`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 27
`Entered: September 21, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 2, 2021
`_____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`JOSEPH A. MICALLEF, ESQUIRE
`Sidley Austin, LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`# 600
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`DR. GREGORY GONSALVES, ESQUIRE
`Capitol IP Law Group, PLLC
`
`1918 18th Street, N.W.
`Unit 4
`Washington, D.C. 20009
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`September 2, 2021, commencing at 1:00 p.m., EDT, at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, by video/by telephone, before Julie Souza, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` - - - - -
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon. This is the
`
`consolidated hearing for IPR 2020- 01031 and IPR 2020- 01032
`between Petitioner Microsoft and HP and Patent Owner Synkloud
`involving U.S. patent No. 10,015,254. I am Judge Sally Medley
`and with me are Judges Lynne Pettigrew and Scott Raevsky. At
`this time we'd like the parties to please introduce counsel for the
`record beginning with Petitioner.
`
`MR. MICALLEF: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your
`Honor. This is Joe Micallef from Sidley Austin for Petitioner
`Microsoft and with me today who will not be arguing is my
`partner Scott Border, also from Sidley Austin.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: T hank you. And for Patent Owner.
`
`DR. GONSALVES: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My
`name is Dr. Gregory Gonsalves and I'll be representing Patent
`Owner Synkloud, LLC.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. I would like to
`remind the parties that this hearing is open to the public and the
`resulting transcript will be available to the public as well. Each
`party has 40 minutes total time to present their arguments.
`Petitioner, you'll proceed first and you may reserve some of your
`argument time to respond to arguments presented by Patent
`Owner. Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner's
`presentation and may reserve argument time for surrebuttal.
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`Petitioner, do you wish to reserve some of your time to respond?
`
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to
`reserve ten minutes. Thank you.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. And for Patent
`Owner, would you like to reserve time?
`
`DR. GONSALVES: Yes, please. Ten minutes also.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. Petitioner, when
`you're ready you may proceed.
`
`MR. MICALLEF: Thank you, Your Honors. I assume that
`Your Honors have copies of our demonstratives. I would like to
`allude to them or refer to them and kind of walk through them to
`discuss the various issues that I've raised. There are probably
`more slides here than I would use. I will certainly direct you to
`the ones I'm talking about but I'm happy to jump around and
`respond to any questions that the panel may have.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. Yes, we have your
`demonstratives and if you could just indicate for the record
`which slide you're referring to.
`
`MR. MICALLEF: Of course. I'd like to start with slide 2
`which is just a listing of the grounds that are at issue in these
`two proceedings. As you mentioned, both proceedings are
`directed to the same patent. They are also -- the petitions in both
`proceedings are based on the same prior art combinations. The
`basic combination is a combination of McCown and Dutta and
`for certain dependent claims the combination is McCown, Dutta
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`and Coates. I'd like to start out by noting that this analysis in
`these proceedings is nearly identical to an earlier IPR against a
`related patent that was IPR 2020- 00316, the final written
`decision in which was issued in June 14th of this year and many
`of the arguments and issues that are raised in these proceedings
`were raised and addressed in that proceeding final written
`decision, not necessarily all of them but the vast majority of
`them. So just for the panel's convenience I will note when that
`prior final written decision which involved not only a related
`patent but a patent with an identical specification and nearly
`identical claims so I'll note when those issues have been
`addressed by the PTAB in the past. What I'd like to do is just do
`a very brief overview of the 254 patent, a brief overview of the
`prior art relied on in the petition and the analysis advanced there
`and then I'll address the patentability issues.
`If I could direct your attention to slide 5 of Petitioner's
`demonstratives. This is just the base of the '254 patent. It's to a
`Mr. Tsao entitled "System and Method for Wireless Device
`Access to External Storage." The underlying application was
`filed in 2015 but it claims priority to the file 2003.
`If you could look at the next slide, slide 6. I have here
`claim 1 but more specifically figure 3 of the '254 patent which I
`think is useful just to use as an overview of the claimed
`functionality. In the disclosed system there's essentially three
`parts. There's a wireless device that's used by a user and that's at
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`the right hand side of this figure 3 labeled 1. There is a
`download site labeled 15 at the top of that figure and then there
`is a storage server and storage system which sort of act together
`here and it's in the lower left hand labeled 3 and 10. So what the
`specification describes is that the download site may have some
`files that the user of the wireless device may want to download
`and so the user of the wireless device contacts the download site
`via that path A, that dotted arrowed line in the upper right and
`obtains information about the files that are available to download
`and the information and the example in the specification is URLs
`identifying where on the internet these slides are. The wireless
`device passes this information, or some of it, the URLs via path
`B to the storage site server indicating that the user would like
`those files downloaded and stored in the previously set up
`storage account and the storage server, the storage server then
`uses that information via path C that acts as the download site to
`request and receive the files via download over the internet and
`thereafter stores them in a storage system in the pre-allocated
`storage account of the user.
`So if I can move to the prior art at issue here. If I can ask
`you to look at slide 8 of our demonstratives. The basic reference
`is a PCT application by McCown. It was published in 2001. It's
`102(b) prior art. I don't think there's any dispute here about any
`of the references that we're relying on being prior art.
`If you look at the next slide, well the next few slides.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`We'll start with slide 9. McCown discloses an extremely similar
`system as the '254 patent. You can see figure 1 on this slide,
`McCown has three components basically at the bottom labeled
`130 as a user site that McCown says could be a cellular
`telephone, a smart telephone. Now up in the upper right hand
`corner there is labeled 140 there is a component that is both a
`storage server and a storage system, if you will. Then in the
`upper left hand corner you can see there's a component labeled
`110 that is a download site that includes a number of files that
`are available for download. So what happens as described in
`McCown is the download site has a list of files available for
`download that's labeled 116. You can see we've annotated this
`figure surrounded in red. The user site makes a request for that
`list of files at the download site over the internet.
`If you go to the next slide, slide 10. The download site
`then sends the list of files available for download back to the
`user site in the form of a web page listing the URLs and perhaps
`some other information about each of the files that is available
`for download and McCown says that there is a browser at the
`user site and that this functionality that we're talking about here
`can be encompassed or included in the web browser at that site
`and in fact McCown discloses two possible browsers that could
`be used that were commercially available browsers at the time
`and at slide 10 you can see I have that portion. McCown, it's
`Internet Explorer and Netscape communicator and I think if you
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`read the briefing you saw that we proved and I don't think it's
`disputed that each of those commercially available browsers at
`the time included a web cache.
`So if you turn to slide 11. McCown discloses that the user
`can select files from the list of files and he selects one or more.
`So it can be as few as one or it can be all of them and causes the
`user site software to send a request to the storage site that the
`storage site download those identified files and that request
`would move (phonetic) the URLs of the selected file or files.
`If you go to slide 12. McCown explains that the storage
`site web server then uses those URLs or URL to make the request
`to the storage site web server for the selected files and if you go
`to slide 13 the selected files are transmitted back to the storage
`site downloaded over the internet and stored in the user's
`predefined preexisting storage account at the storage site and
`storage system.
`So on slide 14 I just have the front of another patent which
`is our secondary reference in figure 3. We cited Dutta primarily
`for the disclosure of a browser cache. Again, I don't think
`there's any dispute that Dutta is prior art. It's a published U.S.
`patent application filed in 2000 issued, or published in 2002 so I
`don't think there's any suggestion that it's not prior art.
`If I can ask you to look at slide 15. So the petition defined
`the combination of McCown and Dutta very specifically. In
`particular the combination included using the browser cache of
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`Dutta in the system of McCown and also, importantly, storing the
`download information that is the list of URLs, the web page
`listing the URLs, of available files for download in that browser
`cache. That was the combination that was defined in the petition
`so that's the combination in both petitions at least, that's
`obviously the combination that's at issue here.
`So slide 16, I've just in kind of bullet form listed the
`various reasons the petition lists for justifying the combination
`of McCown and Dutta. I don't think Patent Owner takes -- while
`they some issue with combining I don't think they take any of
`these on specifically. I'm happy to answer questions about them
`and I will get into a little bit more detail later. But this slide is
`just here to show that we put in a number of reasons to justify
`the combination and I think for the most part they're not really
`getting to (indiscernible.) If I can get you to turn to slide 18 so
`you can just skip slide 17 and go to slide 18.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Excuse me. I have a question before
`you move on to the Coates reference.
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: With respect to claim 13 that seems to
`be at issue in the cases, at least from the 1032 case that is.
`Patent Owner says that you haven't specifically accounted for the
`limitations of claim 13. Could you explain what claim 13
`requires and then walk us through your alternative showings for
`claim 13, please.
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`
`MR. MICALLEF: Sure. So claim 13 requires that -- it's
`program instructions configuring server to control delivering the
`storage service, comprised program instructions for the server to
`send information of a plurality of storage devices to a web
`console for partition of each of said storage devices for creating
`the storage space and the petition in 1032 addressed that claim in
`three different ways. It argued that the combination of McCown
`and Dutta disclosed that because the server had instructions for
`sending information back to the user site including for setting up
`the account and for logging into the account and that satisfied
`the language of this claim. Secondly we argued --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Well, that's where I had a question
`about that. So the claim language is I guess pertinent for the
`showing is that the server sends information of the plurality of
`storage devices to a web console for partitioning in each of the
`storage devices for creating a storage space, so it seems to me
`that language requires that the server is sending information
`about the plurality of storage devices to a web console and then
`the web console is then partitioning each of the storage devices
`for creating storage space. So I'm not clear on how the web
`console which isn't particularly the user, why would the user
`divide up all of the -- why does he care about the storage spaces
`of the plurality of storage devices? If you can explain.
`MR. MICALLEF: Well, I'm not so sure that -- yes. I'm
`sorry. I didn't mean to talk over you, Your Honor.
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Oh, no. I'm not clear -- the language is
`not super clear but I'm just kind of struggling with what the
`language means and how you've met that language.
`MR. MICALLEF: Right. The language -- I can see why
`you think it's unclear. So I don't think that that language should
`be construed to require sending all of the information of said
`plurality of storage devices. I think information of said plurality
`of storage devices can be any of the information related to the
`plurality of storage devices.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: (Indiscernible.)
`MR. MICALLEF: And I think that's what we were -- I
`think if it's of the plurality, yes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So information -- the server is sending
`information of just the one that is sent to the browser of the user,
`that satisfies plurality, information of the plurality?
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes. That's what our initial theory,
`initial analysis in the petition, the one of three are. And that is
`the one --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And so the user would be the one that
`would -- would the user then be the one to take that information,
`if I had information about myself and then I would partition, it
`said partition each of the storage devices for creating the storage
`spaces?
`MR. MICALLEF: Well, it says for partitioning. It doesn't
`say that the web console does the partitioning. But it says you
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`send the information for partition and that's kind of, you know,
`not very good English I guess the way I put it, but it doesn't say
`that the web console does the partitioning. It just says you're
`sending this information for that purpose. So our initial analysis
`would be well, if you're signing up for a storage account that's
`going to be done. There's going to be information sent of the
`plurality of storage spaces for the purpose of partitioning.
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Counsel --
`MR. MICALLEF: But I think that's how --
`JUDGE RAEVSKY: Oh, okay. So is your view for
`partition as limiting or do you view that as really an intended use
`limitation?
`MR. MICALLEF: I'm not so sure I would say that a use
`limitation is necessarily not limiting. I think it probably is
`limiting and our analysis was that it's a purpose so you'd have to
`send the information for that purpose. I think that would be
`limiting.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Well, I think your friend across the
`aisle there, I think the way that they're construing this is that
`they keep referring back to their specification where you have a
`-- I can't remember how the specification what they call this
`person but like an administrator that has a console, web console.
`They go into the computer and they set up different accounts for
`different users and I believe that's how they are equating this
`language and what that -- what the claim language requires.
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes. They haven't asked for an
`interpretation of that and the claim just does not say where the
`web console is. The claim doesn't say that and that was always
`our objection to that, that the claim doesn't say that and they
`haven't asked for an interpretation of that and we've put in a
`what we think the ordinary meaning of web console is in support
`of some evidence so I think the claim as drafted is broader.
`That's our argument. I would say that's our first argument.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Well, why don't you focus on
`the combination, maybe of McCown and Dutta or McCown
`without -- and all three of those is the web console, is it what's
`shown in, let's see, in McCown figure 1? Is it the browser that's
`what you're saying is the web console in all three alternatives?
`MR. MICALLEF: I think for the second it is and I'm
`blanking on the third, Your Honor, and I apologize. No, actually
`I think with Dutta we pointed to the third argument on this, I
`think we pointed to Dutta's storage server actually doing the
`partitioning and therefore the web console at that site.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Could you point to where that
`explanation is?
`MR. MICALLEF: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Could you please explain where that is
`in your -- I'm looking at page 55 of the petition. Maybe that's --
`it's in there.
`MR. MICALLEF: That's where it starts. That's right.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`Page 55 of the petition.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So it says a storage server partitions
`and allocates a (indiscernible.) So the storage server would be
`the web console in this example?
`MR. MICALLEF: That's right.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. I have no further
`questions on claim 13. Thank you for your responses. That
`clarifies things for me. Appreciate it.
`MR. MICALEFF: You're welcome, Your Honor. So I was
`about to go to the Coates reference and that combination but just
`to save time because I don't really think there's anything
`disputed on Coates. It's prior art, it discloses some remote file
`and folder manipulation functionality. We argued it can be
`combined with McCown and Dutta. I don't think the Patent
`Owner disputes any of that. Happy to answer questions about it
`but just to save time what I'd like to do is go forward and treat
`the specific issues that were raised.
`So I guess first if I could have you look at slide 22 of
`Petitioner's demonstratives. So this is I think the only claim
`construction issue that was raised by Patent Owner. I note that
`this exact same issue was raised in the 316 IPR that I referred to
`earlier and it was -- Patent Owner's arguments were addressed
`and rejected in the final written decision in that proceeding at
`page 10 and just to give you a little bit of a background to this. I
`think it's really a non- issue.
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`
`We offered an interpretation of this language utilizing
`information for the file cache and the cache storage because we
`thought there was probably a latent grammatical ambiguity and
`that is if you read it strictly, the grammar would suggest that it is
`the file that is cached and not the information for the file that is
`cached. But I think both parties agree that in the specification
`what gets cached is the information and so this is sort of a minor
`garden variety grammatical ambiguity. That's what I'm calling
`it. So we just put an interpretation in that we clarified that.
`Paten Owner put in this much more detailed interpretation which
`I think we've said sounds exactly like ours and what the Board
`has adopted for this language both in the Institution decision
`here and in the prior proceeding.
`But they've included this word needed. They think this
`information for downloading, or excuse me, information for the
`file or download information should be construed to be
`information needed to download, and we object to that. That's a
`much more narrow interpretation. I don't think it matters
`because they say -- they point to URLs and the specification
`example of that and they say URLs are needed to download
`(phonetic) and in the petition we point to the URLs of McCown.
`So I think this is a tempest in a teapot but I also don't think it's
`appropriate to adopt a narrow construction that's not required by
`the intrinsic record and is very different from the claim
`language. So that's where we are here. I think in the Institution
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`decision you agreed with us and in the 316 IPR you would also
`rejected this Patent Owner's interpretation. If I could get you to
`look at --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Excuse me, I'm sorry. Before you
`move on. Claim construction with respect to cache storage. You
`raised that in your petition. You raised a proposed construction
`and as I recall we adopted that and then I think that --
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: -- it's my understanding that Patent
`Owner did not say anything in their response but in their surreply
`they seemed to be arguing for a definition in their surreply, page
`4 I believe. I just wanted to get your take on what, you know,
`what your response is to that?
`MR. MICALLEF: Well, my first response is, and I'm going
`to pull up the exact document while I'm talking. But my first
`response is, you know, it's waived if it's in the surreply first. I
`mean that's the first time they've raised it. That's my
`understanding of the rules.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So your understanding is they can't
`come in at the eleventh hour like they did and propose this claim
`construction of the three basic cache principles that they appear
`to be inserting into the claim language? Your position is it's too
`late?
`
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes, that's right. Yes, I think the
`scheduling order says that, that if it's not in the Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`response you've waived it and so I think it should be waived.
`But, you know, so what the petition showed was that McCown
`says you could use either of these two commercially available,
`this is my second argument, either of these two commercially
`available browsers, Internet Explorer and Netscape
`Communicator. We showed that each of them necessarily
`included a cache. So if they're in the surreply pointing to things
`that are, if you will, necessarily part of the cache, that is
`structures or characteristics that are necessarily part of the cache
`then McCown has that because it has a cache, and so does Dutta
`because it has a cache and if they're pointing to things that are
`not necessarily --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So you would say that because the word
`cache is used or cache storage in Dutta, for example, that it
`meets their construction?
`MR. MICALLEF: I would say -- my argument has two
`parts. If what they're saying is necessarily and always part of a
`cache, yes. If what they're saying is not necessarily and always
`part of the cache, then it shouldn't be read into the claim word
`cache. It's improper. That's not the ordinary meaning. That 's
`what I say.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. MICALLEF: Uh-huh. So I think I was asking you to
`take a look at slide 24 of Petitioner's demonstratives. I think this
`is probably one of the only new arguments, unless I'm
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`misremembering the 316 IPR and in this argument you can see on
`the slide in the upper left hand corner, they state that McCown
`teaches obtaining the URLs that's on that web page of URLs in
`McCown from the wireless device web page display and then
`they make an argument about how that functionality would not
`satisfy the claim. First of all, McCown never says that the URLs
`are obtained from the display. It does say that the user -- that
`they are displayed to the user and it does say that the user, that
`they are displayed to the user and it does say that the user can
`use the mouse to select one or more of them by clicking on the
`screen. But that doesn't mean that the URLs are obtained from
`the display. Quite apart from that, in the combination analyzed
`in the petition the URLs are expressly and explicitly obtained
`from the cache, not the display. So the petition of course is the
`master of the proceedings here and that's the combination that's
`at issue and that's the combination that Patent Owner was
`required to address. It did not do so. It came up with its own
`theory of what it wanted to address which is a strawman and has
`ignored the analysis of the petition so this argument should be
`rejected on that basis alone and also because that's not what
`McCown says and they don't cite anything.
`Now, if I could have you look at slide 25. I'm just going to
`walk through a number of arguments that were raised in the
`Patent Owner response and which were also raised in the 316 and
`rejected. I'm happy to stop and discuss any one of them. The
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`first one here on this slide you see in the left hand corner, they
`made this same argument verbatim in the 316 and it's just
`treating the different references, the combinations separately and
`here they say Dutta does not disclose this or Dutta does not
`disclose that as far as reasons to combine and as we pointed out
`there's no requirement that Dutta disclose a reason to combine
`McCown and Dutta. It can come from really anything in the
`prior art, any prior art motivation reason to combine. This same
`issue was raised in the 316 and at the final written decision in
`that proceeding at pages 28 to 29 the Board rejected this
`argument and agrees (phonetic).
`If I can get you to look at the next slide, slide 26. Here
`Patent Owner argues that McCown retrieves the download
`information, that's the web page of URLs all at once and sends it
`to the storage server. That is inaccurate. That is a factually
`inaccurate prioritization in McCown. McCown retrieves the web
`page of URLs from the download site. The user selects one or
`more and then the one or more selected URLs are sent to the
`storage server. So this is just not an accurate depiction or
`description of what McCown discloses and so that inaccurate
`functionality is really not an issue and not in this record. It's not
`relevant and I note on this slide in the lower left hand corner I
`put the portion of McCown where it explicitly says that the client
`selects one file at a time and you can see that in Exhibit 1005,
`column (indiscernible.) Once again, this exact argument in this
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`identical language was raised in the 316 IPR and the final written
`decision rejected it at page 36. If I can turn to the next slide 27.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Just to let you know you have a little
`under nine minutes total time left.
`MR. MICALLEF: So I'm cutting into my -- I guess I'm into
`my rebuttal time, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes.
`MR. MICALLEF: Well, I think the only other issue I'll
`take up because I'm not so sure it was briefed sufficiently in the
`316 or decided -- wasn't decided in the 316 I don't think was this
`notion that Patent Owner argues that the combination of McCown
`and Dutta require major architectural changes and that would
`dissuade the combination. They don't ever identify what those
`architectural changes would be or analyze why they would be so
`substantial as to discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art
`from making the combination. So they don't really, and their
`expert says it but he never explains it so it's ipse dixit. But aside
`from that, it's just not credible. McCown already has a cache;
`okay? So the part of the stimulation functionality would say
`these could be changed because if you add a cache it already
`operates with a cache. The same with Coates. The drag and
`drop functionality, Coates has a cache and it uses it with this
`drag and drop functionality that we cited in the petition. So
`there'd be no need to change that by adding Coates to the
`McCown and Dutta system. So and we have other arguments
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01031 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`IPR2020-01032 (Patent 10,015,254 B1)
`
`about this in the papers and I'll stand on that, and with that
`unless there are other questions I'd like to reserve the rest of my
`time.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Nothing further from me. Do either of
`the other judges have questions?
`MR. MICALLEF: Okay.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. So you have
`approximately seven minutes left.
`MR. MICALLEF: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And Patent Owner, counsel for Patent
`Owner. Just one minute. I'll reset my clock here. I'm ready
`when you are.
`DR. GONSALVES: My name is Dr. Gregory Gonsalves
`representing Patent Owner Synkloud. I've turned my microphone
`back on. Hopefully everyone can hear me.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes, we can hear you. Thank you.
`DR. GONSALVES: Okay. So if I could – I'm not going to
`go over my slides in order. Could you please look at slide No. 7.
`I know Your Honor was mentioning dependent claim 13 so I'd
`like to discuss that claim first. Also I should note that this claim
`is very different from any claim that was reviewed in the prior
`IPR, the 00316 IPR.
`So the claim language appears on slide 7. Slide 7 shows
`dependent claim 13 and dependent claim 13 requires program
`instructions for the server to send information of said plurality of
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`1
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
