UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00316
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ZAYDOON (“JAY”) JAWADI
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Exhibit 2001
`Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. v. SynKloud Technologies, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................... 1
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED ................................................................................ 6
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ............................................................................. 7
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 8
`
`V. OPINIONS ........................................................................................................... 8
`
`A. Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 18-20 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown (EX1005)
`and Dutta (EX1006) .................................................................................................................... 9
`
`a. Claims 1 and 11: Cache Storage in/of the Wireless Device ............................................. 9
`
`i. McCown Does Not Disclose Cache Storage in/of the Wireless Device ...................... 9
`
`ii.
`
`Dutta Does Not Disclose Cache Storage in/of the Wireless Device ....................... 13
`
`iii. The Combination of McCown and Dutta Does Not Disclose Cache Storage in/of
`the Wireless Device .......................................................................................................... 16
`
`Claims 1 and 11: Utilizing Download Information for the File Stored in Cache
`b.
`Storage of the Wireless Device ............................................................................................. 17
`
`i. McCown Does Not Disclose Utilizing Download Information for the File Stored in
`Cache Storage of the Wireless Device .............................................................................. 18
`
`ii. McCown Does Not Disclose Cache in the Wireless Device .................................. 19
`
`iii. McCown Does Not Disclose Storing Download Information in Cache ................. 19
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`There Is No Need in McCown to Store Download Information in Cache .............. 21
`
`There Are Reasons in McCown to NOT Store Download Information in Cache .. 22
`
`vi. McCown Does Not Disclose Retrieving Download Information from Cache ....... 28
`
`vii. McCown Does Not Disclose Later Retrieving of Download Information from
`Cache31
`
`The Web Page Containing the McCown URLs Must Be Cacheable to Be Stored
`viii.
`in Cache ............................................................................................................................ 35
`
`ix. Not All Web Pages Are Cacheable or Cached........................................................ 35
`
`A McCown User Cannot Tell if a Web Page Displayed by the Web Browser Is
`x.
`from Cache or Stored in Cache ......................................................................................... 38
`
`xi. Dutta Does Not Cure McCown’s Deficiencies and Does Not Disclose Utilizing
`Download Information for the File Stored in Cache Storage of the Wireless Device ...... 40
`
`xii. Dutta Does Not Disclose Cache in the Wireless Device ........................................ 41
`
`xiii.
`
`Dutta Does Not Disclose Storing Download Information in Cache ................... 42
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`xiv. There Is No Need in Dutta to Store Download Information in Cache.................... 43
`
`xv. Dutta Does Not Cure the Reasons in McCown to NOT Store Download
`Information in Cache ........................................................................................................ 43
`
`xvi. Dutta Does Not Disclose Retrieving Download Information from Cache ............. 44
`
`xvii. Dutta Does Not Disclose Later Retrieving of Download Information from Cache
`
`45
`
`xviii. Dutta Does Not Cure Cacheability Constraints................................................... 46
`
`xix. Dutta Offers No Way for a User to Tell if a Web Page Displayed by the Web
`Browser Is from Cache or Stored in Cache ...................................................................... 47
`
`xx. The Combination of McCown and Dutta Does Not Disclose Utilizing Download
`Information for the File Stored in Cache Storage of the Wireless Device ....................... 48
`
`c. Claims 1 and 11: Cache Offers No Advantage in McCown and No Advantage in the
`Combination of McCown and Dutta ..................................................................................... 49
`
`d.
`
`Claims 1 and 11: Predefined Capacity ....................................................................... 56
`
`i. McCown Does Not Disclose Predefined Capacity ..................................................... 58
`
`ii.
`
`Dutta Does Not Disclose Predefined Capacity ....................................................... 62
`
`iii. The Combination of McCown and Dutta Does Not Disclose Predefined Capacity 64
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 11 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown (EX1005) and
`e.
`Dutta (EX1006) ..................................................................................................................... 64
`
`f. Dependent Claims 2-5, 9, 12, 16, and 18-20 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown
`(EX1005) and Dutta (EX1006) ............................................................................................. 65
`
`Dependent Claims 3 and 20: One of the Storage Devices Being Configured With the
`g.
`Storage Space Assigned Exclusively to the User ................................................................. 66
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine McCown and Dutta for
`h.
`Cache Storage ....................................................................................................................... 67
`
`B. Dependent Claims 6-8, 10, 13-15, and 17 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown
`(EX1005), Dutta (EX1006), and Coates (EX1007) .................................................................. 69
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................70
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`I, Zaydoon (“Jay”) Jawadi, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1. My name is Zaydoon (“Jay”) Jawadi.
`
`2.
`
`I am an independent expert and consultant. I have been retained as an
`
`expert witness on behalf of SynKloud Technologies, LLC (“SynKloud”) for the
`
`above-captioned Inter Partes Review (IPR) regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`(“’526 Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`As shown in my curriculum vitae (attached as Exhibit 2002), I have a
`
`Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Mosul University, a Master of
`
`Science in Computer Science from Columbia University with a Citation for
`
`Outstanding Achievement – Dean’s Honor Student, and over 40 years of
`
`experience in software and product design and development, engineering,
`
`consulting, and management in the fields of data storage, Internet, software, data
`
`networking, computing systems, and telecommunication.
`
`4.
`
`I have worked with and possess expertise in numerous technologies,
`
`including data storage
`
`technologies and
`
`interfaces, Internet and website
`
`technologies, databases, data networking
`
`technologies and protocols, and
`
`telephony.
`
`5.
`
`From 1978 to 1980, I worked as a telecommunication/electrical
`
`engineer for Emirtel (formerly Cable and Wireless, now Etisalat). During my
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`employment at Emirtel, among other things, I worked on telephony and
`
`telecommunication products and services, and I developed software in assembly
`
`and high-level languages for archiving, storing, and retrieving data to and from
`
`data storage devices, such as disk drives and tape drives.
`
`6.
`
`From 1981 to 1983, I worked as a software engineer for Amdahl
`
`Corporation (now Fujitsu), a California-based major supplier of computers,
`
`systems, and data storage subsystems.
`
`7.
`
`From 1984 to 1994, I worked as a software, data storage, and systems
`
`consultant to various data storage and computer companies in California, the
`
`United States, Asia, and Europe. I provided technical consulting services in data
`
`storage, data storage systems, data storage devices, software design and
`
`development, system software, device driver software, data storage device
`
`firmware, data storage software, data storage chips, data storage tools, data storage
`
`test systems and test software, data storage and I/O protocol development systems,
`
`data storage and I/O protocol analyzers, data storage and I/O monitoring systems,
`
`data storage manufacturing systems and software, and data networking.
`
`8.
`
`From 1992 to 1996, I was President and founder of Zadian
`
`Technologies, Inc., a California-based leading supplier of networked data storage
`
`test systems, with over 50,000 units installed worldwide in mission-critical
`
`customer operations with premier high-technology customers, such as Conner
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Peripherals (now Seagate), DEC (now HP), EMC (now Dell EMC), Exabyte,
`
`Fujitsu, HP, IBM, Intel, Iomega, Quantum (now Seagate), Seagate, Sony,
`
`StorageTek, Tandberg, Tandem (now HP), Toshiba, Unisys, and WD. The
`
`company’s products
`
`included
`
`test systems, manufacturing systems, and
`
`development systems for data storage devices (disk drives, tape drives, removable
`
`drives, flash drives, optical drives, CD-ROM drives, Jukeboxes, and RAID) and
`
`data storage interfaces (SCSI, ATA / IDE / ATAPI, Fibre Channel, SSA, and
`
`PCMCIA / PC Card).
`
`9.
`
`In 1996, Zadian Technologies was acquired by UK-based Xyratex
`
`International LTD (NASDAQ: XRTX, which was later acquired by Seagate,
`
`NASDAQ: STX, in 2014). Following Zadian’s acquisition by Xyratex, I became
`
`an employee of Xyratex until 1998. At Xyratex, I was a general manager of a data
`
`storage interface business unit and, subsequently, a general manager of a data
`
`networking analysis tools business unit, which designed and built Gigabit Ethernet
`
`network protocol analysis and monitoring products, which were sold, under OEM
`
`agreement, by the largest supplier of network protocol analysis and monitoring
`
`products.
`
`10. From 1999 to 2001, I was CEO, Chairman, and cofounder of Can Do,
`
`Inc., a California-based Internet eCommerce and community company. The
`
`CanDo.com website offered over 10,000 products for sale as well as extensive
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`consumer features, such as news, chat, messages, and product information for
`
`people with disabilities. The company also provided technologies for display
`
`magnification and sound/audio adaptation through the Internet to make websites
`
`more accessible to persons with vision and hearing impairments. The company
`
`was funded by leading venture capital firms.
`
`11. From 2001 to 2007, I was President and cofounder of CoAssure, Inc.,
`
`a California-based provider of Web-based technology services and solutions for
`
`automated telephony speech recognition and touchtone applications, serving
`
`multiple Fortune-500 companies.
`
`12.
`
`In 2009, I cofounded and have since been President of Rate Speeches,
`
`Inc., a California-based Internet company providing online services, resources, and
`
`technologies for creating, rating, evaluating, and enhancing public speaking,
`
`presentation, and communication skills. Rate Speeches also operates the
`
`ratespeeches.com website and the Speech Evaluator online software.
`
`13. Since moving to Silicon Valley in Northern California in 1981, I have
`
`worked on numerous technology products that have generated billions of dollars in
`
`sales.
`
`14.
`
`I hold a California community college lifelong computer science
`
`instructor credential. I have taught various data storage and computer technologies
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`to thousands of professional engineers and academic students in the United States,
`
`Europe, and Asia.
`
`15.
`
`In my work as an expert and consultant, I have examined, analyzed,
`
`and inspected numerous data storage systems, computer systems, software
`
`products, cell phone applications, tens of millions of lines of source code, and the
`
`frontend and backend software of more than 100 websites, including massive,
`
`highly-trafficked consumer and business websites.
`
`16. Through my education, industry and expert experience, and industry
`
`and expert knowledge, I have gained a detailed understanding of the technologies
`
`at issue in this case.
`
`17. My additional industry experience is in my curriculum vitae.
`
`18. My expert litigation support cases, including cases in which I have
`
`testified during the last four years as an expert, can be found in my curriculum
`
`vitae (Exhibit 2002).
`
`19. As such, I am qualified to provide opinions regarding the state of the
`
`art at the time the ’526 Patent was filed (which I understand to be no later than
`
`December 4, 2003) and how a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at
`
`that time would have interpreted and understood the ’526 Patent.
`
`20.
`
`I am being compensated for my work and any travel expenses in
`
`connection with
`
`this proceeding at my standard consulting rates.
`
` My
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`compensation is in no way dependent on or contingent on the outcome of my
`
`analysis or opinions rendered in this proceeding and is in no way dependent on or
`
`contingent on the results of these or any other proceedings relating to the above-
`
`captioned patent.
`
`21. Although I am not rendering an opinion about the level of skill of a
`
`POSITA proffered by Petitioners, based on my professional experience, I have an
`
`understanding of the capabilities of a POSITA (as such a POSITA is defined by
`
`Petitioners). Over the course of my career, I have supervised and directed many
`
`such persons. Additionally, I myself, at the time the ’526 Patent was filed,
`
`qualified as at least a POSITA.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`22.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I reviewed the ’526 Patent, including its
`
`claims in view of its specification, the prosecution history of the ’526 Patent,
`
`various prior art and technical references from the time of the invention, and the
`
`IPR2020-00316 Petition and its exhibits (1001-1032).
`
`23.
`
`I also reviewed the following references attached as exhibits:
`
`Exhibit Description
`Exhibit
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, Microsoft Press, 2002
`2003
`Exhibit
`2004
`
`Information about Internet Explorer versions, Microsoft, Last updated
`November 15, 2019, last viewed January 23, 2020,
`https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/969393/information-about-
`internet-explorer-versions
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Exhibit Description
`Exhibit
`Netscape Communicator, Netscape, Internet Archive, captured July 8,
`2005
`1997, last viewed January 23, 2020,
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970708054721/http://www36.netscape.co
`m/flash1/comprod/products/communicator/index.html
`Software Download, Netscape, Internet Archive, captured July 8, 1997,
`last viewed January 23, 2020,
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970708045909/http://www36.netscape.co
`m/download/index.html
`Web Caching, Duane Wessels, O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2001
`
`Exhibit
`2006
`
`Exhibit
`2007
`Exhibit
`2008
`Exhibit
`2009
`Exhibit
`2010
`
`Exhibit
`2011
`
`Exhibit
`2012
`Exhibit
`2013
`
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1, rfc2616, June 1999
`
`Webvertising: The Ultimate Internet Advertising Guide, Springer
`Science & Business Media, Jun 28, 2000
`Content Delivery Networks: An Introduction, HCL Technologies Ltd.,
`May 2002,
`https://userpages.umbc.edu/~dgorin1/451/caching/contentdel.pdf
`Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, 2020,
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predefined, last viewed
`January 24, 2020
`Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Luxury Edition, Angus Stevenson,
`Maurice Waite, OUP Oxford, August 18, 2011
`Cambridge Dictionary, Cambridge University Press 2020,
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/predefined, last
`viewed January 24, 2020
`
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`24.
`
`I have worked with counsel in the preparation of this Declaration.
`
`Nevertheless, the opinions, statements, and conclusions offered in this Declaration
`
`are purely my own and were neither suggested nor indicated in any way by counsel
`
`or anyone other than myself. I confirmed with counsel my understanding that the
`
`term “obvious,” as used in the Petition addressed herein and as a general matter
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`under United States law, refers to subject matter that would have occurred to a
`
`POSITA to which the ’526 Patent is directed without inventive or creative thought.
`
`That which is obvious, it is my understanding, flows naturally from the art and the
`
`education one of skill practicing in that art would have had in the relevant time
`
`frame, which for the ’526 Patent is 2003.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`25.
`
`I reviewed the comments in the Petition and Petitioners’ expert’s
`
`declaration (EX1003) pertaining to claim “construction of the claims” of the ’526
`
`Patent. My understanding is simply that, in the absence of a specific controversy,
`
`one arrives at the appropriate “construction” or definition of what is embraced by
`
`the claims of the ’526 Patent and what is excluded by those claims by a reading of
`
`the ’526 Patent and arriving at what, based on that reading, the inventor of the
`
`claimed subject matter intended to protect as her or his invention.
`
`V. OPINIONS
`
`26. Petitioners present two grounds under which claims of the ’526 Patent
`
`are purportedly invalid; in particular Petitioners contend that Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12,
`
`16, and 18-20 are obvious over McCown (EX1005) in view of Dutta (EX1006) and
`
`contend that Claims 6-8, 10, 13-15, and 17 are unpatentable over McCown
`
`(EX1005) in view of Dutta (EX1005) and Coates (EX1007). Petition, 1-2. In my
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`opinion, as described below, Petitioners have not established a reasonable basis to
`
`conclude that the claims of the ’526 Patent are obvious.
`
`A. Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 18-20 Are Not Obvious in View of
`McCown (EX1005) and Dutta (EX1006)
`
`27. Petitioners contend that Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 18-20 are
`
`obvious over McCown (EX1005) in view of Dutta (EX1006). Petition, 1-2. I
`
`disagree for the reasons outlined below.
`
`a. Claims 1 and 11: Cache Storage in/of the Wireless Device
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 11 of the ’526 Patent both recite cache
`
`storage in/of the wireless device.
`
`“1. A wireless device comprising: at least one cache storage, ...”
`’526, Claim 1, emphasis added
`
`“11. ... a cache storage of the wireless device ...” ’526, Claim 11,
`emphasis added
`
`
`i. McCown Does Not Disclose Cache Storage in/of the Wireless
`Device
`
`
`
`29. McCown does not disclose cache storage in/of the wireless device.
`
`Indeed, McCown does not disclose or mention cache, whether in a wireless device
`
`or otherwise.
`
`30. Petitioners contend that “McCown discloses the use of “[a] browser”
`
`such as “Internet Explorer available from Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA
`
`and Netscape Communicator available
`
`from Netscape Communications
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Corporation, Mountain View, CA. EX1005, 8:5-10. A Skilled Artisan would
`
`understand each of these browsers on McCown’s wireless devices included “at
`
`least one cache storage.” See EX1024, 7:8-10 (explaining that browsers (such as
`
`Netscape) have “cache memories”); see also EX1025, 3:3-8 (similar);
`
`EX1003,¶121.” Petition, 28, italics added for delineation. I disagree for the
`
`reasons described below.
`
`31.
`
`Internet Explorer was only available for computers running Windows,
`
`Macintosh, and UNIX operating systems, but Internet Explorer was not available
`
`for wireless devices.
`
`“Internet Explorer n. Microsoft’s Web browsing software.
`Introduced in October 1995, the latest versions of Internet Explorer
`include many features that allow you to customize your experience on
`the Web. Internet Explorer is also available for the Macintosh and
`UNIX platforms. See also ActiveX control, Java applet, Web
`browser.” Exhibit 2003, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition,
`Microsoft Press, 2002, p. 283, bold in original, underlining added
`
`32. Microsoft lists over 60 versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer,
`
`starting from the initial release of Internet Explorer in 1995 to the present day, for
`
`various personal computers and servers running Windows, Macintosh, and UNIX
`
`operating systems but does not list any Internet Explorer versions for any wireless
`
`devices.
`
`“Release versions of Internet Explorer for Windows
`Internet Explorer version numbers for Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0,
`Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium
`Edition (Me), Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8 use the following
`format:
`...
`Internet Explorer versions for other operating systems
`...
`Internet Explorer for Macintosh or Windows 3.1
`...
`Internet Explorer for UNIX on Sun Solaris
`...
`Internet Explorer for UNIX on HP-UX
`...” Information about Internet Explorer versions, Microsoft, Last
`updated November 15, 2019, last viewed January 23, 2020,
`https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/969393/information-about-
`internet-explorer-versions, emphasis added
`
`33. Netscape Communicator was a bundle of software programs that
`
`included Netscape Navigator (the Netscape browser) as well as other programs,
`
`such as messenger, email /news client, HTML editor / composer, netcaster / push
`
`client, and calendar.
`
`“Netscape Communicator is a suite of software components for
`sharing, accessing, and communicating information via intranets and
`the Internet. Communicator includes components for navigation,
`email, discussion groups, HTML authoring, dynamic information
`delivery, real-time collaboration, calendaring and scheduling, IBM
`host communications, and Communicator management.
`Communicator runs on 16 platforms and is available in Standard and
`Professional Editions.
`...
`NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR IS NOW PART OF COMMUNICATOR
`Navigator 4.0, the latest version of the world's leading browser, is
`the cornerstone of Communicator. Navigator 4.0 has a new, smarter
`user interface and powerful new technology that makes browsing
`dynamic web content easier than ever. Find out more about
`Navigator's history.” Exhibit 2005 Netscape Communicator,
`Netscape, Internet Archive, captured July 8, 1997, last viewed January
`23, 2020,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`https://web.archive.org/web/19970708054721/http://www36.netscape.
`com/flash1/comprod/products/communicator/index.html, emphasis
`added
`
`34. Similar to Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape Communicator
`
`(including the Netscape Navigator browser) was only available for computers
`
`running Windows, Macintosh, and UNIX operating systems, but Netscape
`
`Communicator (including the Netscape Navigator browser) was not available for
`
`wireless devices.
`
`“Netscape Navigator n. The widely used family of Web browser
`programs, made by Netscape Corporation. Versions of Netscape
`Navigator are available for the Windows and Macintosh platforms,
`and for many varieties of UNIX. Netscape Navigator, which is based
`on NCSA’s Mosaic Web browser, was one of the first commercially
`available Web browsers. In 1999, Netscape Corporation was
`purchased by America Online. See also Mosaic, Web browser.”
`Exhibit 2003, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, Microsoft
`Press, 2002, p. 361, bold in original, underlining added
`
`“Netscape Communicator 4.01 for Macintosh or Windows
`(includes the fix for the recently reported privacy bug).
`...
`Communicator (including Navigator):
`Standard Edition for Windows and Macintosh | Standard Edition
`Preview Releases | Professional Edition for Windows and Macintosh
`| Professional Edition Preview Releases” Exhibit 2006, Software
`Download, Netscape, Internet Archive, captured July 8, 1997, last
`viewed January 23, 2020,
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970708045909/http://www36.netscape.
`com/download/index.html
`
`35. Therefore, in my opinion, Petitioners’ contention (Petition, 28) that
`
`“[a] Skilled Artisan would understand each of these browsers on McCown’s
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`wireless devices” is flawed, because “these browsers” (Internet Explorer and
`
`Netscape Communicator / Navigator) did not (and still do not) run on wireless
`
`devices and were not (and still are not) available for wireless devices.
`
`36. Petitioners also contend that “[t]o the extent one might argue that
`
`McCown does not sufficiently disclose “at least one cache storage,” it would have
`
`been obvious to modify McCown to include one. EX1003,¶122.” Petition, 29,
`
`italics added for delineation. I disagree.
`
`37. McCown does not disclose, mention, or imply a cache (or cache
`
`storage) in a wireless device or otherwise. Furthermore, as described later in the
`
`section (V.A.b.iv) titled There Is No Need in McCown to Store Download
`
`Information in Cache and in the section (V.A.b.v) titled There Are Reasons in
`
`McCown to NOT Store Download Information in Cache, there is no motivation or
`
`need to modify McCown to include a cache.
`
`38.
`
`In summary, Petitioners fail to show that McCown discloses cache
`
`storage in/of the wireless device. Furthermore, McCown does not disclose or
`
`mention cache storage in/of the wireless device.
`
`ii. Dutta Does Not Disclose Cache Storage in/of the Wireless
`Device
`
`
`
`39. Petitioners rely on Dutta as purportedly disclosing the ’526 cache
`
`storage. Petition, 24, 30-31. I disagree.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`40. As described below, although Dutta discloses PDAs, Dutta only
`
`mentions cache in the context of computers, but not PDAs or other wireless
`
`devices. Dutta mentions browser cache four times: at ¶ [0029] (3:1, left column),
`
`at ¶ [0036] (3:9, right column), in FIG. 2, and in FIG. 3. I will analyze these four
`
`instances of browser cache being mentioned in Dutta below. Dutta also mentions
`
`cookie cache at [0043], which is not applicable to the ’526 Patent and not asserted
`
`by Petitioners.
`
`41. Dutta’s browser cache at ¶ [0029] refers to FIG. 2 (whose description
`
`starts at ¶ [0028]), in which Dutta explicitly refers to a browser running on a client
`
`machine. In my opinion, a POSITA would have understood client machine to
`
`mean a computer, rather than a wireless device. Additionally, Dutta states that the
`
`browser may store a browser cache, which a POSITA would have understood as
`
`optional. Dutta also provides no purpose, function, or utility for the browser cache.
`
`In other words, Dutta merely states that a browser in a “client machine” “may
`
`store” browser cache but provides no purpose for the cache in general and no
`
`purpose for the cache in the Dutta invention. Dutta at ¶¶ [0028]-[0029] are
`
`reproduced below.
`
`“[0028] With reference now to FIG. 2, a block diagram depicts a
`typical network, similar to FIG. 1, in which prior art Web-based
`services are available from servers to a user at a client machine.
`Client 202 runs browser application 204, which displays web page
`206 retrieved from Web address 208. Browser 204 may display
`various types of content other than Web pages, and the location of the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`content may be represented by a variety of addresses, such as Uniform
`Resource Locators (URLs) and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs).
`Browser 204 may also maintain bookmarks 210 for selection by a
`user.
`[0029] Client 202 maintains local storage 212 for use by browser
`application 204 and other applications. Browser 204 may store
`bookmark file 214, browser cache 216, and various types of files,
`including user-saved Web pages 218.” EX1006, Dutta ¶¶ [0028]-
`[0029]
`
`42. Dutta’s browser cache at ¶ [0036] refers to FIG. 3, which shows the
`
`client (302) and local storage (312) to be exactly the same as the client (202) and
`
`local storage (212) in FIG. 2. In other words, ¶ [0036], which describes FIG. 3,
`
`refers to a client machine but not a wireless device. Additionally, as in [0029],
`
`Dutta states that the browser may store a browser cache, which a POSITA would
`
`have understood as optional. Moreover, as in [0029], Dutta also provides no
`
`purpose, function, or utility for the browser cache. In other words, Dutta merely
`
`states that a browser in a “client machine” “may store” browser cache but provides
`
`no purpose for the cache in general and no purpose for the cache in the Dutta
`
`invention. Dutta at ¶ [0036] is reproduced below.
`
`“[0036] With reference now to FIG. 3, a block diagram depicts a Web
`server for customized storage of captured Web files in accordance
`with a preferred embodiment of the present invention. In a manner
`similar to FIG. 2, FIG. 3 shows various components within the
`Internet that a user may access to retrieve information. Client 302 runs
`browser application 304, which displays web page 306 retrieved from
`Web address 308. Browser 304 may also maintain bookmarks 310 for
`selection by a user using application options and controls within
`browser 304. Client 302 maintains local storage 312; browser 304
`may store bookmark file 314, browser cache 316, and various types
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`of files, including user-saved Web pages 318. Client 302 accesses
`various resources and services throughout the Internet 320. In this
`example, a user may browse content from an online newspaper
`supported by server 322 and stored within server storage 324.”
`EX1006, Dutta ¶ [0036]
`
`43. Therefore, in my opinion, Dutta discloses that a browser in a “client
`
`machine” (computer) “may store” a browser cache, but Dutta does not integrate the
`
`cache in the Dutta invention and does not provide any purpose, function, or utility
`
`for the browser cache.
`
`44.
`
`In summary, in my opinion, Dutta does not disclose cache (or cache
`
`storage) in/of the wireless device.
`
`iii. The Combination of McCown and Dutta Does Not Disclose
`Cache Storage in/of the Wireless Device
`
`
`
`45. Since McCown does not disclose cache storage in/of the wireless
`
`device and Dutta does not disclose cache storage in/of the wireless device, the
`
`combination of McCown and Dutta also does not disclose cache storage in/of the
`
`wireless device limitation of Claim 1 and Claim 11. I understand that Petitioners
`
`assert that a POSITA in the field of the ’526 Patent in the 2003 time frame would
`
`have been someone with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, computer science, or related field with two years of experience in a
`
`relevant technical field, such as remote storage systems with related experience in
`
`wireless technologies and wireless devices. Petition, 6. In my opinion, such a
`
`POSITA, reading McCown and Dutta together, would not see in that combination
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`of references any suggestion or teaching to provide a wireless device (in particular,
`
`a PDA or phone) equipped with cache or cache storage.
`
`b. Claims 1 and 11: Utilizing Download Information for the File
`Stored in Cache Storage of the Wireless Device
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 11 of the ’526 Patent both recite utilizing
`
`download information for the file stored in cache storage in the wireless device.
`
`“1. A wireless device comprising: at least one cache storage, ...
`utilizing download information for the file stored in said cache storage
`...” ’526, Claim 1
`
`“11. ... utilizing download information for the file stored in a cache
`storage of the wireless device ...” ’526, Claim 11
`
`47. Petitioners construe the phrase “utilizing download information for
`
`the file stored in said cache storage” to mean “using information stored in the
`
`cache storage of the wireless device to download a file from a remote server.”
`
`Petition, 14, italics added for delineation.
`
`48. Petitioners further describe that “the disclosed wireless device
`
`accesses the remote server site via a web browser to obtain information for the
`
`data to be downloaded, stores the download information into a cache in the form
`
`of a web page, later retrieves that information from the cache, and sends it to the
`
`storage server. ... The download information is therefore stored on the wireless
`
`device in some convenient memory location of that device, so that it can be more
`
`readily accessed, without having to make another request to the remote server site
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`for the information, when the user makes a selection of what information should
`
`be downloaded and stored.” Petition, 12-13, emphasis added, italics added for
`
`delineation.
`
`49. Petitioners’ exper