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.
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2020-01031 and IPR2020-01032
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ZAYDOON (“JAY”) JAWADI
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01031 and IPR2020-01032
`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 ................................................................................ 7
`
`V. OPINIONS ........................................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 9, and 16 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown and Dutta ......... 9
`
`a. Claims 1, 9, and 16: Utilizing Information for the File Cached in Cache Storage in the
`Wireless Device ...................................................................................................................... 9
`
`i. Summary of Why McCown in View of Dutta Does Not Disclose Utilizing Download
`Information for the File Cached in Cache Storage in the Wireless Device ...................... 10
`
`Petitioners’ Interpretation of Utilizing Download Information for the File Cached
`ii.
`in Cache Storage in the Wireless Device in the ’254 Patent ............................................. 14
`
`Steps of Utilizing Download Information for the File Cached in Cache Storage in
`iii.
`the Wireless Device in the ’254 Patent ............................................................................. 16
`
`iv. McCown Does Not Disclose, Suggest, or Imply Storing Download Information in
`Cache Storage or Retrieving Download Information from Cache Storage ...................... 16
`
`v.
`
`Dutta Does Not Disclose How Any Data in Its Cache Is Used .............................. 17
`
`vi. Dutta Does Not Disclose, Suggest, or Imply Storing Download Information in
`Cache Storage or Retrieving Download Information from Cache Storage ...................... 19
`
`vii. The Combination of McCown and Dutta Does Not Disclose, Suggest, or Imply
`Storing Download Information in Cache Storage or Retrieving Download Information
`from Cache Storage........................................................................................................... 20
`
`Petitioners Rely Solely on Expert’s Opinion That It Would Have Been Obvious
`viii.
`to Store the Download Information in Cache and to Retrieve the Download Information
`from Cache ........................................................................................................................ 21
`
`Petitioners’ Readily Accessible Theory for the Motivation for Storing the
`ix.
`Download Information in Cache ....................................................................................... 22
`
`x. McCown Contradicts Petitioners’ Theory for the Motivation for Storing the
`Download Information in Cache ....................................................................................... 22
`
`Petitioners’ Description of McCown’s Steps Contradicts Petitioners’ Theory for the
`xi.
`Motivation for Storing the Download Information in Cache............................................ 25
`
`xii. McCown Stores the Files in the Storage Site, Further Negating the Need to Store
`the Download Information in Cache ................................................................................. 28
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`’254 Patent vs. McCown’s Steps of Utilizing Download Information for the File
`xiii.
`Cached in Cache Storage in the Wireless Device ............................................................. 30
`
`xiv. Dutta Does Not Cure McCown’s Deficiencies in Storing Download Information in
`Cache and Retrieving Download Information from Cache .............................................. 33
`
`xv. Petitioners’ Second Purported Reason (Re-Opening the Webpage) to Store
`Download Information in Cache ....................................................................................... 34
`
`xvi. Storing McCown’s URLs in Cache Is Unnecessary, Wasteful, Counterintuitive, and
`Not Obvious ...................................................................................................................... 38
`
`Coates Does Not Cure McCown’s and Dutta’s Deficiencies in Storing Download
`xvii.
`Information in Cache and Retrieving Download Information from Cache ...................... 38
`
`xviii. Utilizing Download Information Stored in Cache: Independent Claims 1, 9, and
`16 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown and Dutta ....................................................... 38
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 3, 10, and 17: Download Information Cached in the Wireless
`b.
`Device ................................................................................................................................... 39
`
`B. Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-20 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown and Dutta
`and Are Not Obvious in View of McCown, Dutta, and Coates ................................................ 40
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................40
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 10,015,254
`
`(“’254 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,
`
`and data storage manufacturing systems and software.
`
`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, which is Exhibit 2002.
`
`19. As such, I am qualified to provide opinions regarding the state of the
`
`art at the time the ’254 Patent was filed (which I understand to be no later than
`
`December 21, 2015, but claiming a priority date of December 4, 2003) and how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at that time would have interpreted
`
`and understood the ’254 Patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`20.
`
`I am being compensated for my work and any travel expenses in
`
`connection with
`
`this proceeding at my standard consulting rates.
`
` My
`
`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 ’254 Patent was filed and at
`
`its priority date, qualified as at least a POSITA.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`22.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I reviewed the ’254 Patent, including its
`
`claims in view of its specification, the prosecution history of the ’254 Patent,
`
`various prior art and technical references from the time of the invention, and the
`
`IPR2020-01031 Petition (“1031 Petition”) and IPR2020-01032 Petition (“1032
`
`Petition”) and their exhibits (Ex. 1001 – Ex. 1036).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`23.
`
`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 two Petitions addressed herein and as a general
`
`matter under United States law, refers to subject matter that would have occurred
`
`to a POSITA to which the ’254 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 ’254 Patent is 2003.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`24.
`
`I reviewed the comments in the two Petitions and Petitioners’ expert’s
`
`declaration (Ex. 1003) pertaining to claim “construction of the claims” of the ’254
`
`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 ’254 Patent and what is excluded by those claims by a reading of
`
`the ’254 Patent and arriving at what, based on that reading, the inventor of the
`
`claimed subject matter intended to protect as her or his invention.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`V. OPINIONS
`
`25.
`
`In the 1031 IPR and the 1032 IPR, Petitioners present two grounds
`
`under which claims of the ’254 Patent are purportedly invalid; in particular,
`
`Petitioners contend that Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-18 are obvious over McCown (Ex.
`
`1005) in view of Dutta (Ex. 1006) and contend that Claims 6-7, 9-15, and 19-20
`
`are unpatentable over McCown (Ex. 1005) in view of Dutta (Ex. 1005) and Coates
`
`(Ex. 1007). 1031 Petition, 4; 1032 Petition, 4.
`
`26.
`
`In the 1031 IPR, Petitioners present two grounds under which claims
`
`of the ’254 Patent are purportedly invalid; in particular, Petitioners contend that
`
`Claims 1-5, 8, 16-18 are obvious over McCown (Ex. 1005) in view of Dutta (Ex.
`
`1006) and contend that Claims 6-7 and 19-20 are unpatentable over McCown (Ex.
`
`1005) in view of Dutta (Ex. 1005) and Coates (Ex. 1007). 1031 Petition, 4.
`
`27.
`
`In the 1032 IPR, Petitioners present two grounds under which claims
`
`of the ’254 Patent are purportedly invalid; in particular, Petitioners contend that
`
`Claims 9-13 and 15 are obvious over McCown (Ex. 1005) in view of Dutta (Ex.
`
`1006) and contend that Claims 9-15 are unpatentable over McCown (Ex. 1005) in
`
`view of Dutta (Ex. 1005) and Coates (Ex. 1007). 1032 Petition, 4.
`
`28.
`
`In my opinion, as described below, Petitioners have not established a
`
`reasonable basis to conclude that the claims of the ’254 Patent are obvious.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 9, and 16 Are Not Obvious in View of
`McCown and Dutta
`
`29. Petitioners contend that independent Claims 1, 9, and 16 are obvious
`
`over McCown (Ex. 1005) in view of Dutta (Ex. 1006). 1031 Petition, 4; 1032
`
`Petition, 4. I disagree for the reasons outlined below.
`
`a. Claims 1, 9, and 16: Utilizing Information for the File Cached
`in Cache Storage in the Wireless Device
`
`30.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 9, and 16 of the ’254 Patent recite utilizing
`
`information for the file cached in [a/the] cache storage in the [first] wireless
`
`device.
`
`“1. A wireless device accessing a remote storage space, the wireless
`device comprising: at least one cache storage for caching data
`received from the Internet, . . . utilizing information for the file cached
`in the cache storage in the wireless device.” ’254, Claim 1
`
`“9. A server for delivering storage service, comprising: . . . utilizing
`information for the file cached in a cache storage in the first wireless
`device.” Id., Claim 9
`
`“16. A method for a wireless device accessing a remote storage space,
`the method comprising actions performed by the wireless device,
`including: . . . utilizing information for the file cached in a cache
`storage in the wireless device.” Id., Claim 16
`
`31. For clarity’s sake, in this declaration, I will refer to “information” in
`
`the context of utilizing information for the file cached in cache storage in the
`
`wireless device as “download information.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`32. For simplicity’s and clarity’s sake, in this declaration, I will refer to
`
`“utilizing information for the file cached in [a/the] cache storage in the [first]
`
`wireless device” as “utilizing download information for the file cached in cache
`
`storage in the wireless device.”
`
`i. Summary of Why McCown in View of Dutta Does Not
`Disclose Utilizing Download Information for the File
`Cached in Cache Storage in the Wireless Device
`
`33.
`
`In the following sections, I will show that McCown, alone or in view
`
`of Dutta, does not disclose utilizing information for the file cached in cache storage
`
`in the wireless device. Below is a summary of the sections that follow.
`
`34. Petitioners proffer an interpretation of utilizing download information
`
`for the file cached in cache storage in the wireless device in the ’254 patent.
`
`35. Petitioners’ interpretation of utilizing download information for the
`
`file cached in cache storage in the wireless device in the ’254 patent involves four
`
`steps that include storing download information in cache storage and retrieving
`
`download information from cache storage.
`
`36. McCown does not disclose cache, and McCown does not disclose,
`
`suggest, or imply storing download information in cache storage or retrieving
`
`download information from cache storage.
`
`37. Dutta does not disclose, teach, or suggest how the data in its cache is
`
`used, let alone that it is used “to download a file from a second server across a
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`network into the remote storage space through utilizing information for the file
`
`cached in the cache storage in the wireless device,” as recited in Claim 1 of the
`
`‘254 patent and as similarly recited in the other independent claims.
`
`38. Dutta does not disclose download information, and Dutta does not
`
`disclose, suggest, or imply storing download information in cache storage or
`
`retrieving download information from cache storage.
`
`39. The combination of McCown and Dutta does not disclose, suggest, or
`
`imply storing download information in cache storage or retrieving download
`
`information from cache storage.
`
`40. Petitioners provide no evidence from McCown or Dutta to show
`
`storing download information in cache storage or retrieving download information
`
`from cache storage. Instead, Petitioners rely solely on expert’s opinion that it
`
`would have been obvious to store the download information in cache and to
`
`retrieve the download information from cache.
`
`41. Petitioners’ theory for the motivation for storing the download
`
`information in cache is that storing the download information in cache would make
`
`the download information more readily accessible and more quickly retrievable.
`
`42. McCown, including McCown’s steps that purportedly disclose
`
`utilizing information for the file cached in cache storage in the wireless device,
`
`contradicts petitioners’ theory for the motivation for storing the download
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`information in cache. McCown describes that the URLs (download information)
`
`are used only once by the user (negating the need to store the URLs in cache), and
`
`McCown provides no reason to store the URLs (download information) at the
`
`wireless device (whether in cache or otherwise).
`
`43. Petitioners proffer a description of McCown’s steps that purportedly
`
`disclose utilizing information for the file cached in cache storage in the wireless
`
`device. Petitioners’ description of these McCown’s steps contradicts petitioners’
`
`theory for the motivation for storing the download information in cache.
`
`Petitioners’ description of McCown shows that the McCown URLs (download
`
`information) are used only once by the user and provides no reason to store the
`
`URLs (download information) at the wireless device (whether in cache or
`
`otherwise).
`
`44. McCown provides another reason for why the URLs are not needed
`
`again by the user, namely that the files pointed to by the URLs will be stored in the
`
`storage site, negating the need to store the download information in cache at the
`
`wireless devices.
`
`45. Petitioners’
`
`interpretation of
`
`the steps of utilizing download
`
`information for the file cached in cache storage in the wireless device in the ’254
`
`Patent are different from McCown’s steps (as interpreted by Petitioners) that
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`purportedly disclose utilizing download information for the file cached in cache
`
`storage in the wireless device.
`
`46. Dutta does not cure McCown’s deficiencies in storing download
`
`information in cache and retrieving download information from cache.
`
`47. Petitioners’ other purported reason (re-opening the webpage) to store
`
`download information in cache is also unavailing, because the URLs (download
`
`information) are not needed again in McCown and because the files pointed to by
`
`the URLs are stored at the storage site. Thus, the combination of McCown and
`
`Dutta would not have taught utilizing download information for a file in a cache of
`
`a wireless device remotely at a first server for a remote storage site to download
`
`the file from a second server (e.g., web site) to the remote storage site, as required
`
`by each independent claim of the ’254 patent.
`
`48. Storing McCown’s URLs
`
`in cache
`
`is unnecessary, wasteful,
`
`counterintuitive, and not obvious.
`
`49. Coates does not cure McCown’s and Dutta’s deficiencies in storing
`
`download information in cache and retrieving download information from cache.
`
`50. For at least all these reasons, McCown, alone or in view of Dutta (or
`
`Dutta and Coates) does not disclose utilizing information for the file cached in
`
`cache storage in the wireless device.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`ii. Petitioners’ Interpretation of Utilizing Download
`Information for the File Cached in Cache Storage in the
`Wireless Device in the ’254 Patent
`
`51. Petitioners proffer an interpretation of utilizing download information
`
`for the file cached in cache storage in the wireless device in the ’254 patent.
`
`52. Petitioners argue that use of the word “cache” indicates 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.” 1031
`
`Petition, 8; 1032 Petition, 8.
`
`53. Petitioners also argue that the meaning of the phrase “utilizing
`
`information for the file cached in [a/the] cache storage in the [first] wireless
`
`device” “is broad enough to cover using information stored in the cache storage of
`
`the [first] wireless device to download a file from a remote server.” 1031 Petition,
`
`10; 1023 Petition, 11.
`
`54. The prior art would not have taught the claim limitation “utilizing
`
`information for the file cached in [a/the] cache storage in the [first] wireless
`
`device,” under Petitioners’ definition of that phrase.
`
`55. Petitioners state that “The URLs are “information” because they
`
`indicate what files are available for download and also because they are a
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`mechanism (e.g., an address) used to locate and download those files.” 1031
`
`Petition, 39; 1031 Petition, 36; emphasis in original.
`
`56. Petitioners’ interpretation of the ’254 Patent’s recitation of utilizing
`
`download information for the file cached in cache storage in the wireless device is
`
`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.” 1031 Petition, 8, emphasis added. Petitioners’
`
`interpretation of the ’254 Patent’s disclosure regarding utilizing download
`
`information for the file cached in cache storage in the wireless device is stated
`
`differently in the 1032 Petition as a “wireless device accesses the remote server site
`
`via a web browser to obtain information for the data to be downloaded. The
`
`wireless device then stores this download information into a cache in the form
`
`of a web page, and later retrieves it [the download information] from the
`
`cache and sends it to the storage server, in order to indicate what information
`
`should be downloaded or stored.” 1032 Petition, 8, emphasis added.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`iii. Steps of Utilizing Download Information for the File
`Cached in Cache Storage in the Wireless Device in the
`’254 Patent
`
`57. Based on the above excerpts from the 1031 Petition and 1032 Petition,
`
`utilizing download information for the file cached in cache storage in the wireless
`
`device involves the following steps:
`
`58. Step 1: The wireless device accesses the remote server site via a web-
`
`browser to obtain the download information.
`
`59. Step 2: The wireless device stores the download information into a
`
`cache.
`
`60. Step 3: The wireless device
`
`later retrieves the download
`
`information from the cache and sends the retrieved download information to the
`
`storage server.
`
`61. Step 4: The download information is then used to download the file
`
`(pointed to by the download information) to the storage server.
`
`iv. McCown Does Not Disclose, Suggest, or Imply Storing
`Download Information in Cache Storage or Retrieving
`Download Information from Cache Storage
`
`62. McCown does not disclose, suggest, or imply storing download
`
`information in cache storage or retrieving download information from cache
`
`storage. Indeed, McCown does not even mention the term cache.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`63.
`
`Indeed, according to Petitioners, “McCown does not explicitly
`
`disclose that the URLs identifying files available for download from the remote
`
`site (“information”) are “cached in [[the/a]/a] cache storage in the [first] wireless
`
`device[.]”” 1031 Petition, 40, 60; 1031 Petition, 37.
`
`v. Dutta Does Not Disclose How Any Data in Its Cache Is
`Used
`
`64. Dutta does not disclose, teach, or suggest how the data in its cache is
`
`used, let alone that it is used “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,” as recited in Claim 1 of the
`
`‘254 patent and as similarly recited in the other independent claims.
`
`65. Dutta mentions cache only five times: at FIG. 2, at FIG. 3, at ¶ [0029],
`
`at ¶ [0036], and at ¶ [0043]. However, as I elaborate below, Dutta does not
`
`disclose the way that the cache is used or the data in the cache is used in any of
`
`these five instances.
`
`66. Dutta’s FIG. 2 merely cites “BROWSER CACHE 216” but does not
`
`disclose the purpose of the cache.
`
`67. Dutta’s FIG. 3 merely cites “BROWSER CACHE 316” but does not
`
`disclose the purpose of the cache.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`68. Dutta at ¶ [0029] refers to FIG. 2 and states that the browser may store
`
`a browser cache but does not provide any purpose, function, or utility for the data
`
`that is in the browser cache. Dutta at ¶ [0029] is reproduced below.
`
`“[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.” Ex. 1006, Dutta ¶ [0029],
`emphasis added
`
`69. Dutta at ¶ [0036] refers to FIG. 3 and states that the browser may store
`
`a browser cache but provides no purpose, function, or utility for the data that is in
`
`the browser cache. 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
`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.” Ex.
`1006, Dutta ¶ [0036], emphasis added
`
`70. Dutta at ¶ [0043] refers to “cookie cache,” which is different from a
`
`browser cache and is unrelated to the ’254 Patent. Dutta at ¶ [0043] is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`“[0043] Server-side storage configuration preferences 426 depict
`various fields that a user may use to specify the parameters may be
`needed by a server that operates the server-side functionality of the
`present invention. Entry field 428 allows a user specify the location of
`the server to which captured data should be pushed for storage and
`processing. Entry fields 430 and 432 allow a user to specify a user
`identity and password for a user account at the server specified within
`entry field 428. The browser will forward this information to the
`server in order to obtain authorization for the user to perform various
`processes at the server. It should be understood that various
`mechanism may be used to authenticate a user, such as using a cookie
`mechanism placed in the client's cookie cache by the server,
`depending upon the level of security desired by the operator of the
`server.” Ex. 1006, Dutta ¶ [0043], emphasis added
`
`In other words, Dutta discloses that a browser in a client machine may
`
`71.
`
`store a browser cache, but Dutta does not integrate the cache in the Dutta
`
`invention; it does not disclose how the data in its browser cache may be used for
`
`any purpose, function, or utility in the Dutta system.
`
`vi. Dutta Does Not Disclose, Suggest, or Imply Storing
`Download Information in Cache Storage or Retrieving
`Download Information from Cache Storage
`
`72. Dutta does not disclose, suggest, or imply storing download
`
`information in cache storage or retrieving download information from cache
`
`storage. Indeed, Dutta does not disclose download information at all.
`
`73. Petitioners argue that “[t]o 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.” 1031 Petition, 20, 60-61, 1032 Petition, 39.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`74. Even assumi