UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`ADOBE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`___________
`
`Case IPR2020-01235
`Patent No. 10,015,254
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... i
`List of Exhibits ....................................................................................................... vii
`Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................................xi
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .............................................xi
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ......................................................xi
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ................................. xii
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ............................................. xii
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`Grounds for Standing ...................................................................................... 2
`The Challenged ’254 Patent ........................................................................... 2
`A.
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................ 2
`B.
`Overview of the ’254 Patent ................................................................. 2
`C.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 4
`D.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 5
`IV. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 6
`A.
`“cached in cache storage in the first wireless device” (claim 9) .......... 6
`B.
`“web console” (claim 13) ..................................................................... 8
`Overview of the Prior Art References ............................................................ 8
`A.
`Overview of Prust ................................................................................. 8
`B.
`Overview of Nomoto .......................................................................... 10
`C.
`Overview of Major ............................................................................. 12
`D.
`Overview of Kraft .............................................................................. 12
`E.
`Overview of Reuter ............................................................................ 13
`The Challenged Claims Are Rendered Obvious by Prust as the
`Primary Prior Art Reference ......................................................................... 14
`A.
`Prust Alone or Combined with the Teachings of Major or Kraft
`Renders Claims 9-12, 14, and 15 Obvious ......................................... 14
`1.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 14
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`a.
`b.
`
`A server for delivering storage service, comprising ...... 14
`a plurality of storage spaces residing among a
`plurality of storage devices ............................................ 15
`a computer-readable storage device comprising
`program instructions that, when executed by the
`server, configure the server to control delivering
`the storage service; wherein the program
`instructions comprise… ................................................. 16
`program instructions for the server establishing a
`communication link for a first wireless device
`remotely accessing a first one of the storage spaces ..... 17
`program instructions for the server sending
`information of the first one of the storage spaces to
`the first wireless device for causing display of the
`information on the first wireless device ........................ 18
`program instructions for the server updating the
`first one of the storage spaces according to a
`requested operation received from the first wireless
`device upon a user thereof, through the displayed
`information of the first one of the storage spaces
`performing the operation for remotely accessing
`the first one of the storage spaces .................................. 20
`wherein said operation for remotely accessing the
`first one of the storage spaces comprises from the
`first wireless device storing data therein or
`retrieving data therefrom ............................................... 21
`wherein the storing data further comprises program
`instructions for the server downloading a file from
`a remote server across a network into the first one
`of the storage spaces through utilizing information
`for the file cached in a cache storage in the first
`wireless device ............................................................... 22
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 28
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 29
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 30
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 30
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 31
`Motivation to Combine Prust with the Teachings of
`Major ........................................................................................ 32
`Motivation to Combine Prust with the Teachings of Kraft ..... 34
`8.
`Dependent Claim 13 Is Rendered Obvious Based on the
`Additional Teachings of Reuter ......................................................... 36
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 36
`2.
`Motivation to Combine with the Teachings of Reuter ............ 37
`VII. The Challenged Claims Are Rendered Obvious by Nomoto as the
`Primary Prior Art Reference ......................................................................... 39
`A.
`Nomoto Alone or Combined with the Teachings of Major or
`Kraft Renders Claims 9-12, 14, and 15 Obvious ............................... 39
`1.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 39
`a.
`A server for delivering storage service, comprising ...... 39
`b.
`a plurality of storage spaces residing among a
`plurality of storage devices ............................................ 40
`a computer-readable storage device comprising
`program instructions that, when executed by the
`server, configure the server to control delivering
`the storage service; wherein the program
`instructions comprise… ................................................. 40
`program instructions for the server establishing a
`communication link for a first wireless device
`remotely accessing a first one of the storage spaces ..... 41
`program instructions for the server sending
`information of the first one of the storage spaces to
`the first wireless device for causing display of the
`information on the first wireless device ........................ 42
`program instructions for the server updating the
`first one of the storage spaces according to a
`requested operation received from the first wireless
`device upon a user thereof, through the displayed
`information of the first one of the storage spaces
`performing the operation for remotely accessing
`the first one of the storage spaces .................................. 43
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`wherein said operation for remotely accessing the
`first one of the storage spaces comprises from the
`first wireless device storing data therein or
`retrieving data therefrom ............................................... 46
`wherein the storing data further comprises program
`instructions for the server downloading a file from
`a remote server across a network into the first one
`of the storage spaces through utilizing information
`for the file cached in a cache storage in the first
`wireless device ............................................................... 46
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 52
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 52
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 53
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 53
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 54
`Motivation to Combine Nomoto with the Teachings of
`Major ........................................................................................ 54
`Motivation to Combine Nomoto with the Teachings of
`Kraft ......................................................................................... 56
`Dependent Claim 13 Is Rendered Obvious Based on the
`Additional Teaching of Reuter ........................................................... 57
`1.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 57
`2.
`Motivation to Combine with the Teachings of Reuter ............ 58
`VIII. Discretionary Denial Would Be Neither Appropriate nor Equitable ........... 59
`The General Plastic Factors Do Not Support Discretionary
`A.
`Denial ................................................................................................. 59
`The Fintiv Factors Do Not Support Discretionary Denial ................. 60
`B.
`IX. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 69
`
`8.
`
`B.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Court Cases
`
`B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc.,
`No. 2019-1935, slip op. (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2020) .......................................................... passim
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................6
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions
`
`Abbot Vascular, Inc. v. FlexStent, LLC,
`IPR2019-00882, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 7, 2019) .....................................................................61
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ......................................................61, 66, 69
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ..................................................................62
`
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 (PTAB June 15, 2020) .............................................................61, 65
`
`Bumble Trading Inc. v. Match Group, LLC,
`IPR2019-01000, Paper 10 (PTAB Nov. 6, 2019) ....................................................................62
`
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ..............................................................60, 66
`
`Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Ltd.,
`IPR2019-00975, Paper 15 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019) ...................................................................65
`
`Precision Planting, LLC v. Deere & Co.,
`IPR2019-01048, Paper 17 (PTAB Dec. 4, 2019).....................................................................63
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ........................................................... passim
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Fall Line Patents, LLC,
`IPR2019-00610, Paper 14 (PTAB Aug. 7, 2019) ....................................................................63
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. SynKloud Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2019-01655, Paper 13 (PTAB Mar. 19, 2020) ..................................................................68
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Product, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) .....................................................................60
`
`Federal Statutes and Regulations
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ..........................................................................................................1, 9, 10, 12, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ...........................................................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ...........................................................................................................................2
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254 (the “’254 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution history of U.S. Application No. 14/977,509, which led
`to the issuance of the ’254 Patent (“File History”)
`
`Declaration of Jon Weissman, Ph.D. Regarding U.S. Patent
`No. 10,015,254
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,735,623 (“Prust”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication US2001/0028363 (“Nomoto”)
`
`PCT Publication WO 02/052785, PCT/CA01/01857 (“Major”)
`
`U.S. Patent 6,309,305 (“Kraft”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication US2002/0019908 (“Reuter”)
`
`U.S. Patent 6,745,207
`
`RFC 793: “Transmission Control Protocol, DARPA Internet
`Program, Protocol Specification”
`
`RFC 959: “File Transfer Protocol (FTP)”
`
`RFC 1945: “Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0”
`
`RFC 2518: “HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring –
`WEBDAV”
`
`“Disconnected Operation in the Coda File System,” James J. Kistler
`and M. Satyanarayanan, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems,
`Vol. 10, No. 1, February 1992
`
`“TranSquid: Transcoding and Caching Proxy for Heterogeneous E-
`Commerce Environments,” Maheshwari et al., Proceedings of the
`12th International Workshop on Research Issues in Data
`Engineering: Engineering e-Commerce/e-Business Systems (RIDE
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`’02), 2002
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`“Managing Update Conflicts in Bayou, a Weakly Connected
`Replicated Storage System,” Terry et al., SOSP ’95: 15th ACM
`Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Copper Mountain
`Colorado USA, December, 1995
`
`“A Mobility-Aware File System for Partially Connected Operation”
`by Dwyer et al., ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, January
`1997
`
`“Reducing File System Latency using a Predictive Approach” by
`Griffioen et al., USTC ’94: Proceedings of the USENIX Summer
`1994 Technical Conference on USENIX Summer 1994 Technical
`Conference - Volume 1, 1994
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,907,225
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0167316
`(“Bramnick”)
`
`“Wireless Application Protocol Architecture Specification,”
`Wireless Application Protocol Forum, Ltd., (Apr. 30, 1998)
`
`“WebDAV: What It Is, What It Does, Why You Need It,”
`Hernández, et al., SIGUCCS ’03: Proceedings of the 31st annual
`ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference, 2003
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0067742
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 15th Edition, Miller Freeman, Inc.,
`1999 (excerpts)
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, Microsoft
`Press, 1997 (excerpts)
`
`The New Penguin Dictionary of Computing, Dick Pountain, 2001
`(excerpts)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Description
`
`Agreed Scheduling Order in SynKloud Technologies LLC v. Adobe,
`Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00527-ADA (W.D. Tex.) dated January 22,
`2020
`
`Agreed Scheduling Order in SynKloud Technologies LLC v.
`Dropbox, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00525-ADA (W.D. Tex.) dated
`January 22, 2020
`
`Agreed Scheduling Order in SynKloud Technologies LLC v.
`Dropbox, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00526-ADA (W.D. Tex.) dated
`January 22, 2020
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic, United States
`District Court for the Western District of Texas dated May 8, 2020
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic, United States
`District Court for the Western District of Texas dated June 18, 2020
`
`Defendant Adobe Inc.’s Disclosure of Proposed Constructions,
`dated May 15, 2020
`
`Plaintiff SynKloud Technologies, LLC’s Revised Claim
`Construction Chart, dated June 12, 2020
`
`Summon in a Civil Action with Affidavit of Service in SynKloud
`Technologies LLC v. Adobe, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00527-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.)
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed in SynKloud Technologies,
`LLC v. HP, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01360-UNA (D. Del.)
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed in SynKloud Technologies,
`LLC v. BLU Products, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00553-UNA (D. Del.)
`
`Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed in Microsoft Corp. v.
`SynKloud Technologies, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00007-UNA (D.
`Del.)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`Description
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Opposition to SynKloud’s Motion to
`Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(h)(3), Lack of
`Standing and 12(b)(6)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526 (the “’526 Patent”)
`
`Stipulation
`
`Declaration of Winston Liaw in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review
`
`x
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real party-in-interest is petitioner Adobe Inc. (“Petitioner”). No
`
`unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or directing this petition or has the
`
`opportunity to control or direct this petition or Petitioner’s participation in any
`
`resulting inter partes review. Petitioner understands and believes that the ’254
`
`Patent is owned by SynKloud Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following pending district court matters involving
`
`the ’254 Patent: SynKloud Technologies, LLC v. Adobe Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-
`
`00527 (W.D. Tex.); SynKloud Technologies, LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., Case No. 6:19-
`
`cv-00526 (W.D. Tex.); SynKloud Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-
`
`01360 (D. Del.); and Microsoft Corporation v. SynKloud Technologies, LLC, Case
`
`No. 1:20-cv-00007 (D. Del.).
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following matters pending before the Board
`
`involving the ’254 Patent: Microsoft Corp. and HP Inc. v. SynKloud Technologies,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2020-01031; Microsoft Corp. and HP Inc. v. SynKloud
`
`Technologies, LLC, Case IPR2020-01032.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following matters pending before the Board
`
`involving U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526, which is related to and based on the same
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`specification as the ’254 Patent: Unified Patents, Inc. v. SynKloud Technologies,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2019-01655 (in which review was instituted on March 19, 2020);
`
`Microsoft Corp. and HP Inc. v. SynKloud Technologies, LLC, Case IPR2020-
`
`00316 (in which review was instituted on June 29, 2020).
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petitioner appoints James L. Day (Reg. No. 72,681) of Farella Braun +
`
`Martel LLP as lead counsel and appoints Winston Liaw (Reg. No. 78,766) and
`
`Daniel Callaway (Reg. No. 74,267) of Farella Braun + Martel LLP as back-up
`
`counsel.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made via
`
`hand-delivery to Farella Braun + Martel LLP, 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor,
`
`San Francisco, California, 94104. Petitioner consents to electronic service to the
`
`following email addresses: jday@fbm.com, wliaw@fbm.com,
`
`dcallaway@fbm.com, and calendar@fbm.com.
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Adobe Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 9-15 (the
`
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254 (EX-1001), assigned to
`
`SynKloud Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner”). The ’254 Patent is directed to a
`
`remote storage system for wireless devices, which was known in the art as
`
`evidenced by this petition and the expert testimony of Jon Weissman, Ph.D
`
`(EX-1003). The challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis1
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`Prust (EX-1004)
`
`Section 103
`
`9-12, 14, and 15
`
`Prust and Major (EX-1006)
`
`Section 103
`
`9-12, 14, and 15
`
`Prust and Kraft (EX-1007)
`
`Section 103
`
`9-12, 14, and 15
`
`Prust and Major or Kraft further in
`light of Reuter (EX-1008)
`
`Section 103
`
`13
`
`Nomoto (EX-1005)
`
`Nomoto and Major
`
`Nomoto and Kraft
`
`Section 103
`
`9-12, 14, and 15
`
`Section 103
`
`9-12, 14, and 15
`
`Section 103
`
`9-12, 14, and 15
`
`Nomoto and Major or Kraft and
`further in light of Reuter
`
`Section 103
`
`13
`
`1 Pre-AIA Sections 102, 103, and 112 apply.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’254 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting this review. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.104(a). This Petition is filed under 37 C.F.R. §42.106(a).
`
`III. THE CHALLENGED ’254 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Effective Filing Date
`
`The ’254 Patent claims priority to an application filed on December 4, 2003.
`
`EX-1001 at cover. Thus, the effective filing date of the claims of the ’254 Patent is
`
`no earlier than December 4, 2003.
`
`In related district court proceedings, the patent owner has claimed that the
`
`priority date for the ’254 Patent is January 22, 2003, which would not impact the
`
`analysis here even if proved.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of the ’254 Patent
`
`The ’254 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Wireless Device Access
`
`to External Storage.” EX-1001 at cover. The patent describes storing data from a
`
`wireless device to a remote storage server (EX-1001 at 4:59-5:3) and retrieving
`
`data from the storage server to the wireless device (id. at 5:33-43).
`
`The ’254 Patent describes what it refers to as “Wireless out-band
`
`download,” whose steps are illustrated in Figure 3. Id. at 5:4-32.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`’254 Patent Fig. 3
`
`First, “[p]rovide the user from a web-browser (8) of the wireless device (1) access
`
`to a remote web server site (15) to obtain information for the downloading via the
`
`path (a)” in the figure. Id. at 5:10-13. For example, the browser of the wireless
`
`device can obtain “a web-page, which contains [the] IP address of the remote web
`
`site and the data name for the downloading.” Id. at 5:13-15. “Second, software
`
`modules “of the wireless device (1) obtain the downloading information, which
`
`becomes available in the cached web-pages on the wireless device (1)” after
`
`accessing the website with the web-browser. Id. at 5:16-19. Third, the wireless
`
`device sends “the obtained downloading information to other service modules (7)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of the storage server (3) via the path (b)” in the figure. Id. at 5:20-22. Fourth, “the
`
`other service module (7) of the storage server (3) sends a web download request to
`
`the web-site (15) via the path (c)” and then “receives the downloading data from
`
`the web server of the web-site (15).” Id. at 5:23-28. Finally, once the storage
`
`server receives “the downloading data, the other service modules (7) of the storage
`
`server (3) write the data for the wireless device (1) into the assigned file system
`
`(11) on the server (3).” Id. at 5:29-32.
`
`The ’254 Patent contains 20 claims, including independent claims 1, 9, and
`
`16. The challenged claims are provided in the Claim Appendix.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’254 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 14/977,509, which
`
`was filed December 21, 2005. EX-1002 at 1-49. The application was rejected six
`
`times under Sections 102 and 103 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`No. 2003/0194998 (“Bhide”). Id. at 79-81, 142-145, 203-210, 256-269, 345-355,
`
`413-425. The pro se applicant made various amendments to the application claims
`
`and repeatedly argued that the cited art did not disclose the claimed invention. For
`
`example, he argued that in the cited art the process of “wireless device 205 ‘storing
`
`data’ in the remote ‘personal cache 150 or 250’ requires the using of a client 235 (a
`
`personal computer)” and “will end up to store the data in two different
`
`locations….” Id. at 452. Applicant also asserted the cited art “failed to teach the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`so called ‘out-band’ downloading for a user from a wireless device downloading a
`
`file from a web site into a remote storage assigned to the user of the wireless
`
`device….” Id.
`
`The examiner ultimately allowed the claims without noting any features
`
`distinguishing them from the cited art. EX-1002 at 472. The challenged claims
`
`would not have been allowed if the prior art presented in this petition had been
`
`considered.
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) for the ’254 Patent would
`
`have had an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering,
`
`computer science, or a comparable subject and two years of professional work
`
`experience in a technical field with exposure to remote storage systems and
`
`wireless technologies and wireless devices, such as portable digital assistants
`
`(PDAs) and similar devices. EX-1003 ¶50. A higher level of education could
`
`substitute for less industry experience, and more industry experience could
`
`substitute for the specific level of education. Such a person would have been
`
`knowledgeable about digital memory structures in computers and wireless devices,
`
`techniques for remotely accessing and manipulating computer files and databases,
`
`and communications over computer networks including the Internet. Id.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claims in an inter partes review are construed according to their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning, as a POSITA would have understood them at the time of the
`
`invention based on the language of the claims, the patent specification, and the
`
`prosecution history of record. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-16
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`A.
`
`“cached in cache storage in the first wireless device” (claim 9)
`
`The concept of “cache storage” would have been well-known to a POSITA.
`
`EX-1003 ¶¶62-65. In the context of both wired and wireless networked computer
`
`systems, it would be understood to refer to storage that is more readily accessible
`
`than the original source of information. EX-1003 ¶83; see also EX-1025 at 126
`
`(Newton’s Telecom Dictionary: “In the context of computer systems and
`
`networks, information is cached by placing it closer to the user or user application
`
`in order to make it more readily and speedily accessible, and transparently so.”)2;
`
`EX-1026 at 72 (Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary defining “cache” as “[a]
`
`special memory subsystem in which frequently used data values are duplicated for
`
`quick access”); EX-1027 at 60-61 (New Penguin Dictionary of Computing stating
`
`that a cache is “[a] small region of fast MEMORY…to hold copies of the most
`
`frequently or recently used data so that they may be access more quickly”).
`
`2 All emphasis is added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`For example, prior to the ’254 Patent, web-browsers on networked
`
`computers and hand-held devices employed cache storage to store viewed
`
`webpages. EX-1003 ¶¶62-65; EX-1006 at 4:18-21; EX-1027 at 60-61. The patent
`
`specification refers to this type of web-browser cache when describing the
`
`“Wireless out-band download” process. The user accesses a webpage “to obtain
`
`information for the downloading.” EX-1001 at 5:11-12. The “downloading
`
`information for the data” can be the “IP address of the remote website and the data
`
`name for the downloading.” Id. at 5:14-15. Software modules on the wireless
`
`device “obtain the downloading information, which becomes available in the
`
`cached web-pages on the wireless device (1) after the web-browser (8) accessing
`
`the web site (15).” Id. at 5:17-18. The term “cache storage” therefore includes
`
`using a web-browser cache on the first wireless device.
`
`However, neither the claim language “cached in a cache storage” nor the
`
`specification limits the recited “cache storage” to a web-browser cache. EX-1001
`
`at 7:19-23. Based on plain meaning, a POSITA would have understood the claim
`
`to refer to storing information in any type of cache storage (i.e., storage that is
`
`more readily accessible than the original source of information). Therefore, the
`
`phrase “cached in a cache storage on the first wireless device” means “stored in a
`
`location on the wireless device that is more readily accessible than the original
`
`source of the information.” EX-1003 ¶85.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`
`“web console” (claim 13)
`
`A POSITA, based on the plain meaning of “web console” and its use in the
`
`specification, would have understood the term to refer to a web-based user
`
`interface through which management tasks are performed. EX-1003 ¶86.
`
`The ’254 Patent discloses that the “task of partitioning the storage system
`
`(10) can be done through a web-console (13) on a console host (12) by an
`
`administrative staff.” EX-1001 at 4:5-9. This passage explains that the web-
`
`console is used for system administration or management. See also id. at 4:10-25
`
`(the “web-console” is used to perform management tasks including partitioning the
`
`storage area into multiple volumes allocated to users). Figure 2 refers to the web-
`
`console as a “browser” confirming that it is a web-based user interface. Id. at
`
`Fig. 2 (“Web-console (browser)”).
`
`The specification does not suggest that a “web console” is used solely for
`
`partitioning the storage area, and a POSITA would understand the term more
`
`broadly to mean a “web-based user interface through which management tasks are
`
`performed.” EX-1003 ¶89.
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Overview of Prust
`
`Prust discloses “[a] data storage system…that provides seamless access to
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`remote data storage areas via a global computer network.” EX-1004 at Abstract.3
`
`Figure 2 illustrates Prust’s “computing system in which a storage server provides
`
`seamless access to remote storage areas.” Id. at 1:61-63.
`
`“Client computers 205” are “communicatively coupled to remote storage network
`
`Prust Fig. 2
`
`3 Prust is prior art under Section 102(e) because it is a U.S. patent filed on
`
`February 9, 2000, and issued on May 11, 2004. EX-1004 at cover.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,015,254—Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`220 via storage servers 210 and global computer network 215 such as the Internet.”
`
`Id. at 4:34-37. The “client computers” can be a “hand-held PC or personal digital
`
`assistant (PDA).” Id. at 3:17-20.
`
`Prust discloses an embodiment in which the user sends an email to the
`
`storage server including a URL for a data file to be stored. EX-1004 at 6:67-7:4.
`
`The storage server downloads the data file from the supplied URL into the user’s
`
`virtual storage. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Nomoto
`
`Nomoto descr