Paper No. 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 9,219,780
`Issued: December 22, 2015
`Filed: February 16, 2015
`
`Inventor: Sheng Tai Tsao
`
`Title:
`
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR WIRELESS DEVICE ACCESS TO
`EXTERNAL STORAGE
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01270
`________________________
`PETITION
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 9,219,780
`________________________
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 9,219,780
`Issued: December 22, 2015
`Filed: February 16, 2015
`
`Inventor: Sheng Tai Tsao
`
`Title:
`
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR WIRELESS DEVICE ACCESS TO
`EXTERNAL STORAGE
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01270
`________________________
`PETITION
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 9,219,780
`________________________
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW COMPLIANCE .................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`Certification (37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (a)) ................................................... 2
`
`B. Mandatory Notices (§ 42.8(b)) .............................................................. 2
`
`C.
`
`No Basis Exists for Discretionary Denial Under Section 314 (a) ......... 3
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS ....................................... 4
`
`IV. THE CONTESTED PATENT ......................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................. 4
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 4
`
`Overview of 780 Patent ......................................................................... 5
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“cache storage . . .” ..................................................................... 7
`
`“utilizing download information . . .” ....................................... 10
`
`“folder structure” ....................................................................... 12
`
`“pool of a plurality of storage spaces” ...................................... 12
`
`V.
`
`THE PRIOR ART (EX1005) ......................................................................... 13
`
`A. McCown (EX1005) ............................................................................. 13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Dutta (EX1006) ................................................................................... 14
`
`Coates (EX1007) ................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`VI. REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF ..................................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Over McCown in View of
`
`Dutta .................................................................................................... 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 16
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 54
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 58
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 60
`
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 61
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Over McCown in View of
`
`Dutta, in Further View of Coates ........................................................ 62
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 62
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 70
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 71
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 72
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 72
`
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 72
`
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 74
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780 (“the 780 Patent”) claims a system and method
`
`for a wireless device to interact with a remote storage server for remote storage of
`
`files. McCown, a PCT application published before the priority date of the 780
`
`Patent, describes such a system and method. In particular, McCown discloses a
`
`user site, which can be an enhanced cellular telephone, that can manipulate a
`
`remote site and a storage site in order to cause a file to be downloaded from the
`
`remote site and thereby stored in the storage site.
`
`While the 780 Patent mentions a “cache” only once, its claims have several
`
`limitations directed to “cache storage.” While a Skilled Artisan would understand
`
`McCown’s Internet-based system to employ a cache storage, to remove any doubt
`
`and to simplify the issues, this petition is based on the obvious combination of
`
`McCown and Dutta, a prior art published patent application directed to the capture
`
`and subsequent remote storage of web content using a web cache.
`
`Finally, several dependent claims are drawn to certain low-level
`
`functionality for manipulating files stored remotely, such as moving, copying or
`
`deleting. A prior art patent to Coates discloses exactly that functionality in great
`
`detail. As demonstrated below and in the exhibits filed herewith, the combination
`
`of these prior art references renders claims 9-15 of the 780 Patent unpatentable for
`
`obviousness.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`II.
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW COMPLIANCE
`A. Certification (37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (a))
`
`Petitioners certify that the 780 Patent for which review is sought is available
`
`for inter partes review and Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`inter partes review of the 780 Patent (EX1001) on the grounds identified in this
`
`Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (a). Petitioners also certify this petition for inter
`
`partes review is not being filed more than one year from the date of service of a
`
`complaint on Petitioners alleging infringement of a patent. Petitioners also certify
`
`that they have not filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the 780
`
`Patent.
`
`B. Mandatory Notices (§ 42.8(b))
`
`The real parties-in-interest of this petition are Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft”), located at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052, and HP
`
`Inc. (“HP”), located at 1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304.
`
`Lead counsel and backup lead counsel are as follows:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8492
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Scott M. Border
`Reg. No. 77,744
`sborder@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8818
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`Service on Petitioners may be made by email (iprnotices@sidley.com), mail
`
`or hand delivery to: Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
`
`20005. The fax number for lead and backup counsel is (202) 736-8711.
`
`The 780 Patent is or has been the subject to, or relates to, the following
`
`proceedings:
`
`• SynKloud Technologies, LLC v. BLU Products, Inc., 1-19-cv-00553
`(D. Del.)
`
`• SynKloud Technologies, LLC v. Dropbox Inc., 6-19-cv-00526 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`
`• SynKloud Technologies, LLC v. Adobe Inc., 6-19-cv-00527 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`
`• Microsoft Corp. v. Synkloud Technologies, LLC, 1-20-cv-00007 (D.
`Del.)
`
`• Adobe Inc. f/k/a Adobe Systems Inc. v. Synkloud Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2020-01301 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`C. No Basis Exists for Discretionary Denial Under Section 314 (a)
`Petitioners note that each factor regularly considered under § 314(a) weigh
`
`against denying institution of this proceeding. General Plastics factors (1)-(5), for
`
`example, favor Petitioners, as these are the only IPRs filed by Petitioners, and the
`
`only other IPR filed against the 780 Patent (i.e., IPR2020-01301) was filed on July
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`15, 2020 (shortly before the filing of this IPR), asserts different prior art, and
`
`challenges fewer claims; (6) Petitioners’ focused grounds preserve the Board’s
`
`“finite resources” such that (7) the Board can satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 316(a)(11). See General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential: §II.B.4.i).
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Claims 9-15 of the 780 Patent are unpatentable over the prior art as follows:
`
`i. Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are Obvious under §103 Based on
`McCown in View of Dutta;
`
`ii. Claims 9-15 are Obvious under §103 Based on McCown in View of
`Dutta, and in Further View of Coates;
`
`IV. THE CONTESTED PATENT
`A.
`Effective Filing Date
`The 780 Patent claims a priority date of December 4, 2003. EX1001, Face.
`
`Petitioners assume that date in its analysis.
`
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the 780 Patent in the 2003
`
`time frame (“a Skilled Artisan”) would have been someone with a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical, computer engineering, computer science, or related field with
`
`two years of experience in a relevant technical field, such as remote storage
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`systems, with related experience in wireless technologies and wireless devices. As
`
`evidenced by the prior art cited below, such a person would have been
`
`knowledgeable about memory structures in both mobile and computer
`
`technologies, techniques for remotely accessing and manipulating databases and
`
`computer files, and communications over computer networks such as the Internet.
`
`EX1003,¶47.
`
`C. Overview of 780 Patent
`The 780 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Wireless Device Access
`
`to External Storage,” EX1001, Face, and describes a device interacting with a
`
`remote storage server for remote storage of data. Id., Abstract. The primary
`
`focuses of the 780 Patent are the transfer of data objects from a remote site to an
`
`allocated storage space on a remote server under control of a wireless device, and
`
`the retrieval of data objects from the storage space to the wireless device. Id.,
`
`5:15-46.
`
`In the system described in the 780 Patent, a user can employ a web browser
`
`on a user device to setup folder/directory structures in the file system of his or her
`
`assigned storage space. Id., 4:45-50. The user can also use the web browser to
`
`perform data management operations to delete, copy, move and rename data
`
`objects in the file system. Id., 4:50-53. Upon receiving the data management
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`request from the user device, the storage server’s software modules perform the
`
`requested operation on the assigned file system of the assigned external storage
`
`volume of the server. Id., 4:65-5:2. The 780 patent describes the steps required to
`
`complete the process to download data from a remote web server into allocated
`
`storage volume and depicts the steps in Figure 3 (below).
`
`
`
`6
`
`Id., Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`D. Claim Construction
`Claims in an inter partes review proceeding are construed according to their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning in light of the specification and file history of the
`
`patent in which those claims appear.
`
`“cache storage . . .”
`1.
`The 780 Patent uses the word “cache,” or conjugations thereof, only once in
`
`
`
`the specification, in its description of Figure 3. EX1001, 5:28-32. Thus, the 780
`
`Patent discloses that the user accesses a web page via a web browser “to obtain
`
`information for the downloading.” EX1001, 5:22-24. The 780 Patent gives an
`
`example of said “downloading information” as the “IP address of the remote web
`
`site and the data name for the downloading.” EX1001, 5:25-27. The downloading
`
`information “becomes available in the cached web-pages on the wireless device
`
`after the web-browser (8) accessing the web site (15).” EX1001, 5:28-32;
`
`EX1003,¶61.
`
`Figure 3 shows the data path (a) through which the wireless device accesses
`
`the download website through the use of a web browser to obtain the download
`
`information as seen below:
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 3 (annotated); EX1003,¶62.
`
`The 780 Patent further explains that the download information is then sent
`
`by other software modules in the system to the storage server to indicate what
`
`information should be downloaded and stored. Id., 5:33-42; EX1003,¶63
`
`
`
`A Skilled Artisan would understand this description indicates that the
`
`disclosed wireless device accesses the remote server site via a web browser to
`
`obtain information for the data to be downloaded. The wireless device then stores
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`this download information into a cache in the form of a web page, and later
`
`retrieves it from the cache and sends it to the storage server, in order to indicate
`
`what information should be downloaded or stored. A Skilled Artisan would
`
`understand from this disclosure, particularly its use of the word “cache,” that the
`
`download information is stored on the wireless device in some convenient memory
`
`location of that device, so that it can be more readily accessed, without having to
`
`make another request to the remote server site for the information, when the user
`
`makes a selection of what information should be downloaded and stored. EX1010,
`
`¶¶[0002]-[0003]; EX1003,¶64.
`
`
`
`That reading is consistent with the understanding of the word cache in this
`
`technological field. For example, when used as a noun in this technical field the
`
`word “cache” is generally understood to mean “[a] special memory subsystem in
`
`which frequently used data values are duplicated for quick access.” EX1030, 72.
`
`The word “cache” is also used as a verb to mean storing data close to the user or
`
`user application so that it can be more readily and speedily accessed than the
`
`original storage location. EX1008, 114; EX1003,¶65.
`
`
`
`The claims of the 780 Patent do not use the word “cache” as a noun and do
`
`not recite any specific type of cache memory or process of caching. Instead, the
`
`claims recite “cache storage,” “cached in a cache storage,” and “cached in the
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`wireless device” (i.e., they use the word “cache” as an adjective modifying the
`
`noun “storage” or as a verb modifying “in a cache storage.” I understand that such
`
`a claim term should be interpreted consistent with its grammatical usage, i.e., to
`
`mean a type of “storage” modified by the adjective “cache,” or the process of
`
`storing data in such a storage. EX1003,¶66.
`
`Thus, the ordinary meaning in the context of the 780 Patent of “cache
`
`storage” is storage that is more readily accessible by the user or user application
`
`than the original storage location. EX1003,¶67.
`
`“utilizing download information . . .”
`2.
`In context, this claim language relates to a storage operation that causes a
`
`
`
`file from a remote server to be stored into an assigned storage space. EX1001,
`
`6:34-42; EX1003,¶69.
`
`Dr. Houh notes that, viewed in isolation, however, this phrase is ambiguous
`
`as to what information is “cached in [the/a] cache storage,” i.e., the “download
`
`information” or the “file”? EX1003,¶70.
`
`
`
`The “cache storage” is claimed as part of the wireless device. Id., 6:10-12.
`
`Dr. Houh also notes that the specification of the 780 Patent explains that the file
`
`being downloaded is never sent to the wireless device, but is instead transferred
`
`directly from the remote site to the assigned storage location. Id., 5:37-42.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`Moreover, in the disclosed system, it is the download information that gets stored
`
`in the cache of the wireless device. EX1001, 5:28-32; EX1003,¶71.
`
`
`
`Claim 9 discloses that the process occurs “through utilizing download
`
`information for the file…cached in a cache storage of the first wireless device.”
`
`EX1001, 7:31-34 (emphasis added). Claim 9 also discloses “program instructions
`
`for allocating exclusively…a first one of the storage spaces to a user of a first
`
`wireless device.” EX1001, 7:12-14. In claim 9, the 780 Patent discloses “program
`
`instructions for establishing a communication link for the first wireless device
`
`remotely access to the first one of the storage spaces.” EX1001, 7:15-17 (emphasis
`
`added). Thus, “a cache storage of the first wireless device” must be a cache storage
`
`in the first wireless device that is correlated with the first storage space.
`
`EX1003,¶72.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, when read in the context of the 780 Patent specification, the
`
`ordinary meaning of “utilizing download information for the file[, including name
`
`of the file and internet protocol (“IP”) address of the remote server,] cached in
`
`[the/a] cache storage [[in/of] the [first] wireless device] ” is broad enough to
`
`cover using information [, including the name of the file to be downloaded and IP
`
`address of the remote server,] stored in the cache storage [of the [first] wireless
`
`device] to download a file from a remote server. EX1003,¶73.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`“folder structure”
`3.
`The 780 Patent explains that “the user on the web-browser (8) is facilitated
`
`to perform creating structured layered file directories or folders.” Id., 3:22-23;
`
`EX1003,¶75.
`
`A “folder” is “a means of organizing programs and documents on a disk and
`
`can hold both files and additional folders.” EX1030, 202-203; EX1003,¶76.
`
`“Structure” is defined as “the arrangement or organization of parts in a system.”
`
`EX1023; EX1003,¶77. In this instance, the term “folder” modifies the term
`
`“structure.” Thus, when combined, a “folder structure” is a structure of folders.
`
`That correlates to the description in the 780 Patent at EX1001, 3:22-23.
`
`EX1003,¶78.
`
` Accordingly, when read in the context of the 780 Patent specification and
`
`the understood meanings, the ordinary meaning of a “folder structure” is an
`
`arrangement of folders and subfolders for holding files. EX1003,¶79.
`
`“pool of a plurality of storage spaces”
`4.
`The 780 Patent does not use the term “pool” or conjugations thereof outside
`
`
`
`of the claims. However, claim 9 refers to “program instructions for allocating
`
`exclusively, via the storage pool, a first one of the storage spaces to a user of a
`
`first wireless device.” EX1001, 7:13-15 (emphasis added). The 780 Patent refers to
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`“the storage pool” in claim 9 without disclosing or defining explicitly a “storage
`
`pool” at any point in the independent claim or specification. As “the storage pool”
`
`refers back to previously mentioned terminology in claim 9, Dr. Houh interprets
`
`“storage pool” and “pool of a plurality of storage spaces” to have the same
`
`meaning. EX1003,¶81.
`
`
`
`A “pool” is defined as “a collection of things available for the asking or the
`
`dialing.” EX1035, 623. Thus, a “pool” of a plurality of storage spaces is a
`
`collection of a plurality of storage spaces. EX1003,¶82.
`
`
`
`Thus, when read in the context of the 780 Patent specification and the
`
`understood meanings, the ordinary meaning of “a pool of a plurality of storage
`
`spaces” is a collection of a plurality of storage spaces. EX1003,¶83.
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART (EX1005)
`A. McCown (EX1005)
`International Publication No. WO 01/67233 to McCown was published on
`
`September 13, 2001, from a PCT Application filed on March 3, 2000. EX1005,
`
`Face. McCown is prior art to the 780 Patent under at least §§102(a), (b) and (e).
`
`McCown describes a system in which “[s]elected files are downloaded
`
`across a network from a remote site into a client’s storage space account
`
`established within a storage site.” EX1005, Face. McCown explains that as part of
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`the remote storage process, a client, operating from a user site (e.g., a wireless
`
`device) on a network, selects files for downloading through use of an input device.
`
`EX1005, 11:4-11. The user site software generates a data request from the user’s
`
`selections which is “sent across the Internet” to the storage site’s software
`
`application. EX1005, 11:20-22. The data request is received by the storage site’s
`
`software application which generates a download request based on user selections.
`
`EX1005, 12:24-25. The download request is provided to the storage site’s web
`
`server which sends it to the remote site’s server. EX1005, 12:25-27. The remote
`
`site’s server receives the download request and responds by downloading the files
`
`to the storage site and storing them into the client’s storage space account.
`
`EX1005, 12:27-13:2.
`
`B. Dutta (EX1006)
`U.S. Publication No. 2002/0078102 to Dutta (“Dutta”) was filed on
`
`December 18, 2000 and was published on June 20, 2002. EX1006, Face. Dutta is
`
`prior art to the 780 Patent under at least §§102(a), (b) and (e).
`
`
`
`Dutta primarily describes the capture and subsequent storage of web content.
`
`EX1006, Abstract. The client receives a file, generally in a Web page, in response
`
`to a request by the user to browse the web page. EX1006, ¶[0010]. The captured
`
`data of the displayed web page and user parameters are sent to the server from the
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`client. EX1006, ¶[0010]. The server receives the data and automatically stores the
`
`captured data received from the client at the server. EX1006, ¶¶[0010]-[0011].
`
`
`
`The client maintains local storage for use by the browser application and
`
`other applications. EX1006, ¶[0029]. The browser may store bookmarked files,
`
`browser cache, and various other types of files. EX1006, ¶[0029].
`
`C.
`Coates (EX1007)
`US Patent No. 7,266,555 to Coates was filed on December 8, 2000 and
`
`published on September 4, 2007. EX1007, Face. Coates is prior art to the 780
`
`Patent under at least §102(e).
`
`Coates is directed “toward the field of remote storage, and more particularly
`
`toward accessing remote storage through the use of a local device.” EX1007,
`
`Face, 1:21-24. Coates discloses a storage port that interfaces a client computer,
`
`such as a web or application server, to a network storage system (seen below).
`
`EX1007, 3:7-8. Users only gain access to their media objects within the network
`
`storage system, using a highly secured “shared secret” authentication technology.
`
`EX1007, 4:65-67. The network storage system stores files at one or more storage
`
`centers, remote from the client site. EX1007, 3:8-10. To gain access to content
`
`stored at the remote storage center, the client computer mounts the storage port as a
`
`storage device for the client computer. EX1007, 3:10-13. The client computer
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`issues local file system requests to conduct network storage system operations.
`
`EX1007, 3:13-14. In response, the storage port translates local file system requests
`
`to network storage system requests. EX1007, 3:14-16.
`
`VI. REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
`Petitioners demonstrate below that the challenged claims are obvious based
`
`on McCown in view of Dutta for claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15, and McCown and
`
`Dutta in view of Coates for claims 9-15. In order to improve the clarity of the
`
`analysis, the obviousness grounds set out below incorporate and build upon the
`
`basic comparison of the challenged claims to McCown, or McCown and Dutta.
`
`A.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Over McCown in
`View of Dutta
`1.
`Claim 9
`a.
`Preamble
`
`The preamble of claim 9 recites “[a] server comprising…”
`
`McCown discloses network-based storage spaces having client accounts and
`
`methods for downloading client-selected files from remote sites into client
`
`accounts. EX1005, 1:3-5. A web server operates in the storage space to provide
`
`web pages, directories, and other information to aid the client. EX1005, 9:9-11.
`
`The storage site’s web server is also capable of communicating with, and
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`downloading files to and from other internet sites. EX1005, 9:11-13;
`
`EX1003,¶307.
`
`McCown satisfies this claim element. EX1003,¶308.
`
`a.
`
`Pool of a Plurality of Storage Spaces
`
`Claim 9 further recites “[a] server comprising… a pool of a plurality of
`
`storage spaces.”
`
`The ordinary meaning of “a pool of a plurality of storage spaces” is a
`
`collection of a plurality of storage spaces. See §IV.D.4; EX1003,¶310.
`
`McCown discloses that storage space “accounts” (i.e., plural) (“pool of a
`
`plurality of storage spaces”) are implemented on a storage medium. EX1005,
`
`8:17-18. McCown further discloses that the storage medium “usually comprises
`
`magnetic hard drives but may also include other types such as “magnetic tape,
`
`optical tape, optical disks, and solid state memory devices.” EX1005, 8:20-21.
`
`McCown therefore discloses embodiments in which multiple storage devices (“a
`
`pool of a plurality of storage spaces”) are employed (e.g., “usually comprises
`
`magnetic hard drives”), and therefore discloses “a pool of a plurality of storage
`
`spaces.” EX1005, 8:19-20 (emphasis added); EX1003,¶311.
`
`McCown satisfies this claim element. EX1003,¶312.
`
`b.
`
`Non-transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`Claim 9 further recites “[a] server comprising…[a] non-transitory
`
`computer-readable storage medium comprising program instructions which, being
`
`executed by the server, causes the server delivering storage service.”
`
`McCown discloses a “storage site software application 150 and a user site
`
`software application 152 [that] may be provided to the storage site 140 and the user
`
`site 130 respectively as computer programs recorded on information storage
`
`media.” EX1005, 9:23-26 (emphasis added). McCown gives examples of
`
`“information storage media” as “magnetic disk, magnetic tape, optical disk, non-
`
`volatile memory, or other similar information storage media.” EX1005, 9:28-30;
`
`EX1003,¶314.
`
`
`
`Dr. Houh explains that “computer programs recorded on information storage
`
`media” at the user site and storage site would encompass “non-transitory
`
`computer-readable storage medium” at the user site and storage site, respectively.
`
`EX1030, 450 (defining “storage media” as “[t]he various types of physical material
`
`on which data bits are written and stored, such as floppy disks, hard disks, tape,
`
`and optical disks”); EX1009, 8:5-4 (similar disk); EX1003,¶315.
`
`McCown satisfies this claim element. EX1003,¶316.
`
`(i)
`
`Program Instructions
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`McCown discloses a preferred embodiment in which “a pair of software
`
`application packages are provided to make the storage space account 142 appear as
`
`a mounted drive to the user site 120 and client. A storage site software application
`
`150 is hosted in the storage site 140 and a user site software application 152 is
`
`hosted in each user site”. EX1005, 9:14-17. McCown discloses the use of
`
`“information storage media recording computer programs” employed at the storage
`
`site (“a server”). EX1005, 9:26-28. The computer programs (“program
`
`instructions”) are read from the information storage media (“non-transitory
`
`computer-readable medium”) and executed by the storage site and the user site.
`
`EX1005, 9:28-30. Dr. Houh explains that a Skilled Artisan would understand
`
`those computer programs to implement the remote access techniques described in
`
`McCown. See EX1005, 5:1-6; EX1030, 450; EX1003,¶318.
`
`To the extent one might argue that the remote storage operations disclosed in
`
`McCown and relied on here to satisfy the claims are not sufficiently described in
`
`McCown as being implemented using “program instructions,” it would have been
`
`obvious to implement such operations, including those analyzed below, by
`
`including instructions that control such operations in the McCown user site and
`
`storage site program instructions. McCown discloses that his system includes
`
`software programs (“program instructions”) for providing at least some of the
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`operations described in McCown. EX1005, 9:14-30. A Skilled Artisan would
`
`have been motivated from that disclosure to implement the other operations
`
`described in McCown, or at least as much of it as possible, using such program
`
`instructions because the processing and storage requirements for such instructions
`
`already existed in the system and because it was known at the time that controlling
`
`functionality through software was an efficient, inexpensive and readily
`
`implementable solution. See EX1026, 1:40-46. Indeed, it would have been
`
`common sense to implement McCown’s remote storage operations using program
`
`instructions in view of such an efficient, inexpensive and readily implementable
`
`solution, particularly in view of McCown’s disclosure of the user site and storage
`
`site application programs, which already implements at least some of those
`
`operations. EX1003,¶319.
`
`McCown satisfies this claim element. EX1003,¶320.
`
`(ii) Causes the Server Delivering Storage Service
`Claim 9 further recites that the program instructions “being executed by the
`
`server, causes the server delivering storage service.”
`
`McCown discloses that an account manager is provided in the storage site to
`
`manage access to the storage space accounts (“causes the server delivering storage
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`service”). EX1005, 8:28-29. The account manager protects the storage space
`
`accounts by implementing password protection. EX1005, 8:30-9:6; EX1003,¶322.
`
`The storage site software application (“program instructions”)
`
`communicates with the account manager to send and receive files from the client’s
`
`storage space account (“which, being executed by the server, causes the server
`
`delivering storage service”). EX1005, 10:2-4. Where the user passes
`
`authentication, the URLs within the data request are used to generate a download
`
`request which is then provided to the storage site’s web server. EX1005, 12:23-26.
`
`The web server sends the data request to the remote site, continuing the download
`
`process. EX1005, 12:26-27; EX1003,¶323.
`
`If the user fails authentication, then an error message is generated by the
`
`account manager and sent back to the user site “via the web browser 148 or the
`
`storage site software application 150.” EX1005, 12:14-16 (emphasis added);
`
`EX1003,¶324.
`
`McCown satisfies this claim element. EX1003,¶325.
`
`c.
`
`The Claimed Program Instructions
`
`As demonstrated above, see §VI.A.1.b(i), McCown discloses or renders
`
`obvious “program instructions” employed at the storage site to implement
`
`McCown’s remote storage techniques. McCown further discloses the specific
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`types of program instructions recited in this claim as set forth below.
`
`EX1003,¶¶326-328.
`
`(i)
`Exclusive Allocation
`Claim 9 further recites “[a] server comprising…program instructions for
`
`allocating exclusively, via the storage pool, a first one of the storage spaces to a
`
`user of a first wireless device.”
`
`McCown discloses the use of “storage space accounts” provided by the
`
`storage space (“allocat[ed] exclusively, via the storage pool”) and implemented on
`
`a storage medium with an account manager at the storage site to manage access to
`
`the storage space account
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
