DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Exhibit-1025
`Unified Patents, LLC., v. SknKloud Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Exhibit-1025
`Unified Patents, LLC., v. SknKloud Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`Overview of Grounds
`
`Ground Basis
`
`Cited Art
`
`’526 Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`103
`
`Prust and Major
`
`1-3, 5-11, 13-20
`
`103
`
`Chaganti and Major
`
`1-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview of ’526 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 4
`
`3
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`1.
`
`A wireless device comprising:
`at least one cache storage,
`one wireless interface, and
`program code configured to cause the wireless device to:
`establish a wireless link for the wireless device access to a storage space
`of a predefined capacity assigned exclusively to a user of the wireless device by a storage
`server, and
`
`couple with the storage server across the wireless link to carry out a
`requested operation for remote access to the assigned storage space in response to the user
`from the wireless device performing the operation,
`wherein the operation for the remote access to the assigned storage
`space comprises storing a data object therein or retrieving a data object therefrom,
`the storing of a data object including to download a file from a
`remote server across a network into the assigned storage space through utilizing
`download information for the file stored in said cache storage in response to the
`user from the wireless device performing the operation for downloading the file from the
`remote server into the assigned storage space.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Claim Constructions
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`predefined capacity
`
`• PO argues that “predefined capacity” should require “the
`server assigns an amount of storage, storage to be assigned
`exclusively for one user, that amount having been set in
`advance of any interaction or negotiation between the
`server and the user.”
`PO Resp. 11
`• None of this extraneous language is supported
`– specification does not use the term “predefined”
`– specification only uses the term “capacity” once in passing.
`“Today users commonly face a problem of lack of storage capacity
`configured on their wireless devices…”
`Ex-1001 2:29-32
`• Specification only gives examples of partitioning and
`assigning storage volumes without restriction, e.g.,
`“a user of each of the wireless devices can be assigned with a
`storage volume having a desired size.”
`Ex-1001 3:38-40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. Reply 4-5
`
`6
`
`
`
`couple/coupling
`
`• PO asserts that “coupling” must be a high performance
`coupling:
`“linked to form a relationship such that the coupled
`system is efficient, effective and interactive.” PO Resp. 11-12
`• “Couple”/ “coupling” not used in the written
`description
`• “Efficient, effective and interactive” are subjectively
`ambiguous modifiers.
`– PO’s expert could not explain with any precision to what
`degree something must be “efficient, effective, and
`interactive” before it qualifies as a “coupling” under PO’s
`construction.
`Jawadi Dep. (Ex-1022) 117:24-120:9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. Reply 7-9
`
`7
`
`
`
`comprises storing a data object therein or
`retrieving a data object therefrom
`Claim 1:
`
`. . . wherein the operation for the remote access to the assigned storage
`space comprises storing a data object therein or retrieving a data object therefrom,
`
`the storing of a data object including to download a file from a
`remote server across a network into the assigned storage space through utilizing
`download information for the file stored in said cache storage in response to the user
`from the wireless device performing the operation for downloading the file from the
`remote server into the assigned storage space.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`comprises storing a data object therein or
`retrieving a data object therefrom
`
`• PO urges the Board to ignore the plain
`meaning in lieu of the “intent” of the drafter:
`“although the grammar structure in the claims may not be
`perfect, the inventor (this application was prosecuted pro
`se) clearly intended to claim….”
`PO Resp. 8
`• PO could have filed a motion to amend
`• The Petition demonstrates unpatentability
`under either construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. Reply 4-5
`
`9
`
`
`
`comprises storing a data object therein or
`retrieving a data object therefrom
`
`• Ground 1: Prust teaches both storing and retrieving:
`– E-mail application invoking “conventional applications and
`utilities”
`Prust (Ex-1006) 6:20-24, 6:43-7:13, 5:7-17
`– “Conventional web browser”
`– Conventional “operating system”
`
`Id. at 6:20-23, 6:33-47, 5:7-17
`
`Id. at 5:25–32, 5:43–47, 7:28-32
`Pet. 30-38
`
`• Ground 2: Chaganti teaches both storing and
`retrieving:
`– Retrieving
`– Storing
`
`Chaganti (Ex-1008) 21:65–22:1; Pet. 58-60
`Id. at 19:23–20:49; Pet. 60-65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Prust and Major
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Prust
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Prust (Ex-1006) Fig. 2, Pet. 14
`
`12
`
`
`
`Major
`
`.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Major (Ex-1007) Fig.5; Pet. 16
`
`13
`
`
`
`PO’s arguments regarding
`Ground 1
`.
`• Prust does not disclose cache for storing a URL and it would not be
`obvious to add cache.
`
`PO Resp. 13-15
`• Prust does not disclose a server that defines the capacity assigned
`exclusively to a user.
`
`PO Resp. 24-26
`• Prust does not disclose coupling of the wireless device with the
`storage server.
`
`PO Resp. 28-30
`• Claims 3 and 20 require a plurality of storage devices, not virtual
`storage areas or devices
`
`PO Resp. 30-31
`
`• No motivation to combine Prust and Major
`
`PO Resp. 31-35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`PO’s arguments regarding
`web cache
`
`• Web cache and storing of web pages is foreign to a POSA:
`“Quite simply, the idea of storing or obtaining URLs is foreign to Prust.”
`
`• The cache recited in the ’526 Patent is a “special purpose” cache:
`“The term cache is used in the ‘526 Patent to refer to a storage
`provision that does only one thing–it stores download information, the
`hyperlink or URL.”
`
`• A POSA does not know where to get a URL or how to store it in cache:
`The references “[do] not teach the artisan where to obtain a URL,
`where in the cache it might be stored, or where it came from.”
`
`• A POSA “would further recognize that storing such a URL is unnecessary
`and a waste of resources.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO Resp. 14-15
`
`15
`
`
`
`Prust discloses web cache
`• Prust discloses a “PDA” having a “conventional
`communication applications and utilities such as a web
`browser.”
`Prust (Ex-1006) 3:17-20, 6:21-23
`• Both experts agree that conventional web browsers using
`web cache was common and well-known.
`Dr. Long (Ex-1004) ¶ 80; Jawadi Dep. (Ex-1022) 27:17-20, 25:12-27, 23:16-18
`• There is no disclosure in the ’526 Patent that identifies
`where the web cache is located or how it operates because
`a POSA understood where the web cache is located and
`how it operates.
`Jawadi Dep. (Ex-1022) 43:15-47:6, 75:12-77:15, 77:17-78,18
`• PO’s arguments are only relevant if the Board adopts PO’s
`argument for “retrieving or storing”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 20; Pet. Reply 9-12
`
`16
`
`
`
`Major discloses web cache for a PDA
`
`• Major demonstrates that the conventional web browser of
`Prust would include web cache, and in any event discloses a
`web cache suitable for use with the PDA of Prust.
`Pet. 20-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`The motivation to combine
`Prust and Major is simple
`
`• PO suggests that there would be no motivation to combine Major
`and Prust because the “entire point of Major is to reduce wireless
`access” while “the point of Prust is to increase the same.”
`PO Resp. 34
`
`• But in fact:
` Major provides express motivation for the combination
` Major’s teaching of the benefits of web cache for wireless devices
`does not teach reducing wireless access
`
`Pet. 8-12, 16-19; Pet. Reply 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`Prust discloses a server that assigns a
`predefined capacity exclusively to a user
`Prust teaches:
`•
`“The storage devices provide a plurality of virtual storage areas
`and each virtual storage area is assigned to a user.”
`Prust (Ex-1006) 1:32-34
`“The storage network 220 defines a pool of virtual storage areas
`225 that can be individually assignable to different users” and
`as part of a billed service.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Id. at 4:39-41, 4:41–50, 7:33–48
`“After a virtual storage area 25 has been allocated, storage
`network 220 informs each user of any necessary access
`information, such as a password, so that the user can access
`the respective storage area 225…” and doing so as a paid service
`Id. at 7:43-47
`• The storage may be RAID, the same storage system described in
`the ’526 Patent.
`Id. at 4:37-39; ‘526 Patent (Ex-1001) 1:41–44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 23-26; Pet. Reply 13-14
`
`19
`
`
`
`Prust discloses that the wireless device
`is coupled with the storage server
`• Prust discloses that “the assigned user can easily access the assigned
`virtual storage area using a client computer communicatively coupled
`to the storage servers via a global computer network such as the
`Internet.”
`Ex-1006 1:34-37
`
`• Prust teaches examples of functions that can be carried out because the
`wireless device is coupled to the storage server, including:
`- An e-mail application invoking “conventional applications and
`utilities” to store or retrieve files. Ex-1006 6:20-24, 6:48-7:13, 5:7-17
`- A “conventional web browser” and “operating system” for
`storing and retrieving files.
`Ex-1006 6:20-23, 6:33-47, 5:7-17, 5:25-32,
`5:43-47, 7:28-32
`• PO’s arguments are limited to the e-mail embodiment of Prust
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 26-29;Pet. Reply 14-15
`
`20
`
`
`
`Prust discloses that the wireless device
`is coupled with the storage server
`
`’526 Patent (Ex-1001) Fig. 3
`
`Prust (Ex-1006) Fig. 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Claims 3, 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Prust discloses a storage server controlling a
`plurality of storage devices
`• PO argues that the claims require a “plurality of storage
`devices, not virtual storage areas or devices.”
`PO Resp. 30-31
`
`• Prust discloses “the data storage system includes one or more
`storage servers coupled to one or more storage devices.
`The storage devices provide a plurality of virtual storage
`areas, where each virtual storage area is assigned to a user.”
`Prust (Ex-1006) Abstract,
`4:37-39
`• Both Prust and the ’526 Patent use the example of RAID.
`Id. at 2:49–51, 4:37--50; ‘526 Patent (Ex-1001) 1:41–44.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 23, 40; Pet. Reply 15-16
`
`23
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Chaganti and Major
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`Overview of Chaganti
`
`Chaganti (Ex-1008) Fig. 1 (annotated); Pet. 47
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Overview of Chaganti
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 47-48
`
`26
`
`
`
`PO’s arguments regarding
`Ground 2
`.
`• Chaganti and Major do not disclose utilizing
`download information
`PO Resp. 37-42
`• Chaganti and Major do not disclose predefined
`capacity set by server
`PO Resp. 42-43
`• Chaganti does not disclose that that the storage
`server assigns the storage space in one storage
`device exclusively to a user. (Claims 3, 20)
`PO Resp. 44
`• Chaganti does not teach a wireless device (Claims
`6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15)
`PO Resp. 45-46
`• No motivation to combine Chaganti and Major
`PO Resp. 46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Chaganti discloses utilizing download
`information
`• Chaganti discloses using a browser to display “a link”
`that “points to” a digital item X that the user wishes
`to have stored into the remote library:
`
`“When the user 103 accesses the source, the user computer
`104 may display a web page 610' or a link to the web page
`610' on the user computer 104. The user 103 may make a
`selection--such as clicking a designated mouse button--to
`indicate that he wishes to transmit the information pointed
`by the browser to the library created on server 100.”
`Chaganti (Ex-1008) 19:64-20:2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 62-63; Pet. Reply 18
`
`28
`
`
`
`Chaganti discloses utilizing download
`information
`• PO admits that “a link referring to a URL pointing to a
`digital item appears in Chaganti at 19:65-20:10.” PO Resp. 38
`• Chaganti expressly discloses storing an item can include
`sending download information:
`“Further, if the item is not included as an attachment to the
`request to add message, a source from where the item is
`to be copied is also specified, along with any required
`password, authorization, or authentication information that is
`required to retrieve the digital item from the source and
`securely transmit and store it in the library.”
`Chaganti (Ex-1008) 19:4-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 61-63, Pet. Reply 18-19
`
`29
`
`
`
`Chaganti discloses a server that assigns a
`predefined capacity exclusively to a user
`
`.
`• Chaganti’s server allocates a “predetermined amount
`of storage space” for a user’s personal library:
`“[T]he user allocates a pre-determined amount of storage
`space on a storage device such as a hard disk. ...the server is
`preprogrammed to automatically increase the allocated space
`as the need arises, or after the user pays a subscription fee
`or a one-time fee for the space.”
`Chaganti (Ex-1008) 3:9–19
`
`“[S]ervice provider via server 100 can increase the storage
`space after the user 103 pays a fee.”
`Chaganti (Ex-1008) 20:66–21:7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 55-56
`
`30
`
`
`
`The motivation to combine
`Chaganti and Major is simple
`
`• PO suggests that there would be no motivation to combine Major
`and Chaganti because the “thrust of Major is to discourage wireless
`access to external storage of any kind”
`
`PO Resp. 47
`
`• Major provides express motivation for the combination
`
`• Major’s teaching of the benefits of web cache for wireless devices
`does not discourage wireless access
`
`Pet. 8-12, 48-51; Pet. Reply 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Claims 3, 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Chaganti discloses “one of the storage devices being
`configured with the storage space assigned exclusively to
`the user” (Claim 3/20)
`• PO admits that Chaganti’s server controls a plurality of
`storage devices, but asserts that it does not disclose
`“that the storage server assigns the storage space in
`one storage device exclusively to a user. ”
`PO Resp. 44
`• Chaganti discloses that the storage space for a personal
`library “may be contiguous space in one physical
`device”
`
`Chaganti (Ex-1008) 21:14–21
`• The claim does not require that the entirety of a single
`storage device be exclusive to a single user.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 67; Pet. Reply 20
`
`33
`
`
`
`6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Chaganti discloses a PDA
`
`• Claims require a wireless device performing
`conventional file functionality including creating
`folder/folder structure (Claims 6, 10, 14, 15) and
`deleting/moving/copying/renaming (Claim 7)
`
`• Chaganti discloses this functionality and discloses
`wireless devices in the form of a PDA, e.g., Palm Pilot.
`Chaganti (Ex-1008) 7:65-8:4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 51, 68-69
`
`35
`
`
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`No Evidence of Nexus
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Secondary consideration based on a single license “under the ‘526 Patent
`PO Resp. 50 (citing Ex 2011, Ex. A)
`and related [sic] patents.”
`
`“The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists between
`the claimed features of the invention and the objective evidence offered to
`show non-obviousness.”
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Federal Circuit precedent “specifically require affirmative evidence of
`nexus where the evidence of commercial success presented is a license[.]”
`Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`• PO provided no evidence of:
`– The licensee taking the license “out of recognition and acceptance of the
`subject matter claimed” in the ’526 patent
`– The significance, if any, of the ’526 Patent as compared to the other patents
`– The relative contributions of the patents in the portfolio to the value of the
`license
`37
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. Reply 22-24; Ex 2011, Ex. A
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`
`
`Example Link on Website
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 9
`
`39
`
`
`
`Example URL on Website
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 9
`
`40
`
`
`
`Claim 3
`
`The wireless device as recited in claim 1,
`3.
`wherein the storage server controls a plurality of
`storage devices, one of the storage devices being
`configured with the storage space assigned
`exclusively to the user.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`Claim 6
`
`The wireless device as recited in claim 1, wherein
`6.
`said operation for remotely access to the assigned
`storage space further comprises:
`from the wireless device creating a
`folder structure in the assigned storage space.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`
`
`Claim 7
`
`7. The wireless device as recited in claim 1,
`wherein said operation for remotely access to
`the assigned storage space further comprises:
`from the wireless device deleting or
`moving or copying or renaming a folder in the
`assigned storage space.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`Claim 11
`
`11. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that, being
`executed by a wireless device, causes the wireless device to:
`establish a wireless link for the wireless device access to a storage space of
`predefined capacity assigned exclusively by a storage server to a user of the wireless
`device;
`
`couple with the storage server through the wireless link to carry out a
`requested operation for remote access to the assigned storage space in response to
`the user from the wireless device performing the operation,
`wherein the operation for the remote access to the assigned
`storage space comprises storing a data object therein or retrieving a data object
`therefrom,
`
`the storing of the data object including to download a
`file from a remote server on a network into the assigned storage space through
`utilizing download information for the file stored in a cache storage of the wireless
`device in response to the user from the wireless device performing the operation for
`downloading the file from the remote server into the assigned storage space.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`Law re General Knowledge of a POSA
`
`“The use of evidence of the skilled artisan's general knowledge is
`foundational to a proper obviousness analysis.”
`Director Memorandum (Ex-1023), Aug. 18, 2020 at 4 (citing KSR, 50 U.S. at 401; Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356,
`1367 (Fed. Cir. 2006))
`
`“Permissible uses of general knowledge of one having ordinary skill
`under §103 include (1) supplying missing claim limitations that were
`generally known in the art . . . (2) supporting a motivation to
`combine . . . (3) demonstrating knowledge of the ordinarily-skilled
`artisan...for any purpose related to patentability[.]”
`Id. at 4-6 (citing Koninklijke Philips v. Google, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337-39 (Fed. Cir. 2020)); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d
`413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. Reply 2
`
`45
`
`
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
