Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 40
`Entered: December 9, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`DISH NETWORK, L.L.C.,
`DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C., and
`SLING TV, L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Appeal Hearing
`Held: October 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 40
`Entered: December 9, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`DISH NETWORK, L.L.C.,
`DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C., and
`SLING TV, L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Appeal Hearing
`Held: October 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MATTHEW W. HINDMAN
`BROCK S. WEBER
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`matthew.hindman@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`NATHAN LOWENSTEIN
`PARHAM HENDIFAR
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`
`
`
`The above entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, October
`
`19, 2021, commencing at 10:00 a.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE GALLIGAN: Good morning. This is a hearing for
`IPR2020-01041. Petitioners are Dish Network, LLC; Dish
`Technologies, LLC; and Sling TV, LLC. Patent Owner is Sound View
`Innovations, LLC. The patent is 6,725,456 B1.
` I'm Administrative Patent Judge Galligan and with me are
`Administrative Patent Judges Stephens and Hudalla.
` May I have appearances of counsel first starting for
`Petitioner?
` MR. WEBER: Good morning, Your Honor. My name is Brock
`Weber, counsel for Petitioners. I'm with the law firm Pillsbury,
`Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, and on the public audio line is lead
`counsel, Matt Hindman.
` JUDGE GALLIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Weber.
` For Patent Owner?
` MR. HENDIFAR: Good morning, Your Honor. Parham
`Hendifar of Lowenstein & Weatherwax, backup counsel for Patent
`Owner. Here with me, Mr. Nathan Lowenstein, also backup counsel
`for Patent Owner. And on video, lead counsel, Mr. Kenneth
`Weatherwax.
` JUDGE GALLIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Hendifar.
` As set forth in the oral hearing order, each party has
`one hour of argument time. Our first priority is your right to be
`heard, so if, at any time, during the hearing you encounter
`technical or other difficulties that you feel undermine your
`
`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
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`ability to adequately represent your client, please let us know
`immediately, and you may need to do this by contacting the team
`who provided you with the connection information.
` And if you stop hearing and drop off, if you'd just try
`to note what was discussed so we can figure out where to pick up,
`we'll also, you know, try to see if someone drops off as well on
`the video.
` Please mute your microphone and only unmute when you're
`speaking. Please identify yourself when you speak so the
`transcript accurately reflects the speaker.
` When referring to an item in the record, please do so
`with specificity so that the panel can follow along and for
`clarity in the transcript. We have all the papers and the
`demonstratives, so if you can identify the demonstratives by slide
`number, for instance, the paper by -- the paper you're referring
`and the page of the paper.
` And there is a public audio line, and there wasn't
`any -- I don't know if anyone is listening to that. I know,
`Mr. Hendifar, you mentioned that one of the counsel's on there. I
`don't know if anyone else is on there, but just, you know, I don't
`think there's any public information or confidential information
`to be discussed. If there's any concern, I think the parties are
`supposed to raise that before.
` So, with that, Petitioner, you'll proceed first, and you
`may reserve time for rebuttal, and Patent Owner, Petitioner
`reserves time for rebuttal. You may have a sur-rebuttal.
`
`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
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
` Petitioner, would you like to reserve any time for
`rebuttal?
` MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honor. Yes, I'd like to
`reserve 20 minutes for rebuttal.
` JUDGE GALLIGAN: Okay. So it's about 10:04, and you may
`begin. And so about 10:44, you know, you'll be up at the first 40
`minutes. I'll kind of keep a general clock but you might want to
`keep one as well. Go ahead. Thank you.
` MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, this is Brock
`Weber, counsel for Petitioners Dish Network, Dish Technologies,
`and Sling TV. And may it please the Board, is it best to proceed
`by sharing my desktop so you can see the demonstratives, even
`though you do have a copy yourselves?
` JUDGE GALLIGAN: No, I would just present and then refer to
`the demonstratives and we'll follow along.
` MR. WEBER: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honors. As the
`Board knows, we're here to discuss the invalidity of the '456
`patent, in particular based on the two grounds presented in our
`petition. The first ground is an obviousness ground over the
`Durand patent -- that's Exhibit 1006 -- in view of the Bennett
`paper. That's Exhibit 1008.
` And then ground two is obviousness over the Goyal paper.
`That's Exhibit 1007. And also in view of the Bennett paper,
`Exhibit 1008.
` And the Board is presented today with only one claim
`from this patent, Claim 13. As established in the petition, claim
`
`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
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`13 is obvious in view of both of Petitioner's grounds one and two.
` The Patent Owner has responded to uphold claim 13 in
`view of secondary considerations, arguments about motivation to
`combine that Durand and Goyal references with Bennett and with
`views of the claimed limitations that are based on both
`misconceptions of the petition and unduly narrow claim
`constructions at this late stage.
` I'll address each of Patent Owner's arguments in turn
`and show why the petition still establishes that claim 13 is
`obvious in view of Durand over -- in further view of Bennett,
`ground 1, as well as obvious in view of Goyal in further view of
`Bennett.
` I'll begin with a short overview of the '456 patent.
`The '456 patent, as I'm referring to slide 5 here of my
`demonstrative exhibits, is directed to providing you a desired
`quality of service for an application running in computer system.
` The '456 patent correlates the phrase "desired quality
`of service" also with "quality of service guarantees," which we
`may also refer to in this proceeding as “QoS guarantees”; that's
`capital Q, lower case O, capital S, the shorthand for quality of
`service. That's a frequent shorthand also used in the prior art.
` Turning to demonstrative slide 6, the '456 patent states
`that applications running in a computer system often compete for a
`number of resources. Those resources can include CPU resources,
`memory resources, disk resources, and network bandwidth resources.
`These are all within the purview of the purported problem that the
`
`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
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`'456 patent is attempting to address.
` In the background section of the '456 patent -- and now
`I'm referring to demonstrative slide 7 -- the '456 patent
`recognizes that numerous resource management techniques existed in
`the prior art. Here on slide 6, I have highlighted the '456
`patent's discussion of conventional time-sharing operating systems
`and the '456 patent uses the UNIX operating system as an example
`of such a time-sharing operating system as exemplified in the
`McKusick paper. The McKusick paper is also part of the petition
`that's Exhibit 1009. In particular, it provides details of the
`UNIX operating system that would necessarily be present.
` So, then, the '456 patent here is discussing the
`time-sharing operating systems can manage resources in a
`time-sharing manner where a certain process or job will be given
`its share of time for a CPU cycle, for instance.
` A further example is given in the '456 patent, and now
`I'm referring to slide -- demonstrative slide 8. The '456 patent
`discusses conventional proportional share schedulers. Examples of
`proportional share schedulers known in the art, according to the
`'456 patent, include those described in the Bennett paper,
`hierarchical packet fair queueing algorithms, which are similar in
`disclosure to the Bennett reference used in the invalidity grounds
`of the petition, Exhibit 1008.
` The '456 patent also discusses the Goyal paper as
`disclosing known proportional share scheduling algorithms and
`mechanisms, that like Goyal, of course, is also part of the petition's
`
`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
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`invalidity grounds. That's Ground 2.
` And the '456 patent discusses those conventional
`proportional share schedulers were known to provide QoS
`guarantees. And they're called proportional share schedulers in
`essence because a group of applications or processes contending
`for resources in a computer system will be given a proportional
`share of the available resources. It can be fairly, which means
`they're all given the same share, or weighted fairly (or weighted
`fairness) in which case certain processes are given a weight and
`they are given a share of the available resources according to
`that weight.
` JUDGE GALLIGAN: Counsel, Mr. Weber, this is APJ
`Galligan. I just want to jump ahead to -- it kind of touches on
`this subject of the proportional share and your contentions --
`Petitioner's contentions for Durand. Is Petitioner's position
`that by setting out a portion of a resource –– that's a quality of
`service guarantee?
` MR. WEBER: Well, as the petition discusses, including
`that's Paper 2 on pages 36 through 44, the quality of service
`guarantee provided by Durand is more than that. It's -- it's the
`system's adjustment of the execution priority of some jobs within
`the dimension based on a given relative weight. And so the gold
`quality of service guarantee is when the jobs are processes that
`are executing within a dimension of Durand receive the allocation of
`resources according to the weight. And so it's not the weight
`itself. It's based on the weight that then addresses the
`
`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
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`execution priority for those processes within the dimension.
` JUDGE GALLIGAN: I mean, so it's -- and I'm trying to get
`sort of -- there seems to be a dispute between the parties on this
`“wherein the quality of service guarantees comprise” limitation --
`recitation. And is it -- is it Petitioner's position that if
`you -- if you specify a portion of resource set aside for
`exclusive use by a process, then that's providing a quality of
`service guarantee?
` MR. WEBER: I mean, yes, that's an example of such a QoS
`guarantee in Durand. It's the -- using those parameters to adjust
`the execution priorities of the processes. And so Durand
`discloses that they will receive that share of resources that have
`been designated for them even in a heavily loaded system. And so
`Durand is disclosing that those processes running within the
`dimension will receive those resources for the exclusive use.
` JUDGE GALLIGAN: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. WEBER: Given that we have jumped a little bit
`ahead, I'll just quickly finish up on the review of the '456
`patent. I think we're all fairly familiar with it. But here on
`slide 9, I have excerpted and highlighted the way that the Board
`described in an exemplary embodiment of the '456 patent that uses
`what the '456 patent calls a uniform application programming
`interface for hierarchical proportional resource sharing. And
`this allows that the applications in subdivide resource
`reservations hierarchically and share resources of the respective
`resource -- fractions of the respective resource fairly. And so
`
`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
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`this is, again, tying in with the concept of '456 patent is
`building upon and discussing proportional share schedulers.
` Here on slide 11 is the challenged claim 13 broken down
`into its constituent parts, labeled by element, as discussed in the
`petition. Claim 13 is a method claim for ensuring a particular
`quality of service for an application in a computer system.
` As we can see, it's discussing quality of service
`guarantees, and there's no mention of a specific scheduler or
`multiple schedulers or CP scheduling in particular. Again, it's a
`method for ensuring a particular quality of service for an
`application in the computer system.
` I'm discussing slide 13 now and the Patent Owner's first
`argument in its Patent Owner response appears to be that claim 13
`should be upheld due to objective indicia of non-obviousness or
`secondary considerations. And this position is without merit.
` Turning to Slide 14, the Patent Owner argues that
`Bell Labs is a renowned resource -- research institution and that
`Lucent Technologies, the assignee on the '456 patent, is a part of
`Bell Labs, and, apparently, therefore, based on the renown of Bell
`Labs, claim 13 should be upheld. This position is without merit
`for a couple of reasons. Number one, Patent Owner cited to
`petitioner's expert, Dr. Negus, in support of this, but when
`Dr. Negus testified to -- more fully, you know, in the full
`context of his deposition was that Bell Labs was, of course, you
`know, well known and is still well known but its prominence,
`especially in this space, was no more than any other research
`
`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
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`department, including others that were more active in this base,
`HP, IBM, Motorola, for instance.
` And, further, there is no tying of this alleged renowned
`for Bell Labs or any of the mentors to claim 13 in particular or
`even the '456 patent in particular. And under controlling case
`law, that's insufficient to provide secondary considerations to
`uphold a challenged claim.
` In addition, Patent Owner alleges that praise for a
`USENIX paper that corresponds to the '456 patent shows secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness. And this argument also fails
`for a couple of reasons. Here on slide 15 of my demonstratives,
`I'm discussing that Patent Owner's expert, what they're relying on
`for this position, testified that he was unsure how USENIX viewed
`the conference paper -- the USENIX conference paper tied to the
`'456 patent. How it viewed the USENIX's paper contributions over
`Goyal and Bennett. So there can't be any actual basis for
`alleging that the '456 USENIX paper constituted any type of
`remarkable achievement over the prior art references in the
`petition.
` Turning now to demonstrative slide 16, the '456 patent
`also talks about the fact that the prior art discloses the
`elements 13(a) and 13(b), which are the only elements that Patent
`Owner attempted to tie to this alleged industry phrase. In
`particular, the '456 patent discusses, as exemplified here in
`slide 16, that proportional share schedulers, such as Goyal and
`Bennett, provide -- can provide an API for the resource allegation
`
`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
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`mechanisms and that they can provide QoS guarantees.
` Further, turning now to slide 17, the back
`(indiscernible) citations that Patent Owner relies on to show that
`the '456 patent -- well, the USENIX '456 paper received industry
`pays, these other references merely just discuss aspects of that
`paper, not particularly praising it, and then, other instances,
`criticizing it.
` For instance, here on slide 17, the Reumann paper,
`discusses that, unlike VS and other mechanism in the prior art,
`Eclipse/BSD, which is what's discussed in the USENIX '456 paper,
`does not infer the tag or request in the absence of application
`support and does not exploit the scheduling of an application.
`And furthermore, the precursors of this work include Reference 9
`in the hierarchical scheduler in Reference 9. Reference 9 is the
`Goyal paper presented in the petition.
` And so under precedential precedent at the Board, Patent
`Owners failed to make its case under secondary considerations for
`a couple of reasons. Number one, based on the renown of Bell Labs
`or the industry praise, they have not shown that that is any way
`tied or is coextensive in scope to Claim 13. Their arguments in
`that regard are contrary to the evidence, but not only that, even
`if you accept the position that Claim 13(a) and 13(b) received
`such praise, 13(a) and 13(b) are not coextensive with the full
`scope of Claim 13.
` And, furthermore, the record reflects that these are not
`characteristics unique to Claim 13 that weren't known in the prior
`
`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
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`art, including the admitted prior art.
` I'll turn now to addressing Ground 1 in particular,
`which is that Claim 13 is obvious in view of the Durand and Bennett. My
`previous discussion with secondary considerations would apply
`to both grounds the Patent Owner is attempting to, obviously,
`uphold Claim 13 in view of secondary considerations across
`both grounds.
` Turning now to specifically Ground 1, the petition shows
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art, POSITA, would have
`been motivated and able to combine Bennett with Durand.
` I'm now discussing Slide 1 of the demonstratives, and,
`here, it is reflective that the petition showed that a POSITA
`would have been motivated to combine Durand and Bennett for
`numerous reasons.
` JUDGE STEPHENS: Counselor --
` MR. WEBER: And Patent Owner fails to --
` JUDGE STEPHENS: Counselor?
` MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE STEPHENS: Can we skip first to showing where
`Durand shows the limitations and then come back to this? I
`particularly want you to address the arguments about where the
`request is in the quality of service guarantee and then the
`resource reservation. So if we could start with the actual
`limitations that have been argued, I'd appreciate that.
` MR. WEBER: Sure, Your Honor, yes. That makes sense.
`No problem. Let me skip ahead to that.
`
`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
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
` So Durand discloses and renders obvious the claim
`limitation of providing a particular quality of service to a
`request. The Petitioner shows that Durand discloses providing a
`particular quality of service to a request. And, in this
`instance, I think the Patent Owner has misconstrued a mapping of
`claim elements in what the petition shows Durand is providing as
`the quality of service guarantee. And I touched upon this a bit
`earlier with Honorable Galligan.
` Turning to the petition, for instance, at page 40 --
`this is paper 2 at page 40 -- the petition states that Durand
`discloses an LRM API in a UNIX system that adjusts execution
`priorities of jobs within dimensions based upon relative weights
`of the dimensions, thereby establishing one or more quality of
`service guarantees as recited in Claim 13.
` So that process is what is provided in the quality of
`service guarantee in Durand. It is not simply the relative
`weights on their own. And, furthermore, the request that a user
`makes through that LRM API is provided that quality of service
`guarantee. The petitioner is not saying that the request or the
`user's request is based on relative weights or that -- it's not to
`our request that the quality of service is provided.
` The quality of service guarantee is the adjustment of
`execution priorities based on the relative weights, and that is
`provided to the user's request.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Counselor, could I ask you a question?
`This is Judge Hudalla.
`
`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
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
` MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: I was wondering if you could address
`Patent Owner's argument about dimensions in Durand. I think
`there's an argument that's been made about how quality of service
`in Durand applies to all processes in a dimension. How do you
`respond to that?
` MR. WEBER: So if -- as an initial matter, I mean, it is
`accurate that Durand discloses system in which all processes
`within a dimension will receive the quality of service guarantee
`set aside for that dimension. Some dimensions have a single
`process within them. That's also shown in the figures cited in
`the petition.
` And what the point of the combination with Bennett was
`is that, since there can be multiple jobs or processes running
`within a dimension, though they don't have to be or there can be a
`single process, that Bennett provides the benefit of a
`hierarchical resource allocation mechanism for those processes
`that would be running within a dimension. And that would be
`entirely compatible with each other because, as is conceded,
`Durand is a UNIX-based system which already has concepts of
`inheritance and a hierarchical arrangement of processes such that
`the child process will inherit the properties of its parent
`process.
` And so that's the motivation -- one of the motivations
`to combine Bennett with Durand and how the processes that can be
`running within a dimension of Durand will receive the QoS
`
`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
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`guarantees.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Does your combination rely on the case
`where there is only one process running in the dimension?
` MR. WEBER: I don't think it's accurate to say that it
`relies on that embodiment, however, in that embodiment where a
`single process is running within the dimension, Durand will be
`deterministic, as explained in the petition in the section
`discussing the combination of Bennett, and that's because Durand
`discloses that a process will receive the resources set aside for
`its exclusive use, even if the system is heavily loaded.
` And so in the case in which one process is running
`within Durand, that will receive a minimum amount of resources set
`aside for its exclusive use.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Would you agree that, in the case where
`there are, say, two or more processes running in a dimension, that
`there's no mechanism in Durand for giving different quality of
`service amounts or values to those processes?
` MR. WEBER: Durand on its own -- I believe that is true.
`In the combination with Bennett, Bennett would provide a
`guaranteed service rate that, I believe, could fluctuate as
`disclosed in Bennett and that those would be enforced in the
`system of Durand, including because, as I have mentioned, Durand
`explicitly discloses that the process will receive the resources
`set aside for its use.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Okay. I think I understand your
`position.
`
`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
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
` MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honor.
` So turning back to --
` JUDGE STEPHENS: So, Counselor, then -- sorry, this is
`Judge Stephens.
` Counselor, so you're showing on this slide, 32, that
`this relative weight, by putting that in, that you get the quality
`of service which is shown in the current percentage?
` MR. WEBER: So, yes, this figure is -- on slide 17 is
`exemplary so their request of Durand is when a user inputs into
`the interface of 2(e) or 2(h) the information including desired
`relative weight for a dimension. That's the request.
` And then so that request, Durand provides a quality of
`service guarantee in the form of modifying the execution
`priorities of processes within the dimension based on the relative
`weight.
` JUDGE STEPHENS: So what is quality of service then?
`Does quality of service depend on the weight?
` MR. WEBER: The quality of service guarantee is the
`process disclosed in Durand of modifying the execution priorities
`of the processes based on the relative weight. So the relative
`weight helps the system determine what to and how much to allocate
`but it's the adjustment of the execution priorities, also based on
`the NICE value, that provides the quality of service guarantee.
`And it's based on the relative weight.
` And so it's not that the quality of service is based on
`a request. It's provided to a request. That's what's established
`
`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
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`in the petition. And a user enters the request to interface by
`typing in or entering a relative weight. That's the request. And
`that request receives the quality of service guarantee when Durand
`readjusts the execution of a priority based on the relative
`weight.
` JUDGE HUDALLA: Okay. But what is quality of service?
`How does that -- I mean, just because you give something more
`weight doesn't necessarily mean quality of service is going to
`improve. Are they two separate things?
` MR. WEBER: So, in Durand, the quality of service,
`again, is the execution priorities that are adjusted based on the
`relative weight, and as disclosed in Durand, a system will
`readjust resources until that requested relative weight is met,
`and Durand says that will happen even if the system is heavily
`loaded.
` And so it's providing those resources to a dimension
`based on the relative weight that provide that quality of service.
`That's a quality of service request, and the request receives a
`quality of service in Durand.
` And the -- the '456 patent, as I went over earlier,
`expressly concedes that proportional share schedulers can provide
`such quality of service guarantees, and Durand, as discussed in
`the petition in the reply, is a system providing a proportional
`share scheduling or allocation scheme. Because, again, it's
`trying to provide fairness -- a weighted fairness.
` So just to recapture, I'm now on Slide 33 of the
`
`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
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`demonstratives. Again, the petition shows the QoS guarantee in
`Durand is provided to a request. The request is when the user
`enters a relative weight and other information into the interfaces
`of Durand, and then the quality of service is provided to that
`request. In other words, Durand will then respond to -- directly
`to that request by adjusting execution priorities of processes
`within the dimension based on the relative weight.
` JUDGE STEPHENS: Can you address the argument that the
`Patent Owner has brought up as far as the quality of service
`guarantee's comprised resource reservations, looking at that
`Figure 2(h), I think it is? Is it 2(h), 2(e), that you had marked
`in your petition? Page 45.
` MR. WEBER: Yes. So Durand discloses quality of service
`guarantees that comprise resource reservations. So, again, this
`is kind of a recap of why I believe Patent Owner has misconstrued
`the mapping of elements. It's not just the relative weight by
`itself that constitutes the quality of service guarantee in Durand
`as we have discussed. Instead, as I'm referring to here in Slide
`56 of the demonstratives, the petition states that Durand
`discloses that adjusting the process's priority to provide a
`quality of service guarantee based on the activation indicator,
`that it should be active, and the weight associated with the
`process. And the weight is the relative weight -- relative weight
`that's entered by the user.
` And so that's the quality of service guarantee, is the
`adjusting of the process's priority based on the relative weight.
`
`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
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`And that comprises, when the user enters this, the name of the --
`the name of process, a relative weight, and the activation of the
`dynamic control, as well as a list of applicable processes or
`commands for a particular dimension. That's the QoS comprises a
`resource reservation. So that additional -- those are additional
`parameters –– is what comprises the resource reservation in Durand.
` So this is reflected on, for instance, in the petition,
`which is Paper 2 on page 45, for example, in the annotation of
`Figure 2(e) where there's a graphical user interface for the user
`to enter a name of the dimension, the relative weight, an
`activation indicator, and applicable processes. Those are the
`command fields. And so that comprises the resource reservation of
`the cost guarantee.
` If it pleases the Board, I'll address Durand and
`Bennett's disclosure of utilizing an application program and
`interface to establish the cross-guarantee.
` First, as reflected here on Demonstrative 44, Durand
`discloses in API, under the Board's construction and the
`institution decision, that the claimed API is a set of routines
`used by an application program to direct the performance of
`procedures by the computer's operating system.
` Here on Slide 45 of the demonstratives is a discussion
`of the annotated Figure 1 from the petition, at pages 37 through
`40, and in particular, the mapping of the LRM API of Durand as
`the -- as an example of the application program interface. LRM
`stands for local resource management API.
`
`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
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
` And as discussed in the petition on pages 37 through 40,
`the application programming interface, 34, communicates with LRM
`demon or daemon process as well as the LRM shared memory.
` In addition, the LRM API 34 has an associated LRM GUI,
`graphical user interface. And the graphical user interface is
`just, you know, a typical GUI way for the user to access and
`provide parameters to the LRM API. And, specifically, the LRM and
`GUI is disclosed as enabling the interfaces through which the user
`enters relative weights and the resource reservations such as in
`Figures 2(e) and 2(g) of Durand.
` And Durand discloses that, once the user interacts with
`those interfaces and presses the confirm button, the LRM GUI will
`enable the storage of that information -- those resource
`reservations and the QoS guarantees into the JOR file database.
`And as you can see from Figure 1 here, that could only happen
`through the communication with the LRM shared memory and then
`going through the LRM API. There's no depicted direct connection
`from the LRM GUI into the JOR file database, which the Durand
`discloses as the LRM GUI communicating with.
` And so, obviously, a person of ordinary skill in the
`art, as Petitioner's expert has testified, would understand the
`text and the figures of Durand to be disclosing that the LRM GUI,
`which is associated with the LRM API
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
