UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01739
`Patent 8,880,862
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF PETITIONER’S
`ALLEGED IMPROPER REPLY ARGUMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01739
`Patent 8,880,862
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF PETITIONER’S
`ALLEGED IMPROPER REPLY ARGUMENTS
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01739
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP3
`Pursuant to the Board’s authorization on October 10, 2017, Petitioner Apple
`
`
`
`Inc. (Apple) submits the following reply to Patent Owner’s list of the locations and
`
`concise descriptions of the portions of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 17) that allegedly
`
`exceed the proper reply scope. Contrary to Patent Owner’s allegations, Petitioner
`
`respectfully submits that each argument included in Patent Owner’s list is properly
`
`responsive to an argument made by Patent Owner, and finds support in the
`
`Petition.
`
`1. Realtime alleges that Petitioner’s argument at pages 5-7 of the Reply exceeds
`
`the proper reply scope. In the pages identified by Realtime, Petitioner argues
`
`that a POSITA would have viewed the term “non-accessed boot data” per its
`
`ordinary meaning as simply 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.)
`
`Response: Petitioner’s argument is responsive to Patent Owner’s
`
`argument at pages 20-23 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 15). For
`
`example:
`
` “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.’” (Patent Owner’s Response at 20.)
`
`1
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01739
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP3
`
`
`
`Support for Petitioner’s argument can be found at, for example, pages 58-
`
`59 of the Petition (Paper 2).
`
`2. Realtime alleges that Petitioner’s argument at pages 7-13 of the Reply exceeds
`
`the proper reply scope. In the pages identified by Realtime, Petitioner argues
`
`that Settsu renders obvious the limitation “boot data list.” For example:
`
` “However, Apple argued that Settsu’s files are themselves lists of boot data
`
`….” (Reply 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,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01739
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP3
`
`
`
`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.)
`
`Response: Petitioner’s argument is responsive to Patent Owner’s argument at
`
`pages 24-31 of Patent Owner’s Response. For example:
`
` “Apple asserts that Settsu’s functional module files (the alleged ‘boot data’)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01739
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP3
`are implicitly listed somewhere in Settsu’s system. Apple is incorrect.” (Patent
`
`Owner’s Response at 24.)
`
` “Apple asserts that Settsu must contain a “boot data list” under two theories:
`
`‘(1) in the form of lists of boot data that are stored within the OS functional
`
`module files themselves; and (2) in the form of lists of boot data that are
`
`referenced by mini OS module 7 in the course of booting the OS’ … [b]ut
`
`both these theories are incorrect.” (Id. at 25.)
`
`Support for Petitioner’s argument can be found at, for example, pages 19-30
`
`of the Petition.
`
`3. Realtime alleges that Petitioner’s argument at pages 15-16 of the Reply
`
`exceeds the proper reply scope. In those pages, Petitioner argues that the
`
`combination of Settsu and Zwiegincew renders obvious the limitation
`
`“updating the boot data list.” For example:
`
` “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.” (Reply at 16.)
`
`Response: Petitioner’s argument is responsive to Patent Owner’s argument at
`
`pages 31-36 of Patent Owner’s Response. For example:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01739
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP3
` “In light of Settsu’s failure to disclose or render obvious the ‘updating’
`
`limitation, and thus Ground 1’s failure to invalidate claim 5, Apple asserts
`
`that Zwiegincew ‘motivates updating boot data lists in Settsu’s system.’
`
`This is incorrect for several reasons.” (Patent Owner’s Response at 31)
`
` “First, a POSITA would not have thought to use Zwiegincew’s teachings
`
`relating to hard page faults to Settsu’s boot context.” (Id.)
`
` “[P]age fault handling is implemented by the operating system’s virtual
`
`memory processing module or manager, which is necessarily available
`
`only after the boot up process.” (Id. at 34-35.)
`
`Support for Petitioner’s argument can be found at, for example, pages 34-37
`
`of the Petition.
`
`4. Realtime alleges that Petitioner’s argument at pages 21-22 of the Reply
`
`exceeds the proper reply scope. In those pages, 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01739
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP3
`encoders to encode compressed data.’ Petition, 55; APPLE-1003, ¶¶190-
`
`192.” (Reply at 22.)
`
`Response: Petitioner’s argument is responsive to Patent Owner’s argument at
`
`pages 43-51 of Patent Owner’s Response. For example:
`
` “[N]either Dye nor Zwiegincew teaches or suggests a plurality of encoders
`
`- in fact, the opposite is taught.” (Patent Owner’s Response at 43-44.)
`
` “[A] POSITA would not have understood that Zwiegincew provides any
`
`rationale to modify Settsu’s system to include a plurality of encoders
`
`utilized to encode Settsu’s files in OS main body module 8 (the alleged
`
`‘boot data’)” (Id. at 45.)
`
`Support for Petitioner’s argument can be found at, for example, pages 54-55
`
`of the Petition.
`
`5. Realtime alleges that Petitioner’s argument at pages 23-25 of the Reply
`
`exceeds the proper reply scope. In those pages, 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01739
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP3
`itself acknowledges that Dye includes a plurality of encoders.” (Reply at
`
`24 (internal citations omitted).)
`
` “Specifically, Dye contemplates multiple compression engines. Because
`
`Dye’s compression engine is an encoder (as Realtime admits), Dye’s
`
`multiple compression engines represent multiple encoders.” (Id. at 25
`
`(internal citations omitted).)
`
`Response: Petitioner’s argument is responsive to Patent Owner’s argument at
`
`pages 43-51 of Patent Owner’s Response. For example:
`
` “[N]either Dye nor Zwiegincew teaches or suggests a plurality of encoders
`
`- in fact, the opposite is taught.” (Patent Owner’s Response at 43-44.)
`
` “To improve on the traditional encoder, Dye teaches a purportedly new,
`
`single encoder that distributes the encoding calculations among several
`
`stages.” (Id. at 47.)
`
`Support for Petitioner’s argument can be found at, for example, pages 68-70
`
`of the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 18, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01739
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jeremy J. Monaldo/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Jeremy Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`8
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01739
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(1) and 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on October 18, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s List of Petitioner’s Alleged Improper Reply Arguments
`
`was provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving the email correspondence
`
`addresses of record as follows:
`
`
`
`Joseph F. Edell, Richard Z. Zhang, Desmond S. Jui (pro hac vice)
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`
`
`Email: Joe.Edell.IPR@fischllp.com
`Richard.Zhang.IPR@fischllp.com
`Desmond.Jui.IPR@fischllp.com
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
