`
`Zwiegincew28 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.29 When using virtual memory, program code utilizes virtual
`
`addresses that are mapped to the physical locations of the data in RAM.30 The
`
`blocks of data that are mapped in this way are known as pages.31
`
`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.32 Especially when a
`
`program is large, not all parts of the program may be needed, and loading them
`
`upfront would waste time and memory.33 Instead, these systems use a method
`
`
`
`28 Ex. 1010, which is referred to herein as Zwiegincew.
`
`29 Back Dec., ¶35.
`
`30 Id.
`
`31 Id.
`
`32 Id., ¶36.
`
`33 Id.
`
`10
`
`

`

`called “on-demand paging”—parts of a program are not loaded until the process
`
`running the program actually tries to execute them.34 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.35 This memory management process is
`
`performed by the OS’s virtual memory management module, commonly referred to
`
`as “virtual memory manager.”36
`
`The virtual memory manager keeps track of which virtual addresses have
`
`been loaded to RAM and which ones have not.37 For virtual addresses that have
`
`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.38
`
`A hard page fault occurs when a process references a page in its virtual
`
`address space that has not been loaded to RAM.39 In this situation, the process is
`
`
`
`34 Back Dec., ¶36.
`
`35 Id.
`
`36 Id.
`
`37 Id., ¶37.
`
`38 Id.
`
`39 Id., ¶38.
`
`11
`
`

`

`interrupted while the page is retrieved from the hard disk and loaded to RAM.40
`
`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.41 The
`
`process can then resume and utilize the page.42 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.43 If the OS knew which pages the program was
`
`likely to access, it could prefetch those pages into memory.44 To reduce the
`
`occurrence of hard page faults, Zwiegincew discloses that a “scenario file” can
`
`prefetch pages of application programs prior to the occurrence of a potential hard
`
`page fault sequence.45 In other words, Zwiegincew attempts to prevent hard page
`
`faults from occurring through the use of these “scenario files.”46
`
`
`
`40 Back Dec., ¶38.
`
`41 Id.
`
`42 Id.
`
`43 Id.
`
`44 Id.
`
`45 Zwiegincew, 4:6-19.
`
`46 Id.
`
`12
`
`

`

`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.”47 The scenario file can also include a copy or identification of the page
`
`file that is needed to avoid the impending hard page fault.48 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.49 Thus, the scenario file
`
`anticipates and prevents hard page faults, thereby increasing system speed.50
`
`Further, Zwiegincew discloses the idea of automatically refining the scenario file
`
`so it can more accurately identify page fault scenarios.51 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
`
`
`
`47 Id., Abs., Fig. 3.
`
`48 Id., 6:64-67, 7:7-10.
`
`49 Id, 6:29-39.
`
`50 Id, 6:29-43.
`
`51 Id, 7:24-49.
`
`13
`
`

`

`page fault markers and indicators in the scenario file to better predict the
`
`occurrence of page faults.52
`
`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.”53 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.
`
`4.  
`
`Settsu
`
`Settsu54 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.55 Settsu
`
`also discloses a function definition file stored in one of the modules of the OS main
`
`
`
`52 Id, 6:30-37, 7:25-39, claim 2.
`
`53 See, e.g., Petition, 63.
`
`54 Ex. 1006, which is referred to herein as Settsu.
`
`55 Settsu, Abs., 1:51-65; 3:6-12.
`
`14
`
`

`

`body.56 However, Settsu’s function definition file does not teach or suggest
`
`“loading boot data…that is associated with a boot data list.”
`
`5.  
`
`Burrows
`
`Burrows57 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.58 Burrows’s analysis regarding
`
`its file system illustrates obstacles and challenges faced by a POSITA at the time
`
`of the ‘862 invention when attempting to integrate compression into file-system
`
`designs for hard disk drive.59
`
`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.60 Burrows further discloses that test systems using compression on
`
`the hard drive experienced “pauses after file system activity” that were not
`
`
`
`56 Id., 16:26-30, Fig. 18.
`
`57 Ex. 1007, which is referred to herein as Burrows.
`
`58 Burrows, 8; 10.
`
`59 Back Dec., ¶33.
`
`60 Burrows, 14.
`
`15
`
`

`

`experienced with the unmodified hard drive having no compression.61
`
`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.
`
`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.62 The
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible definition.63
`
`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
`
`
`
`61 Id., 16.
`
`62 Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016); 37 C.F.R.
§
`
`42.100(b).

`
`63 PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comms. RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 752
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).

`
`16
`
`

`

`the full claim language and the written description.”64 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.”65 Thus, as the Trivascular court
`
`further declared, “[c]onstruing individual words of a claim without considering the
`
`context in which those words appear is simply not reasonable.”66 Rather, the
`
`
`
`64 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

`
`65 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)).
`
`66 Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1062. See also PPC Broadband, 815 F.3d at 756 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (“Given the context of the claims, the specification, and the technology
`
`of the ’060 patent, we conclude that the Board's construction of ‘reside around’ is
`
`unreasonable.”); In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148-50 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012) (finding the Patent Office’s construction unreasonably broad because it
`
`was “unreasonable and inconsistent with the language of the claims and the
`
`specification”).
`
`17
`
`

`

`construction must account for how the claims and the specification inform the
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan as to the meaning of the term.67
`
`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 broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
`
`Both the specification and the provisional application to which the ’862
`
`Patent claims priority establish that the claimed “boot data list” is a record of boot
`
`data separate from the boot data itself. Notably, the specification and provisional
`
`application distinguish between a “boot data list” and boot data. Boot data
`
`comprises information such as program code relating to portions of the operating
`
`system and certain application programs.68 The system stores boot data in a
`
`
`
`67 PPC Broadband, 815 F.3d at 752 (overturning the Board’s construction that
`
`failed to account for how the claims and the specification informed the meaning of
`
`the claim term at issue).

`
`68 ’862 Patent, 3:47-50; Ex. 2010, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/180,114
`
`(“Prov. Application”), 58.
`
`18
`
`

`

`compressed form on a boot device,69 loads boot data into memory upon
`
`initialization of the computer system,70 and services requests for boot data using
`
`the loaded boot data.71 On the other hand, the intrinsic evidence describes a “boot
`
`data list” as comprising a list of data—specifically, boot data—that is to be used
`
`for booting a computer system.72 The specificat