`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 9,098,526
`Issued: August 4, 2015
`Filed: January 8, 2014
`
`Inventor: Sheng Tai Tsao
`
`Title:
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WIRELESS DEVICE ACCESS TO
`EXTERNAL STORAGE
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-00316
`________________________
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 9,098,526
`________________________
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, Cover
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`I, Henry Houh, do hereby declare and state, that all statements made herein of my
`
`own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Executed on: December 19, 2019
`
`___________________________
`Henry Houh
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. i
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Engagement...........................................................................................1
`
`Background and Qualifications.............................................................1
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony......................................................4
`
`Information Considered.........................................................................4
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY..........................................5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation...........................................................................................7
`
`Obviousness...........................................................................................8
`
`III.
`
`THE 526 PATENT ........................................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Effective Filing Date ...........................................................................14
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill .......................................................................15
`
`Overview of 526 Patent.......................................................................15
`
`Prosecution History of 526 Patent.......................................................20
`
`Challenged Claims of the 526 Patent..................................................25
`
`Claim Construction..............................................................................29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“cache storage” .........................................................................30
`
`“utilizing download information”.............................................33
`
`“folder structure”.......................................................................34
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. ii
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................35
`
`A. McCown (EX1005).............................................................................35
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Dutta (EX1006) ...................................................................................40
`
`Coates (EX1007) .................................................................................43
`
`V.
`
`COMPARISON OF THE 526 PATENT TO THE PRIOR ART..................47
`
`A.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Over McCown in View of
`
`Dutta, in Further View of Coates ........................................................47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1 and 11 are Unpatentable ............................................47
`
`Claims 2 and 16 are Unpatentable ............................................81
`
`Claims 3 and 20 are Unpatentable ............................................83
`
`Claims 4 and 12 are Unpatentable ............................................85
`
`Claims 5 and 19 are Unpatentable ............................................87
`
`Claims 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 17 are Unpatentable...........88
`
`Claims 9 and 18 are Unpatentable ..........................................101
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. iii
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A.
`Engagement
`1.
`I, Henry Houh, make this declaration. All statements herein made of
`
`my own knowledge are true, and all statements herein made based on information
`
`and belief are believed to be true. I am over 21 and otherwise competent to make
`
`this declaration. Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing this
`
`declaration, the opinions herein are my own.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Microsoft Corporation and HP
`
`Inc. as an expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to
`
`provide my opinion about the state of the art of the technology described in U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,098,526 (“the 526 Patent”) and on the patentability of claims 1-20 of
`
`the 526 Patent. The following is my written testimony on these topics.
`
`B.
`3.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1998. I also received a Master
`
`of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1991, a
`
`Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in
`
`1990, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics in 1989.
`
`4.
`
`As further indicated in my C.V., I have worked in the electrical
`
`engineering and computer science fields, including web site and web server
`
`development, on several occasions. As part of my doctoral research at MIT from
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 1
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`1991-1998, I worked as a research assistant in the Telemedia Network Systems
`
`(TNS) group at the Laboratory for Computer Science. The TNS group built a high
`
`speed gigabit network and applications which ran over the network, such as remote
`
`video capture, processing and display on computer terminals. In addition to
`
`helping design the core network components, designing and building the high
`
`speed links, and designing and writing the device drivers for the interface cards, I
`
`also set up the group’s web server, which at the time was one of the first several
`
`hundred web servers in existence.
`
`5.
`
`I authored or co-authored twelve papers and conference presentations
`
`on our group’s research. I also co-edited the final report of the gigabit networking
`
`research effort with the Professor (David Tennenhouse) and Senior Research
`
`Scientist of the group (David Clark), who is generally considered to be one of the
`
`fathers of the Internet Protocol.
`
`6.
`
`I started building web servers in 1993, having set up the web server
`
`for the MIT Telemedia, Networks, and Systems Group, to which I belonged. It
`
`was one of the first several hundred web servers in existence, and went on to
`
`provide what was likely one of the first live Internet video initiated from a web
`
`site. In 1994, I founded a company called Agora Technology Group which set up
`
`advertising-supported web sites service for college recruiting called HIRES
`
`(Hypermedia Internet Recruitment and Employment Services). Agora also
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 2
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`provided web consulting services to companies; Agora set up web sites for Bay
`
`Networks (later purchased by Nortel) and Data Communications Magazine, among
`
`others.
`
`7.
`
`From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX
`
`Corporation, a start-up that made business telephone systems that streamed
`
`packetized audio over data networks instead of using traditional phone lines. NBX
`
`was later acquired by 3Com Corporation, and the phone system is still available
`
`and being used at tens of thousands of businesses or more. As part of my work at
`
`NBX, I designed the core audio reconstruction algorithms for the telephones, as
`
`well as the packet transmission algorithms. I also designed and validated the core
`
`packet transport protocol used by the phone system. The protocol is used millions
`
`of times daily currently. Two of the company founders and I received US Patent
`
`No. 6,697,963 titled “Telecommunication method for ensuring on-time delivery of
`
`packets containing time sensitive data,” for some of the work I did there.
`
`8.
`
`Starting in 2001, I was architect for the next generation of web testing
`
`product by Empirix known as e-Test Suite. e-Test Suite is now owned by Oracle
`
`Corporation. e-Test provided functional and load testing for web sites. e-Test
`
`emulated a user’s interaction with a web site and provided web developers with a
`
`method of creating various scripts and providing both functional testing (e.g., did
`
`the web site provide the correct response) and load testing (e.g., could the web site
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`handle 5000 users on its web site simultaneously). Among Empirix’s customers
`
`was H&R Block, who used e-Test Suite to test the tax filing functionality of their
`
`web site as whether the web site could handle a large expected load prior to the
`
`filing deadline.
`
`9.
`
`I have also continued to develop web sites for various business
`
`projects, as well as setting up web sites on a volunteer basis for various groups that
`
`I am associated with.
`
`10.
`
`I am the author of several publications devoted to a wide variety of
`
`technologies in the fields of electrical engineering and computer science. These
`
`publications are listed on my C.V. (EX1004).
`
`C.
`11.
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony
`I am being compensated at a rate of $620 per hour for my study and
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my
`
`testimony.
`
`Information Considered
`D.
`12. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report and those
`
`listed in the Exhibit List at the end of this report.
`
`13.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions, including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`14. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`15.
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the 526 Patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that have
`
`been explained to me.
`
`16.
`
`First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what
`
`was known before the invention was made.
`
`17.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 5
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal
`
`publications, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Microsoft has the burden of
`
`proving that the claims of the 526 Patent are anticipated by or obvious from the
`
`prior art by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance
`
`of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it
`
`is not.
`
`19. As I discuss further in the claim construction section below, I
`
`understand that the 526 Patent claims must be interpreted in accordance with the
`
`Phillips standard of claim construction, my understanding of which is set forth in
`
`greater detail below. The claims after being construed are then to be compared to
`
`the information in the prior art.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the prior art that may be
`
`evaluated as a basis for unpatentability are limited to patents and printed
`
`publications. My analysis below compares the claims to patents and printed
`
`publications that are prior art to the claims.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the two legal standards is
`
`set forth below.
`
`A.
`22.
`
`Anticipation
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`23.
`
`I have applied these standards in my evaluation of whether the claims
`
`of the patent would have been anticipated by the prior art.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the “prior art” includes patents and printed
`
`publications that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”)
`
`of the claim in the patent. I also understand that a patent will be prior art if it was
`
`filed before the invention date of the claimed invention, while a printed publication
`
`will be prior art if it was publicly available before that date or more than one year
`
`before the effective filing date.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior
`
`art, each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that
`
`claim limitations that are not expressly described in a prior art reference may still
`
`be there if they are “inherent” to the thing or process being described in the prior
`
`art. For example, an indication in a prior art reference that a particular process
`
`complies with a published standard would indicate that the process must inherently
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 7
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`perform certain steps or use certain data structures that are necessary to comply
`
`with the published standard.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that if a reference incorporates other documents by
`
`reference, the incorporating reference and the incorporated reference(s) should be
`
`treated as a single prior art reference for purposes of analyzing anticipation.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`B.
`28.
`
`Obviousness
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall
`not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 8
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether the asserted claims of the patent at issue here would have
`
`been considered obvious as of the relevant priority date. I have been asked to
`
`assume that the priority date for the claims at issue here is December 4, 2003.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must
`
`consider certain factual questions regarding the claimed invention and the prior art.
`
`Specifically, I understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of
`
`four factors (although not necessarily in the following order):
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
`
`and
`
`Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may be present in any particular case.
`
`32.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done based on hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art as of the priority date of the patent claim.
`
`33.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 9
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by those in the field; the taking
`
`of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts and those
`
`skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee proceeded
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I also understand that any of this
`
`evidence must be specifically connected to the invention rather than being
`
`associated with the prior art or with marketing or other efforts to promote an
`
`invention. I am not presently aware of any evidence of “objective factors”
`
`suggesting the claimed methods are not obvious, and reserve my right to address
`
`any such evidence if it is identified in the future.
`
`34.
`
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`I also understand that an example of a solution in one field of endeavor may make
`
`that solution obvious in another related field. I also understand that market
`
`demands or design considerations may prompt variations of a prior art system or
`
`process, either in the same field or a different one, and that these variations will
`
`ordinarily be considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior
`
`art.
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 10
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`35.
`
`I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I
`
`understand that for similar reasons, if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`
`device would have been obvious unless its actual application yields unexpected
`
`results or challenges in implementation.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and experimentation that
`
`does no more than yield predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 11
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int'l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), where the Court rejected the previous
`
`requirement of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements
`
`of prior art for purposes of an obviousness analysis as a precondition for finding
`
`obviousness. It is my understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that
`
`would have been known to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or
`
`derived from the nature of the problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why
`
`references would have been combined.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a
`
`problem will not be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the
`
`same problem. I understand that under the KSR standard, steps suggested by
`
`common sense are important and should be considered. Common sense teaches
`
`that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond the particular application being
`
`described in a reference, that if something can be done once it is obvious to do it
`
`multiple times, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art
`
`considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor
`
`as of the effective filing date and can provide a reason for combining the elements
`
`of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art does not need
`
`to be directed towards solving the same problem that is addressed in the patent.
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 12
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`Further, the individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed
`
`towards solving the same problem.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or lead away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`would not work or explicit statements saying the combination should not be made).
`
`41.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity.
`
`42.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combination, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
`
`ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical
`
`grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 13
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious. The fact that a
`
`particular combination of prior art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that
`
`the combination was obvious even if no one attempted the combination. If the
`
`combination was obvious to try (regardless of whether it was actually tried) or
`
`leads to anticipated success, then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense rather than innovation.
`
`III. THE 526 PATENT
`A.
`Effective Filing Date
`43.
`I understand that the 526 Patent issued from U.S. Application No.
`
`14/150,106, which was filed on January 8, 2014. EX1001, Face. The 106
`
`application was a continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/079,831, filed
`
`November 14, 2013, which later became U.S. Patent No. 8,868,690. Id.; EX1009.
`
`The 831 application was a continuation of U.S. Application No. 10/726,897, filed
`
`December 4, 2003, which later became U.S. Patent No. 8,606,880. Id.
`
`44.
`
`I understand that a “continuation” application is a patent application
`
`that is related to an earlier filed patent application and does not add to, change or
`
`delete information relative to what was in the previous application.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that a “continuation” application may not describe an
`
`invention that is not described in the earlier application, and that this may result in
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 14
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`a patent claim being evaluated using the filing date of the continuation application,
`
`rather than the earlier related application.
`
`46.
`
`I understand that Claims 1 and 11 of the 526 Patent are independent
`
`claims. The effective filing date of claims 1 and 11 of the 526 Patent is not earlier
`
`than December 4, 2003, the date on which its oldest parent was filed. For
`
`purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to assume that this date is the
`
`effective filing date of the 526 Patent.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`B.
`47. Based on my experience in the field and the information I discuss
`
`herein, I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the 526 Patent in
`
`the 2003 time frame (“a Skilled Artisan”) would have been someone with a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical, 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. As evidenced by the prior art cited below, such a person would have been
`
`knowledgeable about memory structures in both mobile and computer
`
`technologies, techniques for remotely accessing and manipulating databases and
`
`computer files, and communications over computer networks such as the Internet.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of 526 Patent
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 15
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`48.
`
`The 526 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Wireless Device
`
`Access to External Storage.” EX1001, Face.
`
`49.
`
`The 526 Patent claims a system and method for a wireless device to
`
`interact with a remote storage server for remote storage of data. Id., Abstract. The
`
`primary focuses of the 526 Patent are the transfer of data objects from a remote site
`
`to an allocated storage space on a remote server under control of a wireless device,
`
`and the retrieval of data objects from the storage space to the wireless device. Id.,
`
`5:1-41.
`
`50.
`
`The Background section of the 526 Patent clarifies that external
`
`storage media is not a component of the system in a same enclosure. Id., 1:36-37.
`
`The external storage must be connected through the use of a connecting medium –
`
`i.e. a cable–such as an Ethernet cable or a wireless medium. Id, 1:37-39. Each
`
`storage device usually needs to be partitioned into smaller volumes, after which
`
`each of the volumes can be used to establish a file system in their respective
`
`memories. Id. 1:45-50.
`
`51.
`
`The 526 Patent addresses a lack of storage capacity that users face in
`
`their wireless devices, such as cell phones and PDAs. Id., 2:29-32. To solve this
`
`problem, the 526 Patent introduces a storage server that can be used externally for
`
`wireless devices as well as for multimedia applications on the wireless device. Id.,
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 16
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`2:32-37. The 526 Patent notes that “this technology has been briefly introduced in
`
`the prior patent applications.” Id. 2:38-39.
`
`52.
`
`Specifically, the 526 Patent discloses a remote storage that has been
`
`partitioned to accord a predefined storage capacity to a user. Id., 4:1-5.
`
`Partitioning may be accomplished through the use of a web-console on a console
`
`host. Id., 4:5-8. The storage server’s software sends storage information to the
`
`web-console of the console host where the administrator can use the web-console
`
`to partition the storage devices and send partition information to the storage server.
`
`Id., 4:9-18. Upon receiving the partition information from the console host, the
`
`storage server’ support software performs the partitioning by dividing the entire
`
`storage into multiple small volumes so that they can be exclusively assigned to
`
`users. Id., 4:20-31.
`
`53. Moreover, the system of the 526 Patent discloses a method and system
`
`in which a user can employ a web browser on a user device to setup
`
`folder/directory structures in the file system of his or her assigned storage space.
`
`Id., 4:33-37. The user can also use the web browser to perform data management
`
`operations to delete, copy, move and rename data objects in the file system. Id.,
`
`4:37-40. Upon receiving the data management request from the user device, the
`
`storage server’s software modules perform the requested operation on the assigned
`
`file system of the assigned external storage volume of the server. Id., 4:51-55.
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 17
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`54.
`
`The patent describes the steps required to complete the process to
`
`download data from a remote web server into allocated storage volume and depicts
`
`the steps in Figure 3 (below). First, the user of the wireless device accesses a
`
`remote web server site via web browser to obtain information of the data for
`
`downloading (shown in path a below). Id., 5:8-12. Then, the wireless device
`
`obtains the download information for the data, making the data available in the
`
`cached web-pages on the wireless device. Id., 5:13-17. Next, the wireless device
`
`sends the obtained download information to the storage server (shown in path b
`
`below). Id., 5:18-20. Upon receiving the download information, the storage server
`
`sends a web download request to the web site (shown in path c below) based on
`
`download information obtained and receives the downloading streams from the
`
`web server of the web site. Id., 5:21-26. Upon receiving the data streams, the
`
`storage server writes the data streams into the file system of the assigned storage
`
`volume in the server for the wireless device. Id., 5:27-30.
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 18
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`Id., Figure 3.
`
`55.
`
`The patent describes the process involved in retrieving stored data.
`
`To accomplish this, two embodime