`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