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
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  
`
`II.  
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1  
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘862 PATENT AND APPLE’S CHALLENGES TO
`THE CLAIMS ................................................................................................ 2  
`
`A.  
`
`B.  
`
`C.  
`
`The ‘862 Patent .................................................................................... 2  
`
`Apple’s Challenges to the ‘862 Patent ................................................. 4  
`
`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 ............ 26  
`
`3.   Even if the combination of Sukegawa and Dye were proper, the
`combination does not render obvious “loading [boot data/portion of
`operating system]” “in a compressed form” into memory, as recited
`in independent Claims 8, 11, and 14 .............................................. 29  
`
`4.   Apple fails to demonstrate the challenged claims are obvious over
`Sukegawa and Dye and in further view of Settsu, Burrows, or
`Zwiegincew .................................................................................... 31  
`
`C.  
`
`Sukegawa Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious “Updat[ing] the
`Boot Data List” and Related Limitations ........................................... 38  
`
`  i
`
`

`
`1.  
`
`Independent Claims 8, 11, and 14 .................................................. 38  
`
`2.   Dependent Claims 19, 20, 101-104, 114, 115, and 117 ................. 45  
`
`D.  
`
`E.  
`
`Sukegawa Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious “Servicing a
`Request for the Boot Data from the Computer System” Step ............ 48  
`
`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.  
`
`B.  
`
`C.  
`
`The Petition Impermissibly Uses Cross-Referencing, Nested Citations,
`and Incorporation by Reference in Violation of the Board’s Rules ... 51  
`
`The Petition Also Violates the Board’s Rules to Specify Statutory
`Grounds and Governing Laws and Precedent .................................... 57  
`
`The Petition Incorporates an Expert Declaration by Reference in
`Violation of the Board’s Rules ........................................................... 59  
`
`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 ..... 66  
`
`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, 27, 29
`
`Apple Inc. v. SmartFlash LLC,
`CBM2015-00029, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. May 28, 2015) ....................................... 45
`
`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
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Caution Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014) .................................... 60, 64
`
`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) .................................................................................... 22, 25, 59
`
`  iii
`
`

`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prod. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 22
`
`Helicos Biosciences Corp. v. Illumina, Inc.,
`888 F. Supp. 2d 519 (D. Del. 2012) .................................................................... 20
`
`In re Irani,
`427 F.2d 806 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ............................................................................. 24
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................. 21, 35, 46
`
`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) .......................................................................... 22, 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 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ............................ 46, 59, 64, 66
`
`Norman Int’l, Inc. v. Hunter Douglas Inc.,
`IPR2014-00282, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. June 20, 2014) ............................................ 33
`
`Oxford Nanopore Techns. Ltd. v. University of Washington,
`IPR2014-00512, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 15, 2014) ................................... 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
`
`  iv
`
`

`
`Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Astrazeneca Pharm. LP,
`IPR2016-00348, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 28, 2016) .......................................... 57
`
`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) .............................................. 33
`
`Volkswagen Group of Am., Inc. v. Signal IP, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01116, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 29, 2015) ......................................... 33
`
`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) ........................................................................................ 51, 52
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................. 69
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .................................................................................................. 67
`
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ................................................................................................. 68
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ......................................................................................... 57
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................... 51, 52
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ......................................................................................... 51
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 .................................................................................................. 64
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ..................................................................................... 52, 58
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1) ........................................................................................... 64
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ............................................................................................. 60
`
`  v
`
`

`
`Regulations
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756-01 ............................................................................................ 53
`
`  vi
`
`

`
`
`
`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 8-12, 14-22, 59-82, 101-104, 114-
`
`115, and 117 of the ‘862 Patent.8 Of these challenged claims, Claims 8, 11, and 14
`
`are independent. The proposed grounds of unpatentability are as follows:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`5
`
`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.
`
`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 a number of claim elements.13 For example, Sukegawa
`
`does not disclose (a) storing a portion of the operating system (OS) in compressed
`
`form, (b) loading compressed boot data or OS portions associated with a boot data
`
`list into a memory, (c) accessing compressed boot data or OS portions, (d)
`
`decompressing accessed boot data or OS portions at a rate that decreases boot time,
`
`(e) utilizing the decompressed boot data or OS portion, (f) compressing an
`
`
`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 8-10, 16-19, 23-33, 42-44, 47-53, 56-75.
`
`  5
`
`

`
`additional boot data or OS portion, (g) data compression encoders, and (h) a
`
`decompression decoder.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 storing, loading, or accessing compressed
`
`boot data or OS 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 or OS includes a plurality of files, or that the compressed 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 decreases a boot time of the OS,
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`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-
`
`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 loading compressed boot data or OS associated with
`
`a boot data list into memory or servicing a request for boot data to access loaded
`
`compressed boot data, as required by the claims.
`
`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 or OS 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
`
`or OS associated with a boot data list into memory, 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 48 (citing Neuhauser Declaration at ¶¶
`
`598-600). Realtime does not agree with these proposed constructions, but will not
`
`dispute them at this time.
`
`  8
`
`

`
`construction at this time because the term “boot data” is not material to Realtime’s
`
`arguments in this 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
`
`its entirety.”26 But the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that in order for a host
`
`
`24 Apple refers to the ‘284 Patent (Ex. 1009) in the Petition as “Dye ‘284.”
`
`25 Petition at 9, n.3.
`
`26 Id.
`
`  9
`
`

`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`references identified in Grounds 1-5 fail to disclose all of the 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
`
`does not disclose claim elements found in every claim of the ‘862 Patent.30 For
`
`example, Dye does not disclose loading or accessing compressed data from a first
`
`memory, such as a boot device, into a second memory. Apple, moreover, 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
`
`
`29 Petition at 8-10, 18.
`
`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.
`
`  11
`
`

`
`Zwiegincew.31 Accordingly, Apple has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood
`
`of success, and the Petition should be denied.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “loading the portion of the [compressed] operating
`
`system from the first memory to a second memory,” as recited in Claim 8:
`
`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” from a first memory (such as a hard
`
`disk drive) into a second memory, as recited in claim element 8.2. Indeed, Apple
`
`does not assert that Dye discloses this element.33 Moreover, Apple does not assert
`
`that this element is disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, Burrows, or
`
`
`31 Petition at 55-75; see id. at 56 (“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.”).
`
`32 Id. at 8-10, 18.
`
`33 Id. at 9-10 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent).
`
`  12
`
`

`
`Zwiegincew.34 Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-5 does not render
`
`obvious independent claim 8, or the claims dependent therefrom.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “loading boot data in a compressed form…from a
`
`boot device into a memory,” as recited in Claim 11: 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 load
`
`compressed “boot data” from a “boot device” (such as a hard disk drive) into
`
`memory, as recited in claim element 11.1. Indeed, Apple does not assert that Dye
`
`discloses this element.36 Moreover, Apple does not assert that this element is
`
`disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, Burrows, or Zwiegincew.
`
`Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-5 does not render obvious
`
`independent claim 11, or the claims dependent therefrom.
`
`
`34 While Apple appears to assert Settsu or Zwiegincew would have motivated a
`
`POSITA to combine Sukegawa and Dye, neither reference discloses using a “boot
`
`data list” to load compressed “boot data” into memory, as claimed. Id. at 59-64.
`
`35 Id. at 8-10, 18.
`
`36 Id. at 29 (cross-referencing element 8.1 and citing Neuhauser Declaration, ¶¶
`
`384, 389, which rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent).
`
`  13
`
`

`
`Dye fails to disclose “accessing the loaded [boot data/operating system]
`
`in compressed form,” as recited in Claims 8 and 11: Apple asserts Dye
`
`discloses compression and decompression technology coupled to flash memory.37
`
`Dye, however, does not teach that such technology could or should be used to
`
`“access” loaded “boot data” or operating system in compressed form, as recited in
`
`claim elements 8.3 and 11.2. Indeed, Apple does not assert that Dye discloses these
`
`elements.38 Moreover, Apple does not assert that these elements are disclosed or
`
`suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, Burrows, or Zwiegincew.39 Accordingly, the prior
`
`art identified in Grounds 1-5 does not render obvious independent claims 8 or 11,
`
`or the claims dependent therefrom.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “accessing…boot data [that] is in a compressed
`
`form and is associated with a boot data list; loading the boot data into a
`
`
`37 Id. at 8-10, 18.
`
`38 Id. at 16-17, 29-30 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent
`
`and citing to Neuhauser Declaration, ¶¶ 316-317, 391-392, which rely on the ‘284
`
`Patent).
`
`39 While Apple appears to assert Settsu would have motivated a POSITA to
`
`combine Sukegawa and Dye, Settsu does not disclose accessing loaded “boot data”
`
`or OS associated with a “boot data list,” as claimed. Id. at 64.
`
`  14
`
`

`
`memory,” as recited in Claim 14: Apple asserts Dye discloses compression and
`
`decompression technology coupled to flash memory.40 Dye, however, does not
`
`teach that such technology could or should be used to access compressed “boot
`
`data” associated with a boot data list or to load the compressed boot data into a
`
`memory, as recited in claim elements 14.1-14.2. Indeed, Apple does not assert that
`
`Dye discloses these elements.41 Moreover, Apple does not assert that these
`
`elements are disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, Burrows, or
`
`Zwiegincew. Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-5 does not render
`
`obvious independent claim 14, or the claims dependent therefrom.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “decompressing…the operating system…at a rate
`
`that is faster than accessing…the operating system…in an uncompressed
`
`form” and “decompress[ing] the accessed…boot data…at a rate that
`
`decreases a [boot time of/time to load] the operating system,” as recited in
`
`Claims 8, 11, and 14: Apple asserts Dye discloses a controller with compression
`
`and/or decompression capability.42 Dye, however, does not teach that the
`
`
`40 Id. at 8-10, 18.
`
`41 Id. at 32-33 (cross-referencing element 8.1 and citing Neuhauser Declaration, ¶¶
`
`429-432, which rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent).
`
`42 Id. at 8-10, 18.
`
`  15
`
`

`
`controller decompresses accessed “boot data” at a rate that decreases a boot or load
`
`time of the OS or that is faster than loading it in uncompressed form, as recited in
`
`claim elements 8.4, 8.7, 11.3, and 14.3. Indeed, Apple does not assert that Dye
`
`discloses these elements.43 Moreover, Apple does not assert that these elements are
`
`disclosed or suggested by Sukegawa, Settsu, Burrows, or Zwiegincew.44
`
`Accordingly, the prior art identified in Grounds 1-5 does not render obvious
`
`independent claims 8, 11, or 14, or the claims dependent therefrom.
`
`Dye fails to disclose “utilizing the decompressed…[boot data/operating
`
`system] to at least partially boot the computer system” or “to load at least a
`
`portion of the operating system,” as recited in Claims 8 and 11: Apple asserts
`
`Dye discloses a controller with compression and/or decompression capability.45
`
`Dye, however, does not teach that the controller is capable of “utilizing the
`
`
`43 Id. at 17-18, 23, 30 (appearing to rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent);
`
`id. at 33-34 (cross-referencing elements 8.4, 8.7, and 11.3 and citing Neuhauser
`
`Declaration, ¶¶ 439-440, which rely on purported teachings of the ‘284 Patent).
`
`44 While Apple appears to assert Settsu would have motivated a POSITA to
`
`combine Sukegawa and Dye, Settsu does not disclose decompressing accessed
`
`“boot data” or OS associated with a “boot data list,” as claimed. Id. at 65.