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 IPR2016-01739
`Patent 8,880,862
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER REALTIME DATA, LLC D/B/A IXO’S RESPONSE
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  
`
`II.  
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1  
`
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 2  
`
`A.   The ‘862 Patent ........................................................................................ 2  
`
`B.   The Instituted Prior Art ............................................................................ 6  
`
`1.   Settsu .................................................................................................. 6  
`
`2.   Zwiegincew ........................................................................................ 8  
`
`3.   Dye ................................................................................................... 12  
`
`III.  
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 13  
`
`A.   Proper Interpretation of “Boot Data List” .............................................. 15  
`
`B.   Proper Interpretation for “Non-Accessed Boot Data” ............................ 20  
`
`IV.  
`
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 24  
`
`A.   Each Ground is Defective Because Petitioner’s Combinations Fail to
`Disclose Claim 5’s “Updating the Boot Data List.” ............................... 24  
`
`1.   Settsu Does Not Teach or Suggest “Updating the Boot Data List.” 24  
`
`2.   Settsu in View of Zwiegincew Does Not Render Obvious “Updating
`the Boot Data List.” ......................................................................... 31  
`
`B.   Each Ground is Defective Because Petitioner’s Combinations Do Not
`Render Obvious Claim 98’s “Disassociating Non-Accessed Boot Data
`from the Boot Data List.” ....................................................................... 37  
`
`C.   Each Ground is Defective Petitioner’s Combinations Do Not Render
`Obvious Claim 112’s “Updating the Boot Data List” in Response to the
`“Utilizing” Step ...................................................................................... 41  
`
`D.   Each Ground is Defective Because Neither Dye Nor Zwiegincew
`Teaches Claim 46’s “Plurality of Encoders.” ......................................... 43  
`
` i  
`
`

`

`E.   An Invalidity Ruling in This Case Constituted an Impermissible Taking
`of a Private Right Without Article III Oversight. ................................... 51  
`
`V.  
`
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 54  
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii  
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases  
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 45
`
`Cammeyer v. Newton,
`94 U.S. 225 (1876) .............................................................................................. 52
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................. 1
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 13
`
`Ex parte Carlucci,
`2012 WL 4718549 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 28, 2012) ..................................................... 45
`
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 14
`
`In re Cortright,
`165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................... 14
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 14
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974) ................................................................................... 1
`
`James v. Campbell,
`104 U.S. 356 (1881) ............................................................................................ 52
`
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman,
`169 U.S. 606 (1898) ...................................................................................... 52, 53
`
`Mich. Land & Lumber Co. v. Rust,
`168 U.S. 589 (1897) ............................................................................................ 53
`
` iii  
`
`

`

`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 14
`
`Moore v. Robbins,
`96 U.S. 530 (1877) .............................................................................................. 53
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comms. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 13, 15
`
`Round Rock Research, LLC v. Sandisk Corp.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 339 (D. Del. 2015) ...................................................................... 45
`
`Seymour v. Osborne,
`11 Wall. 516 (1870) ............................................................................................. 52
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 14
`
`United States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co.,
`128 U.S. 315 (1888) ...................................................................................... 52, 53
`
`United States v. Palmer,
`128 U.S. 262 (1888) ............................................................................................ 52
`
`United States v. Schurz,
`102 U.S. 378 (1880) ............................................................................................ 52
`
`Zenon Envt’l, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................... 45
`
`Regulations  
`
`37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b) ............................................................................................ 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iv  
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`2009
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`Description
`Declaration of S. Desmond Jui in Support of Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`UNUSED
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-773,
`dated August 14, 2012
`Declaration of Dr. Charles J. Neuhauser filed in IPR2016-
`01737 proceeding (Not Filed)
`Declaration of Dr. Charles J. Neuhauser filed in IPR2016-
`01738 proceeding (Not Filed)
`Declaration of Dr. Charles J. Neuhauser filed in IPR2016-
`01739 proceeding (Not Filed)
`Excerpt from Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Ed.,
`Microsoft (2002)
`Declaration of Dr. Godmar Back (“Back Dec.”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Godmar Back
`Prosecution History of U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`No. 60/801,114
`Deposition Transcript of Charles J. Neuhauser, dated June 2,
`2017
`Excerpt from Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement in matter Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. Apple
`Inc., C.A. No. 16—cv-02595-JB (N.D. Cal.)
`Operating System Concepts, Silberschatz et al. (2009)
`
` v  
`
`

`

`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 discloses “updating the
`boot data list,” a term found in every challenged claim.2 The Petition’s arguments,
`however, are premised on a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the prior
`art. Contrary to the Petition’s characterizations, Zwiegincew’s hard page fault
`
`solution does not have anything to do with Settsu’s boot process. Zwiegincew
`
`does not acknowledge any issue with slow boot times due to hard page faults and a
`
`POSITA would not have thought to combine Zwiegincew’s teachings with Settsu’s
`
`(or Dye’s). In fact, a POSITA would have known that Zwiegincew’s approach
`
`cannot be used to speed up Settsu’s boot process because Zwiegincew relies on
`
`virtual memory which is not initialized when Settsu’s system boots up.
`
`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
`
`
`
`1 CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`(explaining that “obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”)
`
`(citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).
`
`2 Claim 5 recites “updating the boot data list,” and all remaining challenged claims
`
`depend from claim 5.
`
`1
`
`

`

`claim 46. As well, neither Zwiegincew nor any of Apple’s other references teach
`
`or suggest the “updating the boot data list” in claims 5, 98, and 112.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition fails to establish that the challenged claims of the
`
`‘862 Patent are invalid, and Apple’s request to invalidate the ‘862 Patent claims
`
`should be declined.
`
`II.   BACKGROUND
`A.   The ‘862 Patent
`
`Realtime’s ‘862 Patent is generally directed to systems and methods for
`
`providing accelerated loading of operating systems and application programs in a
`
`computer system.3
`
`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.4 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.
`
`
`
`3 ‘862 Patent, 1:15-21.
`
`4 See, e.g., ‘862 Patent, 1:24-26, 21:31-44; Back Dec., ¶ 21.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Even with high-speed onboard memories and caches, computers at the time
`
`of invention still suffered from slow boot times.5 One reason for this is that upon
`
`reset, conventional boot device controllers would wait for a command before
`
`loading data for processing.6 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.7 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.8 The time the CPU
`
`spent waiting for the boot device controller was also unproductive.9 This wasted
`
`processing time translated to slow boot times and therefore wasted the user’s
`
`time.10 As well, traditional high-speed memories of the time were volatile, and
`
`
`
`5 See, e.g., ‘862 Patent, 21:40-43; Sukegawa, 1:46-49; Back Dec., ¶ 20.
`
`6 ‘862 Patent, 21:33-44.
`
`7 Id.
`
`8 Back Dec., ¶ 22.
`
`9 Id.
`
`10 Id.
`
`3
`
`

`

`were therefore erased upon power reset.11 Thus, storing desired information—such
`
`as boot information–ahead of time was not possible.
`
`To address these problems, the ‘862 Patent discloses and claims methods
`
`and systems for loading compressed boot data associated with a boot data list, and
`
`updating the boot data list as needed to accelerate the booting process. Specifically,
`
`the claims of the ‘862 are directed to, inter alia, loading boot data based on a boot
`
`data list, accessing the loaded boot data, and decompressing the boot data at a rate
`
`that decreases boot time of the operating system relative to loading the operating
`
`system with uncompressed boot data.12 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 computer.13 In yet another aspect of the invention, the
`
`system includes a processor configured to load compressed boot data associated
`
`
`
`11 See, e.g., Sukegawa, 1:21-26; Back Dec., ¶ 20. See also Ex. 1003, Neuhauser
`
`Dec., ¶ 44 (“[non-volatile] flash memory based designs were in 2000 still relatively
`
`expensive on a per bit basis”).
`
`12 ‘862 Patent, 3:34-52, 27:42-60, 28:9-25, 29:15-32, 30:4-26.
`
`13 Id., 3:53-58, 28:1-8.
`
`4
`
`

`

`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.14 These systems and
`
`methods result in a faster boot up.
`
`Claim 5 is illustrative:
`
`A method for booting a computer system, the method
`5.
`comprising:
`storing boot data in a compressed form that is associated with a portion
`of a boot data list in a first memory;
`loading the stored compressed boot data from the first memory;
`accessing the loaded compressed boot data;
`decompressing the accessed compressed boot data;
`utilizing the decompressed boot data to at least partially boot the
`computer system; and
`updating the boot data list,
`wherein the loading, accessing, and the decompressing occur within a
`period of time which is less than a time to access the boot data from
`first memory if the boot data was stored in the first memory in an
`uncompressed form.
`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
`
`
`
`14 Id., 4:4-22, 28:9-33, 30:4-26.
`
`5
`
`

`

`portion of 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
`4
`
`Claims
`5, 35-46, 97
`5, 35-46, 97, 98. 112
`5, 35-46, 97
`5, 35-46, 97, 98. 112
`
`
`
`1.  
`
`Settsu
`
`103(a) Combination
`
`Settsu
`Settsu and Zwiegincew
`Settsu and Dye
`Settsu, Dye, Zwiegincew
`
`Settsu15 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.16 Settsu
`
`also discloses a function definition file stored in one of the modules of the OS main
`
`body.17 In Settsu’s system, certain application programs that need only a subset of
`
`
`
`15 Ex. 1006, which is referred to herein as Settsu.
`
`16 Settsu, Abs., 1:51-65; 3:6-12.
`
`17 Settsu, 16:26-30, Fig. 18.
`
`6
`
`

`

`the OS’s functionality can be started after loading only a subset of functional
`
`modules, thus speeding up boot times for this special case.18
`
`As depicted in Settsu Figure 3, reproduced below, the “virtual memory
`
`processing module” is part of the OS main body module. Thus, Settsu’s system
`
`cannot perform virtual memory management until the OS main body module is
`
`loaded and the virtual memory processing module is initialized.
`
`
`Apple contends that Settsu renders obvious “updating the boot data list.”19
`
`However, as explained in detail below, a POSITA would have understood that any
`
`
`
`18 E.g., Settsu, Abs., 1:51-65, 7:66-9:3.
`
`19 E.g., Petition, 34-35; Neuhauser Dec. ¶ 118.
`
`7
`
`

`

`updates to Settsu’s functional modules would not have resulted in any changes to
`
`the purported “boot data list.” As such, Settsu, alone or in combination with
`
`Zwiegincew, would not have rendered obvious claim 5’s step “updating the boot
`
`data list.”
`
`2.  
`
`Zwiegincew
`
`Zwiegincew20 is directed to management of pages to improve performance
`
`of application programs during hard page fault intensive scenarios.21 To
`
`understand hard page faults, it is helpful to first understand virtual memory and
`
`paging in the context of modern computer systems.22
`
`Virtual memory is a memory management technique that uses both hardware
`
`and software.23 When using virtual memory, program code utilizes virtual addresses
`
`that are mapped to the physical locations of the data in RAM. The blocks of data that
`
`are mapped in this way are known as pages.24
`
`
`
`20 Ex. 1010, which is referred to herein as Zwiegincew.
`
`21 E.g., Zwiegincew, Abs.
`
`22 Back Dec., ¶ 29.
`
`23 Id., ¶ 30.
`
`24 Id.
`
`8
`
`

`

`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.25 Especially when a
`
`program is large, not all parts of the program may be needed, and loading them
`
`upfront would waste time and memory.26 Instead, these systems use a method called
`
`“on-demand paging”—parts of a program are not loaded until the process running
`
`the program actually tries to execute them.27 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.28 This memory management process generally requires
`
`virtual memory.29 When using virtual memory, program code utilizes virtual
`
`addresses that are mapped to the physical location of the data in RAM. The blocks
`
`of data that are mapped in this way are known as “pages.”30
`
`
`
`25 Id., ¶ 31.
`
`26 Id.
`
`27 Id.
`
`28 Id.
`
`29 Id.
`
`30 Id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`A hard page fault occurs when a process references a page in its virtual address
`
`space that has not been loaded to RAM.31 In this situation, the process is interrupted
`
`while the page is retrieved from the hard disk and loaded to RAM.32 The virtual
`
`memory manager updates its tables to indicate that the requested page is now
`
`available in RAM and identifies the location of that page in RAM.33 The process
`
`can then resume and utilize the page.34 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.35 If the OS knew which pages the program was likely to
`
`access, it could prefetch those pages into memory.36
`
`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
`
`
`
`31 Id., ¶ 32.
`
`32 Id.
`
`33 Id.
`
`34 Id.
`
`35 Id.
`
`36 Id.
`
`10
`
`

`

`a hard page fault sequence.37 In other words, Zwiegincew attempts to prevent hard
`
`page faults from occurring through the use of these “scenario files.”38
`
`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.”39 The scenario file also can include a copy or identification of the page
`
`file that is needed to avoid the impending hard page fault.40 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.41 Thus, the scenario file
`
`anticipates and prevents hard page faults, thereby increasing system speed.42
`
`Further, Zwiegincew discloses the idea of automatically refining the
`
`scenario file so it can more accurately identify page fault scenarios.43 Zwiegincew
`
`
`
`37 Zwiegincew, 4:6-19.
`
`38 Id.
`
`39 Id., Abs., Fig. 3.
`
`40 Id., 6:64-67, 7:7-10.
`
`41 Id., 6:29-39.
`
`42 Id., 6:29-43.
`
`43 Id., 7:24-49.
`
`11
`
`

`

`also discloses a mode in which hard page faults are recorded in a log, thus allowing
`
`a subsequent pattern-based algorithm to analyze this log to refine the page fault
`
`markers and indicators in the scenario file to better predict the occurrence of page
`
`faults.44
`
`Apple relies on Zwiegincew for teaching or suggesting claim 5’s “updating
`
`the boot data list,” claim 98’s “wherein the updating comprises: disassociating
`
`non-accessed boot data from the boot data list,” and claim 112’s “wherein the
`
`updating comprises: updating the boot data list in response to the utilizing.”
`
`Zwiegincew, however, does not teach or suggest “loading boot data” or “a boot
`
`data list,” and does not relate to boot up.45
`
`3.  
`
`Dye
`
`Dye46 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.47 Dye’s flash memory
`
`system comprises a flash memory array 100 and a Compression Enhanced Flash
`
`
`
`44 Id., 6:30-37, 7:25-39, cl. 2.
`
`45 Back Dec., ¶¶ 81-90.
`
`46 Ex. 1008, which is referred to herein as Dye.
`
`47 Dye, Abs., Figs. 7-9, 2:32-39; 2:42-53.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Memory Controller (“CEFMC”) 200.48 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.49 Embedded within CEFMC 200 are
`
`compression and decompression engines 260, 280.50
`
`In Grounds 1 and 2, Apple relies on Dye as evidence that the compression
`
`limitations were well known in the art at the time of invention. 51
`
`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.52 The
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible definition.53
`
`
`
`48 Id., 8:29-31.
`
`49 Back Dec., ¶ 27.
`
`50 Dye, Abs., 8:48-52.
`
`51 E.g., Petition at 40, 54; Neuhauser Dec. ¶¶ 92, 97.
`
`52 Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016); 37 C.F.R.
§
`
`42.100(b).

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

`
`13
`
`

`

`To be sure, the Federal Circuit explained in Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels that
`
`“[w]hile the broadest reasonable interpretation standard is broad, it does not give
`
`the Board an unfettered license to interpret the words in a claim without regard for
`
`the full claim language and the written description.”54 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.”55 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.”56 Rather, the
`
`
`
`54 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

`
`55 Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing
`
`In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and In re Cortright, 165
`
`F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`56 Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1062 (emphasis omitted). 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
`
`14
`
`

`

`construction must account for how the claims and the specification inform the
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan as to the meaning of the term.57
`
`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
`
`
`
`construction unreasonably broad because it was “unreasonable and inconsistent
`
`with the language of the claims and the specification”).
`
`57 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).

`
`15
`
`

`

`system and certain application programs.58 The system stores boot data in a
`
`compressed form on a boot device,59 loads boot data into memory upon
`
`initialization of the computer system,60 and services requests for boot data using
`
`the loaded boot data.61 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.62 The specification further explains that a “boot
`
`data list” is a record capable of being updated by adding boot data to the list and
`
`removing boot data from the list.63
`
`The intrinsic record also makes clear that the claimed “boot data list” is used
`
`to identify the boot data. Per the specification, the system maintains a “boot data
`
`list” so that it knows what boot data must be loaded or preloaded to boot up the
`
`computer, and to perform accelerated loading of operating systems and application
`
`
`
`58 ‘862 Patent, 3:48-50; Ex. 2010, Prosecution History for U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/180,114 (“Prov. Application”), 58.
`
`59 ‘862 Patent, Abs., 3:51-52, 3:60-61; Prov. Application, 58.
`
`60 ‘862 Patent, Abs., 3:45-46, 4:16-17; Prov. Application, 58.
`
`61 ‘862 Patent, Abs., 3:46-47, 4:1-3, 4:17-19, 21:45-59; Fig. 7B.
`
`62 ‘862 Patent, 3:44-45, 4:15-16; Prov. Application, 58.
`
`63 ‘862 Patent, 3:53-59, 21:65-22:4; see also Prov. Application, 58.
`
`16
`
`

`

`programs.64 Similarly, the provisional application uses such a list to enable the
`
`system “to know what data to preload from the boot device.”65
`
`The intrinsic evidence also makes clear that the claimed “boot data list” is
`
`used to load boot data into memory. Claim 6, for instances, recites: “to load a
`
`portion of boot data in the compressed form that is associated with a boot data list
`
`using for booting the system into a first memory”66 In one exemplary embodiment,
`
`a data storage controller retrieves and reads the “boot data list” upon power-
`
`on/reset and preloads the boot data specified on the list into memory.67 And the
`
`provisional application corroborates this view by describing a method whereby the
`
`system reads such a list and proceeds to preload data that is on the list into cache
`
`memory.68 This perspective aligns with how a POSITA would have understood
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of “boot data list,” consistent with the
`
`specification.69
`
`
`
`64 ‘862 Patent, Abs, 3:42-52, 3:64-4:20, 21:18-22:11, 22:14-23:26.
`
`65 Prov. Application, 58.
`
`66 ‘862 Patent, cl. 1.
`
`67 ‘862 Patent, 21:43-48; Figs. 7B, 8A, 8B.
`
`68 Prov. Application, 58.
`
`69 Back Dec., ¶¶ 56-60.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Moreover, Dr. Neuhauser, Apple’s technical declarant, testified at his
`
`deposition that a POSITA would understand that boot data stored in memory and
`
`loaded as per the claims would be associated with a “boot data list:”
`
`Q So the -- the read -- when the step in 76 that describes the reading
`-- the read list, that’s a – “reads” is a verb, right, it’s reading the list,
`correct?
`A Uh-huh. Right.
`Q So in the list here is -- has some sort of identifier of the data block
`number?
`A That’s correct.
`Q That’s stored in the list?
`A That’s correct.
`Q And upon prefetching -- well, withdrawn. The prefetching of the
`data blocks, that action is used to load the data blocks into memory?
`MR. BITTNER: I’ll object to the form.
`A I believe that’s correct.70
`
`As referenced in Dr. Neuhauser’s testimony, Figure 7B of the ‘862 Patent
`
`discloses that the system reads the boot data list (step 76) and uses the list to
`
`identify and load boot data into memory (steps 77, 82):71
`
`
`
`70 Ex. 2011, Neuhauser Dep. Tr., 187:11-19.
`
`71 ‘862 Patent at Fig. 7B (annotated), 21:43-65.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Apple cannot earnestly contest that a POSITA would have understood that
`
`the claimed “boot data list” is used to load boot data into memory in view of
`
`Apple’s proposed claim constructions in the parallel district court litigation. There,
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Apple argued that “boot data list” means “the list used by the storage controller to
`
`preload boot data into its cache memory.”72
`
`In view of the specification and provisional application, and Dr. Neuhauser’s
`
`expressed knowledge of a POSITA, Apple cannot reasonably contest that “boot
`
`data list” should be construed to be require that the list be used to identify and load
`
`boot data into memory. Accordingly, “boot data list” should be construed to have
`
`its broadest reasonable interpretation of “record used to identify and load boot data
`
`in memory.”73
`
`B.  
`
`Proper Interpretation of “Non-Accessed Boot Data”
`
`The term “non-accessed boot data,” as used in claims 96, 100, 102, and 106,
`
`means “boot data identified in the boot data list that was not requested during
`
`system boot-up.”74 Indeed, this construction is consistent with the claims and the
`
`intrinsic record, and is the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification.
`
`The specification explains that “non-accessed boot data” is boot data that has
`
`been retrieved and recorded in the boot data list during a previous system boot-up,
`
`
`
`72 Ex. 2012 at 2.
`
`73 Back Dec., ¶¶ 55-60.
`
`74 Id.
`
`20
`
`

`

`but was not requested during a subsequent system boot-up. For example, the
`
`specification explains that “the method for accelerated loading of an operating
`
`system comprises updating the list of boot data during the boot process [wherein
`
`t]he step of updating comprises…removing from the list any boot data previously
`
`stored in the list and not requested by the computer system.”75 The specification
`
`further details that “during the boot process, if no request is made by the host
`
`computer for a data block that was pre-loaded into the local memory of the data
`
`storage controller (affirmative result in step 84), then the boot data list will be
`
`updated by removing the non-requested data block from the list (step 85).”76
`
`Moreover, the specification illustrates that the inventive method determines
`
`whether boot data identified in the boot data list was requested during system boot-
`
`up:77
`
`
`
`75 ‘862 Patent, 3:53-59.
`
`76 Id., 22:5-11; see also id., 23:7-17.
`
`77 Id., Fig. 7B (annotated).
`
`21
`
`

`

`A
`
`n.
`
`Powet-upor
`
`Systen; Reset
`
`76
`
`Yes
`
`Retn’eve & Read List
`
`77
`
`87
`
`Prefetch Data Blocks
`Specified in List
`
`Specified in List
`
`81
`
`Service Request Using
`Preloaded Boot Data
`
`84
`
`83
`
`Update List to Include Boot
`Data Not Previously
`
`
`
`22
`
`22
`
`

`

`If the boot data is not requested during system boot-up, then that boot data is
`
`“excluded” from the boot data list.78 Moreover, this proposed construction is
`
`consistent with the prosecution history of the ‘862 Patent.79
`
`Based on the specification and the prosecution history, a POSITA would
`
`have understood that the “non-accessed boot data” is boot data identified in the
`
`boot data list that was not requested during system boot-up. This meaning also
`
`aligns with how a POSITA would have understood the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of this term, consistent with the specification.80
`
`Therefore, “non-accessed boot data” should be accorded its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation: “boot data identified in the boot data list that was not
`
`requested during system boot-up.”81
`
`
`
`78 Id., Fig. 7B, 22:5-11.
`
`79 Ex. 1002 (Part 1), 156-157, 160-162.
`
`80 Back Dec., ¶¶ 61-66.
`
`81 Id.., ¶ 66.
`
`23
`
`

`

`IV.   ARGUMENT
`A.   Each Ground is Defective Because Petitioner’s Combinations Fail
`to Disclose Claim 5’s “Updating the Boot Data List.”
`
`1.  
`
`Settsu Does Not Teach or Suggest “U