Paper No. 1
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Patent No. 10,015,254
`Issued: July 3, 2018
`Filed: December 21, 2015
`
`Inventor: Sheng Tai Tsao
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WIRELESS DEVICE ACCESS TO
`EXTERNAL STORAGE
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01031
`________________________
`PETITION
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 10,015,254
`________________________
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Patent No. 10,015,254
`Issued: July 3, 2018
`Filed: December 21, 2015
`
`Inventor: Sheng Tai Tsao
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WIRELESS DEVICE ACCESS TO
`EXTERNAL STORAGE
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01031
`________________________
`PETITION
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 10,015,254
`________________________
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Certification the 254 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioners ............. 2
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a)) ............................................... 2
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (§ 42.8(b)) .............................................................. 2
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS ....................................... 4
`
`IV. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`
`PATENT .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................. 4
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 4
`
`C. Overview of 254 Patent ......................................................................... 5
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“cache storage . . . ” (Claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 17) .............................. 7
`
`“utilizing information . . .” (Claims 1, 16) .................................. 9
`
`“folder or directory structure” (Claims 6, 7, 19, 20) ................ 11
`
`“configure the wireless device . . . ” (Claim 1) ......................... 12
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 13
`
`A. McCown (EX1005) ............................................................................ 13
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`B.
`
`Dutta (EX1006) .................................................................................. 14
`
`C. Coates (EX1007) ................................................................................ 15
`
`VI. PRECISE REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF .................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1-5, 8, and 16-18 Are Unpatentable Over McCown in View of
`
`Dutta .................................................................................................... 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 1 is Unpatentable ............................................................ 16
`
`Claim 2 is Unpatentable ............................................................ 44
`
`Claim 3 is Unpatentable ............................................................ 46
`
`Claim 4 is Unpatentable ............................................................ 52
`
`Claim 5 is Unpatentable ............................................................ 54
`
`Claim 8 is Unpatentable ............................................................ 55
`
`Claim 16 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 57
`
`Claim 17 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 61
`
`Claim 18 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 62
`
`B.
`
`Claims 6, 7, 19 and 20 Are Unpatentable Over McCown in View of
`
`Dutta, in Further View of Coates ........................................................ 62
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 6 is Unpatentable ............................................................ 62
`
`Claim 7 is Unpatentable ............................................................ 69
`
`Claim 19 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 71
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`4.
`
`Claim 20 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 73
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254 (“the 254 Patent”) claims a system and method
`
`for a wireless device to interact with a remote storage server for remote storage of
`
`files. McCown, a PCT application published more than a year before the priority
`
`date of the 254 Patent, describes exactly such a system and method. In particular,
`
`McCown discloses a user site, which can be, for example, an enhanced cellular
`
`telephone, that can manipulate a remote site and a storage site in order to cause a
`
`file to be downloaded from the remote site and thereby stored in the storage site.
`
`While the 254 Patent mentions a “cache” only once, its claims have several
`
`limitations directed to “cache storage.” While a Skilled Artisan would understand
`
`McCown’s Internet-based system to employ a cache storage, to remove any doubt
`
`and to simplify the issues before the Board, this petition is based on the obvious
`
`combination of McCown and Dutta, a prior art published patent application
`
`directed to the capture and subsequent remote storage of web content using a web
`
`cache.
`
`Finally, several dependent claims are drawn to certain low-level
`
`functionality for manipulating files stored remotely, such as moving, copying or
`
`deleting. A prior art patent to Coates discloses exactly that functionality in great
`
`detail. As demonstrated below and in the exhibits filed herewith, the combination
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`of these prior art references renders claims 1-8, 16-20 of the 254 Patent
`
`unpatentable for obviousness.
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW
`A. Certification the 254 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioners
`
`Petitioners certify that the 254 Patent for which review is sought is available
`
`for inter partes review and Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`inter partes review of the 254 Patent (EX1001) on the grounds identified in this
`
`Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a). Petitioners also certify this petition for inter
`
`partes review is not being filed more than one year from the date of service of a
`
`complaint on Petitioners alleging infringement of a patent. Petitioners also certify
`
`that they have not filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the 254
`
`Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 CFR § 42.15(a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 50-1597.
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (§ 42.8(b))
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`The real parties-in-interest of this petition are Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft”), located at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052, and HP
`
`Inc. (“HP”), located at 1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304.
`
`Lead counsel and backup lead counsel are as follows:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8492
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Scott M. Border
`Reg. No. 77,744
`sborder@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8818
`
`
`Service on Petitioners may be made by email (iprnotices@sidley.com), mail
`
`or hand delivery to: Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
`
`20005. The fax number for lead and backup counsel is (202) 736-8711.
`
`The 254 Patent is or has been the subject to, or relates to, the following
`
`proceedings:
`
`• SynKloud Technologies, LLC v. HP, Inc., 1-19-cv-01360 (D. Del.)
`
`• SynKloud Technologies, LLC v. BLU Products, Inc., 1-19-cv-00553
`(D. Del.)
`
`• SynKloud Technologies, LLC v. Dropbox Inc., 6-19-cv-00526 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`
`• SynKloud Technologies, LLC v. Adobe Inc., 6-19-cv-00527 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`• Microsoft Corp. v. Synkloud Technologies, LLC, 1-20-cv-00007 (D.
`Del.)
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Claims 1-8, 16-20 of the 254 Patent are unpatentable over the prior art as
`
`follows:
`
`i. Claims 1-5, 8, and 16-18 are Obvious under §103 Based on McCown
`in view of Dutta;
`
`ii. Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 are Obvious under §103 Based on McCown in
`View of Dutta, and in Further View of Coates;
`
`IV. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`PATENT
`A.
`Effective Filing Date
`The 254 Patent claims a priority date of December 4, 2003. EX1001, Face.
`
`Petitioners assume that date in its analysis.
`
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the 254 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`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.
`
`EX1003,¶47.
`
`C. Overview of 254 Patent
`The 254 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Wireless Device Access
`
`to External Storage,” EX1001, Face, and describes a device interacting with a
`
`remote storage server for remote storage of data. Id., Abstract. The primary
`
`focuses of the 254 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.,
`
`4:59-5:43.
`
`In the system described in the 254 Patent, 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., 4:33-38. 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., 4:38-41. Upon receiving the data management
`
`request from the user device, the storage server’s software modules perform the
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`requested operation on the assigned file system of the assigned external storage
`
`volume of the server. Id., 4:54-58. The 254 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).
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 3.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`Claims in an inter partes review proceeding are construed according to their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning in light of the specification and file history of the
`
`patent in which those claims appear.
`
`“cache storage . . . ” (Claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 17)
`1.
`The ordinary meaning in the context of the 254 Patent of “cache storage for
`
`caching data received from the Internet” is storage for data received from the
`
`Internet that is more readily accessible by the user or user application than the
`
`original Internet storage location. Similarly, “cache storage” is storage that is
`
`more readily accessible by the user or user application than the original storage
`
`location. EX1003,¶61.
`
`
`
`The 254 Patent uses the word “cache,” or conjugations thereof, only once in
`
`the specification, in its description of Figure 3. EX1001, 5:10-19. Specifically, the
`
`254 Patent discloses that the user accesses a web page via a web browser “to obtain
`
`information for the downloading,” EX1001, 5:10-12, and explains that
`
`“downloading information” can be an “IP address of the remote web site and the
`
`data name for the downloading.” EX1001, 5:13-17. Such information “becomes
`
`available in the cached web-pages on the wireless device (1) after the web-browser
`
`(8) accessing the web site.” EX1001, 5:17-19; see EX1001, Fig. 3; EX1003,¶62;
`
`see also EX1003,¶¶63-64.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`
`
`Dr. Houh explains that a Skilled Artisan would understand from the 254
`
`Patent’s disclosure that a wireless device accesses the remote server site via a web-
`
`browser to obtain information for the data to be downloaded, which is stored into a
`
`cache and later retrieved from the cache in order to indicate what information
`
`should be downloaded or stored. He also explains that a Skilled Artisan would
`
`understand from this disclosure, particularly its use of the word “cache,” that the
`
`download information is 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 for the information, when the user
`
`makes a selection of what information should be downloaded and stored. E.g.,
`
`EX1010; EX1003,¶65.
`
`
`
`That reading is consistent with the understanding of the word “cache” in this
`
`technological field. For example, when used as a noun, the word “cache” is
`
`generally understood to mean “[a] special memory subsystem in which frequently
`
`used data values are duplicated for quick access.” EX1030, 72. The word “cache”
`
`(or “cached”) is also used as a verb to mean storing data close to the user or user
`
`application so that it can be more readily and speedily accessed than the original
`
`storage location. EX1008, 114; EX1003,¶66.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`
`
`The claims of the 254 Patent do not use the word “cache” as a noun and do
`
`not recite any specific type of cache memory or process of caching. Instead, the
`
`claims recite “cache storage for caching data received from the Internet” and “file
`
`cached” (i.e., they use the word “cache” as an adjective modifying the noun
`
`“storage” and “file” and as a verb modifying the terms “data received from the
`
`Internet”). Such a claim term should be interpreted consistent with its grammatical
`
`usage, i.e., to mean a type of “storage” modified by the adjective “cache.”
`
`EX1003,¶67.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, a Skilled Artisan would conclude that the meaning of “cache
`
`storage [for caching data received from the Internet]” in the context of the 254
`
`Patent is storage [for data received from the Internet] that is more readily
`
`accessible by the user or user application than the original storage location.
`
`EX1003,¶68.
`
`“utilizing information . . .” (Claims 1, 16)
`2.
`The ordinary meaning in the context of the 254 Patent of “utilizing
`
`information for the file cached in [the/a] cache storage in the wireless device” is
`
`broad enough to cover using information stored in the cache storage of the wireless
`
`device to download a file from a remote server. EX1003,¶69.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`In context, this claim language relates to a storage operation that causes a
`
`file from a remote server to be stored into an assigned storage space:
`
`the storing data comprising to download a file from a second
`server across a network into the remote storage space through
`utilizing information for the file cached in the cache
`storage in the wireless device.
`
`EX1001, 6:20-24 (emphasis added); EX1003,¶70. Dr. Houh explains, however,
`
`that the phrase is ambiguous as to what information is “cached in [the/a] cache
`
`storage in the wireless device,” i.e., the “information” or the “file”? EX1003,¶71.
`
`The “cache storage” is claimed as part of the wireless device, EX1001,
`
`5:64-66, and the file being downloaded is transferred directly from the remote site
`
`to the assigned storage location. Id., 5:23-28. Indeed, this aspect of the disclosed
`
`system appears to be what the inventors viewed as the allegedly novel aspect of
`
`their invention. EX1002, 64, 110, 137, 177, 215, 245. Moreover, in the disclosed
`
`system, it is the download information that gets stored in the cache of the wireless
`
`device. EX1001, 5:16-19; EX1003,¶72. Accordingly, when read in the context of
`
`the 254 Patent specification, the ordinary meaning of “utilizing information for the
`
`file cached in [the/a] cache storage in the wireless device” is broad enough to
`
`cover using information stored in the cache storage of the wireless device to
`
`download a file from a remote server. EX1003,¶74.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`“folder or directory structure” (Claims 6, 7, 19, 20)
`3.
`The ordinary meaning of “folder or directory structure” is an arrangement of
`
`folders and subfolders (or directories and subdirectories) for holding files.
`
`EX1003,¶75.
`
`The 254 Patent explains that “the user on the web-browser (8) is facilitated
`
`to perform creating structured layered file directories or folders.” EX1001, 3:10-
`
`12. A “folder” is “a means of organizing programs and documents on a disk and
`
`can hold both files and additional folders.” EX1030, 202-203. A “directory” is “a
`
`catalog for filenames and other directories stored on a disk” and may in some
`
`circumstances be considered the same as a “folder.” EX1030, 148-149;
`
`EX1003,¶¶76-78.
`
`“Structure” is defined, for example, as “the arrangement or organization of
`
`parts in a system.” EX1023, 1. The terms “folder” or “directory” modify the term
`
`“structure.” Thus, when combined, a “folder or directory structure” is a structure
`
`of folders or directories. That correlates to the description in the 254 Patent.
`
`EX1001, 3:10-12. EX1003,¶¶79-80.
`
`Accordingly, in the context of the 254 Patent, the ordinary meaning of a
`
`“folder or directory structure” is an arrangement of folders and subfolders (or
`
`directories and subdirectories) for holding files. EX1003,¶81.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`“configure the wireless device . . . ” (Claim 1)
`4.
`The ordinary meaning of “configure the wireless device accessing the
`
`remote storage space” is to enable the wireless device to connect to the remote
`
`storage server such that it is capable of sending data to and receiving data from
`
`said remote storage server. EX1003,¶82.
`
`In context, the claim language relates to the process through which the
`
`wireless device achieves communication capabilities. See EX1001, 6:1-4. A
`
`“wireless device accessing a remote storage space” is claimed in the preamble of
`
`claim 1. EX1001, 5:64. Thus, it is the device in the preamble of claim 1 that is
`
`“configured.” EX1003,¶83.
`
`The 254 Patent uses “configure” or conjugations thereof twice in the
`
`specification. For example, in Figure 1, the 254 Patent explains that “software
`
`modules (9) of the wireless device (1) is also configured capable to send data to or
`
`receive data from the other service modules (7) of the server (3) via
`
`communication link (2) through a suitable IP or non-IP based protocol. EX1001,
`
`3:16-20 (emphasis added). Per the claim language, the configuration step is listed
`
`prior to the step in which the “program instructions for the wireless device
`
`establishing a communication link for accessing the remote storage space.”
`
`EX1001, 6:1-8 (emphasis added). Thus, a Skilled Artisan would understand that
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`the configuration step necessarily entails enabling the wireless link to establish a
`
`communication link as a wireless device must be capable of network connectivity
`
`prior to actually establishing said network connectivity. E.g., EX1015, 2:49-52
`
`(“Once configured, information is exchanged between mobile devices or between
`
`mobile devices and other devices, such as computers, via RF signals, or cable
`
`connections…”); EX1003,¶84. For example, to “configure” is “to set up for
`
`operation in a particular way.” EX1033, 2; EX1003,¶85.
`
`Thus, when read in the context of the 254 Patent specification and the
`
`understood meanings, the ordinary meaning of “configure the wireless device
`
`accessing the remote storage space” is to enable the wireless device to connect to
`
`the remote server such that it is capable of sending data to and receiving data from
`
`the server. EX1003,¶86.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. McCown (EX1005)
`International Publication No. WO 01/67233 to McCown was published on
`
`September 13, 2001, from a PCT Application filed on March 3, 2000. EX1005,
`
`Face. McCown is prior art to the 254 Patent under at least §§102(a), (b) and (e).
`
`McCown describes a system in which “[s]elected files are downloaded
`
`across a network from a remote site into a client’s storage space account
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`established within a storage site.” EX1005, Face. McCown explains that as part of
`
`the remote storage process, a client, operating from a user site (e.g., a wireless
`
`device) on a network, selects files for downloading through use of an input device.
`
`EX1005, 11:4-11. The user site software generates a data request from the user’s
`
`selections which is “sent across the Internet” to the storage site’s software
`
`application. EX1005, 11:20-22. The data request is received by the storage site’s
`
`software application which generates a download request based on user selections.
`
`EX1005, 12:24-25. The download request is provided to the storage site’s web
`
`server which sends it to the remote site’s server. EX1005, 12:25-27. The remote
`
`site’s server receives the download request and responds by downloading the files
`
`to the storage site and storing them into the client’s storage space account.
`
`EX1005, 12:27-13:2.
`
`B. Dutta (EX1006)
`U.S. Publication No. 2002/0078102 to Dutta (“Dutta”) was filed on
`
`December 18, 2000 and was published on June 20, 2002. EX1006, Face. Dutta is
`
`prior art to the 254 Patent under at least §§102(a), (b) and (e).
`
`
`
`Dutta primarily describes the capture and subsequent storage of web content.
`
`EX1006, Abstract. The client receives a file, generally in a Web page, in response
`
`to a request by the user to browse the web page. EX1006,¶[0010]. The captured
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`data of the displayed web page and user parameters are sent to the server from the
`
`client. EX1006,¶[0010]. The server receives the data and automatically stores the
`
`captured data received from the client at the server. EX1006,¶¶[0010]-[0011].
`
`
`
`The client maintains local storage for use by the browser application and
`
`other applications. EX1006,¶[0029]. The browser may store bookmarked files,
`
`browser cache, and various other types of files. EX1006,¶[0029].
`
`C. Coates (EX1007)
`US Patent No. 7,266,555 to Coates was filed on December 8, 2000 and
`
`published on September 4, 2007. EX1007, Face. Coates is prior art to the 254
`
`Patent under at least §102(e).
`
`Coates is directed “toward the field of remote storage, and more particularly
`
`toward accessing remote storage through the use of a local device.” EX1007,
`
`Face, 1:21-24.
`
`Coates discloses a storage port that interfaces a client computer, such as a
`
`web or application server, to a network storage system (see below). EX1007, 3:7-
`
`8. Users only gain access to their media objects within the network storage
`
`system, using a highly secured “shared secret” authentication technology.
`
`EX1007, 4:65-67. The network storage system stores files at one or more storage
`
`centers, remote from the client site. EX1007, 3:8-10. To gain access to content
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`stored at the remote storage center, the client computer mounts the storage port as a
`
`storage device for the client computer. EX1007, 3:10-13. The client computer
`
`issues local file system requests to conduct network storage system operations.
`
`EX1007, 3:13-14. In response, the storage port translates local file system requests
`
`to network storage system requests. EX1007, 3:14-16.
`
`VI. PRECISE REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
`Petitioners demonstrate below that the challenged claims are obvious in
`
`view of McCown in view of Dutta for claims 1-5, 8, and 16-18, and McCown in
`
`view of Dutta in further view of Coates for claims 6, 7, 19 and 20. In order to
`
`improve the clarity of the analysis, the obviousness grounds set out below
`
`incorporate and build upon the basic comparison of the challenged claims to
`
`McCown.
`
`A. Claims 1-5, 8, and 16-18 Are Unpatentable Over McCown in
`View of Dutta
`1.
`Claim 1 is Unpatentable
`a.
`Preamble
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] wireless device accessing a remote
`
`storage space, the wireless device comprising.”
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`The 254 Patent identifies several examples of a “wireless device” including a
`
`“PDA” and a “cell phone,” EX1001, 2:29-33, each of which are disclosed in
`
`McCown. EX1003,¶121.
`
`For example, McCown discloses a user site (“wireless device”) through
`
`which a user may access a remote site (“accessing a remote storage space”). E.g.,
`
`EX1005, 7:26. In particular, McCown explains that the “user site” may be “a
`
`personal computer, workstation, laptop computer, server, palmtop device,
`
`enhanced cellular telephone, or any other machine capable of digital network
`
`communications,” EX1005, 7:27-29 (emphasis added), each of which “can be
`
`connected to the Internet.” EX1005, 2:13-16; EX1003,¶122.
`
`McCown also discloses a preferred embodiment in which “a pair of software
`
`application packages are provided to make the storage space account appear as a
`
`mounted drive to the user site and client.” EX1005, 9:14-16. A storage site
`
`software application is hosted in the storage site and a user site software
`
`application is hosted in each user site. EX1005, 9:16-17. “The storage site
`
`software application and the user site software application may be provided to the
`
`storage site and the user site respectively as computer programs recorded on
`
`information storage media.” EX1005, 9:23-26 (emphasis added); EX1003,¶123.
`
`McCown therefore satisfies this claim element. EX1003,¶124.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`b.
`
`Cache Storage
`
`Claim 1 further recites “a wireless device…comprising: at least one cache
`
`storage for caching data received from the Internet.”
`
`The ordinary meaning of “cache storage for caching data received from the
`
`Internet” is storage for data received from the Internet that is more readily
`
`accessible by the user or user application than the original Internet storage location.
`
`See §IV.D.1, above; EX1003,¶126.
`
`McCown discloses the use of “[a] browser” such as “Internet Explorer” from
`
`Microsoft Corporation and “Netscape Communicator” from Netscape
`
`Communications Corporation. EX1005, 8:5-10. As Dr. Houh explains,
`
`EX1003,¶127, each of these browsers would have been understood to have
`
`included “at least one cache storage for caching data received from the Internet.”
`
`EX1024, 7:8-10 (“Both Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer have
`
`cache memories where HTML, GIFs, MP3, etc. files are cached in a hard disk
`
`directory ); EX1025, 3:3-8 (“[T]he Netscape Communicator browser application
`
`caches web pages on the client. Each cached web page is associated with a URL.
`
`Thus, when the client requests a web page, the Netscape Communicator browser
`
`attempts to use previously cached web pages before downloading the pages from
`
`the web site”).
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`To the extent one might argue that McCown does not sufficiently disclose
`
`“at least one cache storage for caching data received from the Internet,” it would
`
`have been obvious to modify McCown to include one. EX1003,¶128.
`
`For example, McCown explains that “the functionality of the user site
`
`software application may be implemented as part of a browser,” EX1005, 9:22-23,
`
`and depicts such an integration of the browser and the application in Figure 1:
`
`
`
`EX1005, Fig. 1 (annotated); EX1003,¶129.
`
`As Dr. Houh explains, EX1003,¶130, a Skilled Artisan would understand
`
`that the use of a browser cache in wireless devices was well-known in the art by
`
`2003 and would have been motivated to use one in the browser of McCown in
`
`order to provide for the faster retrieval of information. EX1010,¶[0002]
`
`(“Caching is a process that web browsers typically use that provides for faster
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`retrieval of web page content”); EX1011, 1:66-2:1 (“[I]t is common practice for
`
`contemporary web browsers to cache pages accessed by the user”).
`
`McCown therefore discloses or renders obvious the “at least one cache
`
`storage for caching data received from the Internet” limitation of the 254 Patent.
`
`EX1003,¶131.
`
`To the extent one might argue otherwise, it would have been obvious to
`
`combine the browser cache storage technique of Dutta with the system of
`
`McCown. EX1003,¶132.
`
`Dutta, for example, discloses a browser cache in local storage (“at least one
`
`cache storage”) for use by the browser application and other applications (“for
`
`caching data from the Internet”), EX1006, ¶[0029] (“Client maintains local storage
`
`for use by browser application and other applications. Browser may store
`
`bookmark file, browser cache, and various types of files including user-saved
`
`webpages.”) (emphasis added), as depicted in Figure 3:
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`
`
`EX1006, Fig. 3 (annotated). Dr. Houh explains that local storage described in
`
`Dutta would be understood to be a memory because it is a device that stores
`
`information in the disclosed computer system. The portion of that local storage
`
`used for the “browser cache” would be understood to store information so that it is
`
`more readily accessible by the user or user application than the original web server
`
`because it is called a “browser cache.” See EX1030, 72; see also EX1008, 114
`
`(emphasis added); EX1003,¶133.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`In the combined McCown and Dutta system, Dutta’s “browser cache” would
`
`be implemented within either the browser or user site’s software application so as
`
`to be readily accessible by the user site. EX1003,¶134. This combination would
`
`have been obvious for several reasons.
`
`McCown, Dutta and the 254 Patent are analogous art because each is
`
`generally in the field of remote server management and remote data storage. See
`
`EX1005, Abstract (“Selected files are downloaded across a network from a remote
`
`site into a client’s storage space account established within a storage site.”);
`
`EX1006,¶[0002] (“the present invention relates…to a method and apparatus for
`
`multicomputer data processing. Still, more particularly, the present invention
`
`provides a method and apparatus for computer-to-computer data storage.”);
`
`EX1001, Abstract (“Instant application disclosed a system and method for a
`
`storage system providing storage service to the wireless device…”); EX1003,¶135.
`
`McCown, Dutta and the 254 Patent are also analogous art because McCown
`
`and Dutta are each reasonably pertinent to the problem address by the 254 Patent,
`
`i.e., the problem of a lack of storage capacity on user wireless devices. EX1001,
`
`2:29-39; EX1005, 1:9-13; EX1006,¶[0007]; EX1003,¶136.
`
`The combination would have been obvious because it would have been only
`
`the arrangement of old elements (the remote storage system of McCown and the
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`browser cache technique of Dutt
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
