`
`
`
`
`
`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 LIST OF
`PETITIONER’S IMPROPER REPLY ARGUMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s authorization on October 10, 2017, Patent Owner
`
`Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO (“Realtime”) submits the following list of the
`
`locations and concise descriptions of the portions of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 17)
`
`that exceed the proper reply scope. If the Board were to rely on these arguments
`
`and evidence in finding the challenged claims unpatentable, Realtime would not
`
`have had sufficient opportunity to respond.
`
`1)
`
`At pages 5-7 of the Reply, Petitioner argues that “non-accessed boot data”
`
`should be construed to mean “boot data that was not accessed.” For example:
`
`•
`
`“[U]nder BRI, a POSITA would have viewed the term ‘non-accessed
`
`boot data’ per its ordinary meaning as simply boot data that was not
`
`accessed.” (Reply at 5.)
`
`2)
`
`At pages 7-13 of the Reply, Petitioner argues that Settsu’s OS functional
`
`module files inherently disclose or render obvious the limitation “boot data list.”
`
`For example:
`
`•
`
`“However, Apple argued that Settsu’s files are themselves lists of
`
`boot data ….” (Id. at 9.)
`
`•
`
`“As Dr. Neuhauser explained, a list is an obvious representation for a
`
`collection of information and, thus, Settsu’s OS files represent lists of boot
`
`data.” (Id. at 9.)
`
`•
`
`“Further, Settsu’s FIG. 36 (below) illustrates that each of Settsu’s OS
`
`program files are divided into mini OS and OS main body modules, and that
`
`these modules each include header, code, and data portions. APPLE-1006,
`
`1
`
`
`
`23:48-24:62, FIGS. 34-35.
`
`
`
`APPLE-1006, FIG. 12 (excerpt, annotated).” (Id. at 9-10.)
`
`•
`
`“Settsu describes that the contents of the headers included in the files
`
`are used to search for code and data portions of these modules when loading
`
`those portions into memory 2 during the boot process.” (Id. at 10.)
`
`•
`
`“Thus, a POSITA would have understood that Settsu’s OS functional
`
`module file stored on boot device 3 and preloaded into memory 2 includes a
`
`list of data necessary for starting the OS – a boot data list as described by the
`
`’862 Patent.” (Id. at 10-11.)
`
`“Thus, headers in Settsu’s modules are lists of boot data.” (Id. at 11 n.
`
`•
`
`1.)
`
`3)
`
`At pages 15-16 of the Reply, Petitioner argues that the combination of Settsu
`
`and Zwiegincew renders obvious the limitation “updating the boot data list”
`
`because there is a benefit to Zwiegincew’s teachings upon loading Settsu’s virtual
`
`memory processing module. For example:
`
`2
`
`
`
`•
`
`“And, even assuming Realtime is correct, Realtime does not consider
`
`the benefit of using Zwiegincew’s techniques for the remainder of the boot
`
`process after Settsu’s ‘virtual memory processing module’ has loaded or a
`
`POSITA’s ability to modify Settsu to implement Zwiegincew’s page
`
`preloading during boot.” (Id. at 16.)
`
`4)
`
`At pages 21-22 of the Reply, Petitioner argues that Zwiegincew renders
`
`obvious the “plurality of encoders” limitations. For example:
`
`•
`
`“Regarding Ground 2, Realtime argues that Petitioner ‘cites to the
`
`teachings of Dye[]—not to Zwiegincew—and Dr. Neuhauser does not cite to
`
`any evidence.’ POR, 44-45. However, the cited portion of the Petition
`
`discusses that Zwiegincew provides motivation to a POSITA for
`
`compressing boot data, and that it was ‘well-known to utilize a plurality of
`
`encoders to encode compressed data.’ Petition, 55; APPLE-1003, ¶¶190-
`
`192.” (Id. at 22.)
`
`5)
`
`At pages 23-25 of the Reply, Petitioner argues that Dye’s compression
`
`engines and components that perform encoding operations meet the “plurality of
`
`encoders” limitations. For example:
`
`•
`
`“Indeed, a component that performs encoding operations is commonly
`
`understood to be an encoder. Because Realtime admits that Dye has a
`
`plurality of components that each perform encoding operations, Realtime
`
`itself acknowledges that Dye includes a plurality of encoders.” (Id. at 24
`
`(internal citations omitted).)
`
`•
`
`“Specifically, Dye contemplates multiple compression engines.
`
`Because Dye’s compression engine is an encoder (as Realtime admits),
`
`3
`
`
`
`Dye’s multiple compression engines represent multiple encoders.” (Id. at 25
`
`(internal citations omitted).)
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Date: October 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Joseph F. Edell/
`Joseph F. Edell (Reg. No. 67,625)
`Richard Z. Zhang (Reg. No. 73,397)
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`Phone: (202) 362-3527
`Fax: (202) 362-3501
`Email: Joe.Edell.IPR@fischllp.com
`Email: Richard.Zhang.IPR@fischllp.com
`
`Desmond S. Jui (pro hac vice)
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`96 North Third Street
`Suite 260
`San Jose, CA 95112
`Phone: (650) 362-8209
`Email: Desmond.Jui.IPR@fischllp.com
`
`William P. Rothwell (Reg. No. 75,522)
`Noroozi PC
`2245 Texas Drive, Suite 300
`Sugar Land, TX 77479
`Phone: (281) 566-2685
`Email: William@nooozipc.com
`
`Kayvan B. Noroozi (pro hac vice)
`Noroozi PC
`1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Phone: (310) 975-7074
`Email: Kayvan@noroozipc.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 13, 2017, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s List of Petitioner’s Improper Reply Arguments,
`
`Petitioner argues is being served electronically to the Petitioner at the
`
`correspondence email addresses of record provided in the Petition as follows:
`
`W. Karl Renner (Lead Counsel) IPR39521-0025IP3@fr.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Date: October 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
` /Joseph F. Edell/
`Joseph F. Edell (Reg. No. 67,625)
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`Phone: (202) 362-3527
`Fax: (202) 362-3501
`Email: Joe.Edell.IPR@fischllp.com
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
