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.
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2020-01269 and IPR2020-01270
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ZAYDOON (“JAY”) JAWADI
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01269 and IPR2020-01270
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................... 1
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED ................................................................................ 6
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ............................................................................. 7
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 7
`
`V. OPINIONS ........................................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 9, and 16 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown and Dutta ......... 8
`
`Independent Claims 1, 6, and 9: Utilizing Download Information for the File Cached in
`a.
`the Cache Storage of the Wireless Device .............................................................................. 9
`
`i. Summary of Why McCown in View of Dutta Does Not Disclose Utilizing Download
`Information for the File Cached in the Cache Storage in the Wireless Device ................ 11
`
`Petitioners’ Interpretation of Utilizing Download Information for the File Cached
`ii.
`in the Cache Storage of the Wireless Device in the ’780 Patent ...................................... 15
`
`Steps of Utilizing Download Information for the File Cached in the Cache Storage
`iii.
`of the Wireless Device in the ’780 Patent ......................................................................... 17
`
`iv. McCown Does Not Disclose, Suggest, or Imply Storing Download Information in
`Cache or Retrieving Download Information from Cache ................................................. 18
`
`v.
`
`Dutta Does Not Disclose How Any Data in Its Cache Is Used .............................. 19
`
`vi. Dutta Does Not Disclose, Suggest, or Imply Storing Download Information in
`Cache or Retrieving Download Information from Cache ................................................. 21
`
`vii. The Combination of McCown and Dutta Does Not Disclose, Suggest, or Imply
`Storing Download Information in Cache or Retrieving Download Information from
`Cache22
`
`Petitioners Rely Solely on Expert’s Opinion That It Would Have Been Obvious
`viii.
`to Store the Download Information in Cache and to Retrieve the Download Information
`from Cache ........................................................................................................................ 23
`
`Petitioners’ Readily Accessible Theory for the Motivation for Storing the
`ix.
`Download Information in Cache ....................................................................................... 24
`
`x. McCown Contradicts Petitioners’ Theory for the Motivation for Storing the
`Download Information in Cache ....................................................................................... 24
`
`Petitioners’ Description of McCown’s Steps Contradicts Petitioners’ Theory for the
`xi.
`Motivation for Storing the Download Information in Cache............................................ 27
`
`xii. McCown Stores the Files in the Storage Site, Further Negating the Need to Store
`the Download Information in Cache ................................................................................. 31
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`’780 Patent vs. McCown’s Steps of Utilizing Download Information for the File
`xiii.
`Cached in the Cache Storage of the Wireless Device ....................................................... 33
`
`xiv. Difference between Retrieving from Cache and Retrieving from Displayed Web
`Page 36
`
`xv. Download Information for the File (Singular) ........................................................ 38
`
`xvi. Dutta Does Not Cure McCown’s Deficiencies in Storing Download Information in
`Cache and Retrieving Download Information from Cache .............................................. 39
`
`Petitioners’ Second Purported Reason (Re-Opening the Webpage) to Store
`xvii.
`Download Information in Cache ....................................................................................... 40
`
`Storing McCown’s URLs in Cache Is Unnecessary, Wasteful, Counterintuitive,
`xviii.
`and Not Obvious ............................................................................................................... 43
`
`xix. Coates Does Not Cure McCown’s and Dutta’s Deficiencies in Storing Download
`Information in Cache and Retrieving Download Information from Cache ...................... 44
`
`xx. Utilizing Download Information Cached in the Cache Storage of the Wireless
`Device: Independent Claims 1, 9, and 16 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown and
`Dutta 44
`
`b.
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 10, and 17: Cached Downloading Information ........................ 45
`
`c. Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown and
`Dutta and Are Not Obvious in View of McCown, Dutta, and Coates .................................. 46
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................46
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`I, Zaydoon (“Jay”) Jawadi, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1. My name is Zaydoon (“Jay”) Jawadi.
`
`2.
`
`I am an independent expert and consultant. I have been retained as an
`
`expert witness on behalf of SynKloud Technologies, LLC (“SynKloud”) for the
`
`above-captioned Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`
`(“’780 Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`As shown in my curriculum vitae (attached as Exhibit 2002), I have a
`
`Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Mosul University, a Master of
`
`Science in Computer Science from Columbia University with a Citation for
`
`Outstanding Achievement – Dean’s Honor Student, and over 40 years of
`
`experience in software and product design and development, engineering,
`
`consulting, and management in the fields of data storage, Internet, software, data
`
`networking, computing systems, and telecommunication.
`
`4.
`
`I have worked with and possess expertise in numerous technologies,
`
`including data storage
`
`technologies and
`
`interfaces, Internet and website
`
`technologies, databases, data networking
`
`technologies and protocols, and
`
`telephony.
`
`5.
`
`From 1978 to 1980, I worked as a telecommunication/electrical
`
`engineer for Emirtel (formerly Cable and Wireless, now Etisalat). During my
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`employment at Emirtel, among other things, I worked on telephony and
`
`telecommunication products and services, and I developed software in assembly
`
`and high-level languages for archiving, storing, and retrieving data to and from
`
`data storage devices, such as disk drives and tape drives.
`
`6.
`
`From 1981 to 1983, I worked as a software engineer for Amdahl
`
`Corporation (now Fujitsu), a California-based major supplier of computers,
`
`systems, and data storage subsystems.
`
`7.
`
`From 1984 to 1994, I worked as a software, data storage, and systems
`
`consultant to various data storage and computer companies in California, the
`
`United States, Asia, and Europe. I provided technical consulting services in data
`
`storage, data storage systems, data storage devices, software design and
`
`development, system software, device driver software, data storage device
`
`firmware, data storage software, data storage chips, data storage tools, data storage
`
`test systems and test software, data storage and I/O protocol development systems,
`
`data storage and I/O protocol analyzers, data storage and I/O monitoring systems,
`
`and data storage manufacturing systems and software.
`
`8.
`
`From 1992 to 1996, I was President and founder of Zadian
`
`Technologies, Inc., a California-based leading supplier of networked data storage
`
`test systems, with over 50,000 units installed worldwide in mission-critical
`
`customer operations with premier high-technology customers, such as Conner
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Peripherals (now Seagate), DEC (now HP), EMC (now Dell EMC), Exabyte,
`
`Fujitsu, HP, IBM, Intel, Iomega, Quantum (now Seagate), Seagate, Sony,
`
`StorageTek, Tandberg, Tandem (now HP), Toshiba, Unisys, and WD. The
`
`company’s products
`
`included
`
`test systems, manufacturing systems, and
`
`development systems for data storage devices (disk drives, tape drives, removable
`
`drives, flash drives, optical drives, CD-ROM drives, Jukeboxes, and RAID) and
`
`data storage interfaces (SCSI, ATA / IDE / ATAPI, Fibre Channel, SSA, and
`
`PCMCIA / PC Card).
`
`9.
`
`In 1996, Zadian Technologies was acquired by UK-based Xyratex
`
`International LTD (NASDAQ: XRTX, which was later acquired by Seagate,
`
`NASDAQ: STX, in 2014). Following Zadian’s acquisition by Xyratex, I became
`
`an employee of Xyratex until 1998. At Xyratex, I was a general manager of a data
`
`storage interface business unit and, subsequently, a general manager of a data
`
`networking analysis tools business unit, which designed and built Gigabit Ethernet
`
`network protocol analysis and monitoring products, which were sold, under OEM
`
`agreement, by the largest supplier of network protocol analysis and monitoring
`
`products.
`
`10. From 1999 to 2001, I was CEO, Chairman, and cofounder of Can Do,
`
`Inc., a California-based Internet eCommerce and community company. The
`
`CanDo.com website offered over 10,000 products for sale as well as extensive
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`consumer features, such as news, chat, messages, and product information for
`
`people with disabilities. The company also provided technologies for display
`
`magnification and sound/audio adaptation through the Internet to make websites
`
`more accessible to persons with vision and hearing impairments. The company
`
`was funded by leading venture capital firms.
`
`11. From 2001 to 2007, I was President and cofounder of CoAssure, Inc.,
`
`a California-based provider of Web-based technology services and solutions for
`
`automated telephony speech recognition and touchtone applications, serving
`
`multiple Fortune-500 companies.
`
`12.
`
`In 2009, I cofounded and have since been President of Rate Speeches,
`
`Inc., a California-based Internet company providing online services, resources, and
`
`technologies for creating, rating, evaluating, and enhancing public speaking,
`
`presentation, and communication skills. Rate Speeches also operates the
`
`ratespeeches.com website and the Speech Evaluator online software.
`
`13. Since moving to Silicon Valley in Northern California in 1981, I have
`
`worked on numerous technology products that have generated billions of dollars in
`
`sales.
`
`14.
`
`I hold a California community college lifelong computer science
`
`instructor credential. I have taught various data storage and computer technologies
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`to thousands of professional engineers and academic students in the United States,
`
`Europe, and Asia.
`
`15.
`
`In my work as an expert and consultant, I have examined, analyzed,
`
`and inspected numerous data storage systems, computer systems, software
`
`products, cell phone applications, tens of millions of lines of source code, and the
`
`frontend and backend software of more than 100 websites, including massive,
`
`highly-trafficked consumer and business websites.
`
`16. Through my education, industry and expert experience, and industry
`
`and expert knowledge, I have gained a detailed understanding of the technologies
`
`at issue in this case.
`
`17. My additional industry experience is in my curriculum vitae.
`
`18. My expert litigation support cases, including cases in which I have
`
`testified during the last four years as an expert, can be found in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which is Exhibit 2002.
`
`19. As such, I am qualified to provide opinions regarding the state of the
`
`art at the time the ’780 Patent was filed (which I understand to be no later than
`
`February 16, 2015, but claiming a priority date of December 4, 2003) and how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at that time would have interpreted
`
`and understood the ’780 Patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`20.
`
`I am being compensated for my work and any travel expenses in
`
`connection with
`
`this proceeding at my standard consulting rates.
`
` My
`
`compensation is in no way dependent on or contingent on the outcome of my
`
`analysis or opinions rendered in this proceeding and is in no way dependent on or
`
`contingent on the results of these or any other proceedings relating to the above-
`
`captioned patent.
`
`21. Although I am not rendering an opinion about the level of skill of a
`
`POSITA proffered by Petitioners, based on my professional experience, I have an
`
`understanding of the capabilities of a POSITA (as such a POSITA is defined by
`
`Petitioners). Over the course of my career, I have supervised and directed many
`
`such persons. Additionally, I myself, at the time the ’780 Patent was filed and at
`
`its priority date, qualified as at least a POSITA.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`22.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I reviewed the ’780 Patent, including its
`
`claims in view of its specification, the prosecution history of the ’780 Patent,
`
`various prior art and technical references from the time of the invention, the
`
`IPR2020-01269 Petition (“’1269 Petition”) and its exhibits (Ex. 1001 – Ex. 1036),
`
`and the IPR2020-01270 Petition (“’1270 Petition”) and its exhibits (Ex. 1001 – Ex.
`
`1036).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`23.
`
`I have worked with counsel in the preparation of this Declaration.
`
`Nevertheless, the opinions, statements, and conclusions offered in this Declaration
`
`are purely my own and were neither suggested nor indicated in any way by counsel
`
`or anyone other than myself. I confirmed with counsel my understanding that the
`
`term “obvious,” as used in the Petition addressed herein and as a general matter
`
`under United States law, refers to subject matter that would have occurred to a
`
`POSITA to which the ’780 Patent is directed without inventive or creative thought.
`
`That which is obvious, it is my understanding, flows naturally from the art and the
`
`education one of skill practicing in that art would have had in the relevant time
`
`frame, which for the ’780 Patent is 2003.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`24.
`
`I reviewed the comments in the Petition and Petitioners’ expert’s
`
`declaration (Ex. 1003) pertaining to claim “construction of the claims” of the ’780
`
`Patent for both the 1269 and 1270 IPRs. Petitioners’ expert’s constructions are not
`
`consistent with the understanding that a POSITA would have had of the claims of
`
`the ‘780 patent. Patent Owner’s constructions, as set forth in the Preliminary
`
`Responses, are consistent with a POSITA’s understanding. Nonetheless, none of
`
`the claims of the ’780 patent would have been obvious even under Petitioners’
`
`constructions.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`V. OPINIONS
`
`25.
`
`In the 1269 IPR, Petitioners present two grounds under which claims
`
`1-8 and 16-20 of the ’780 Patent are purportedly invalid; in particular, Petitioners
`
`contend that Claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 16-20 are obvious under §103 based on
`
`McCown (Ex. 1005) in view of Dutta (Ex. 1006); and contend that Claims 4-6 and
`
`16-20 are obvious under §103 based on McCown in view of Dutta and Coates (Ex.
`
`1007). ’1269 Petition, 4. In the 1270 IPR, Petitioners present two grounds under
`
`which claims 9-15 of the ’780 Patent are purportedly invalid; in particular,
`
`Petitioners contend that Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are obvious under §103 based
`
`on McCown in view of Dutta; and contend that Claims 9-15 are obvious under
`
`§103 based on McCown in view of Dutta, and in further view of Coates. ’1270
`
`Petition, 4.
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, as described below, Petitioners have not established a
`
`reasonable basis to conclude that the claims of the ’780 Patent are obvious.
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 9, and 16 Are Not Obvious in View of
`McCown and Dutta
`
`27. Petitioners contend that independent Claims 1, 9, and 16 are obvious
`
`over McCown (Ex. 1005) in view of Dutta (Ex. 1006). ‘1269 Petition, 4; ‘1270
`
`Petition, 4. I disagree for the reasons outlined below.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`a. Independent Claims 1, 6, and 9: Utilizing Download
`Information for the File Cached in the Cache Storage of the
`Wireless Device
`
`28.
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’780 Patent recites utilizing download
`
`information for the file cached in the cache storage of the wireless device.
`
`“1. A wireless device access to a remote storage space, the wireless
`device comprising:
`at least one cache storage, and one non-transitory computer-readable
`medium comprising program instructions which, being executed by
`the wireless device, cause the wireless device remotely access to the
`storage space, the program instructions include:
`…
`program instructions for coupling with the storage server across the
`wireless link to carry out a requested operation for remotely access to
`the storage space in response to the user from the wireless device
`performed the operation,
`wherein the program instructions for carrying out operation for the
`access to the storage space comprises program instructions for storing
`data therein or retrieving data therefrom,
`the program instructions for storing data including program
`instructions for downloading a file from a remote server across the
`Internet into the storage space through utilizing download information
`for the file, including name of the file and internet protocol (“IP”)
`address of the remote server, cached in the cache storage in response
`to the user from the wireless device performed the operation for the
`downloading.” ’780 patent, Claim 1.
`
`Independent Claim 9 of the ’780 Patent also recites utilizing download
`
`29.
`
`information for the file cached in the cache storage of the wireless device.
`
`“9. A server comprising:
`a pool of a plurality of storage spaces, and non-transitory computer-
`readable storage medium comprising program instructions which,
`being executed by the server, causes the server delivering storage
`service, the program instructions include:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`program instructions for allocating exclusively, via the storage pool, a
`first one of the storage spaces to a user of a first wireless device;
`program instructions for establishing a communication link for the
`first wireless device remotely access to the first one of the storage
`spaces;
`…
`program instructions for updating the first one of the storage spaces in
`response to the user from the first wireless device performed an
`operation for said remotely access to the first one of the storage
`spaces,
`wherein said access to the first one of the storage spaces comprises
`storing data therein or retrieving data therefrom,
`the storing of a data object including to download a file from a remote
`server into the first one of the storage spaces through utilizing
`download information for the file, including name of the file and
`internet protocol (“IP”) address of the remote server, cached in a
`cache storage of the first wireless device in response to the user from
`the first wireless device performed the operation for the
`downloading.” ‘780 patent, claim 9.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Independent Claim 16 of the ’780 Patent also recites utilizing
`
`download information for the file cached in the cache storage of the wireless
`
`device.
`
`“16. A system comprising:
`at least one storage server and one wireless device;
`wherein the storage server comprises a plurality of storage spaces, a
`first one of which being allocated to a user of the wireless device for
`exclusive access, and causes presenting the first one of the storage
`spaces to the user on the wireless device, and
`updates the first one of the storage spaces in response to the user from
`the wireless device performed an operation for remotely access to the
`first one of the storage spaces; and
`wherein the wireless device couples with the storage server across a
`wireless link to carry out a requested operation for remotely access to
`the first one of the storage spaces in response to the user from the
`wireless device performed the operation for the access,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`wherein the operation for remotely access to the first one of the
`storage spaces comprises storing data therein or retrieving data
`therefrom,
`the storing of said data including to download a file from a remote
`server into the first one of the storage spaces through utilizing
`download information for the file cached in a cache storage in the
`wireless device in response to the user from the wireless device
`performed the operation for the downloading.” ’780 patent, Claim 16.
`
`
`
`
`
`i. Summary of Why McCown in View of Dutta Does Not
`Disclose Utilizing Download Information for the File
`Cached in the Cache Storage in the Wireless Device
`
`31.
`
`In the following sections (§§ V.A.a.ii – V.A.a.xix), I will show that
`
`McCown, alone or in view of Dutta, does not disclose utilizing download
`
`information for the file cached in the cache storage of the wireless device. Below
`
`is a summary of the sections that follow (§§ V.A.a.ii – V.A.a.xix).
`
`32. Petitioners proffer an interpretation of utilizing download information
`
`for the file cached in the cache storage of the wireless device in the ’780 Patent.
`
`Petitioners’ interpretation of utilizing download information for the file cached in
`
`the cache storage of the wireless device in the ’780 Patent involves four steps that
`
`include storing download
`
`information
`
`in cache and retrieving download
`
`information from cache. ‘1269 Petition, 7-11; ‘1270 Petition, 7-11.
`
`33. McCown does not disclose cache, and McCown does not disclose,
`
`suggest, or imply storing download information in cache or retrieving download
`
`information from cache.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`34. Dutta mentions that a browser may store “browser cache,” but Dutta
`
`does not disclose, teach, or suggest what the browser cache is used for or how the
`
`data in the browser cache is used, let alone disclosing “download[ing] a file from a
`
`remote server [across the Internet] into [the first one of] the storage space through
`
`utilizing download information for the file[, including name of the file and internet
`
`protocol (“IP”) address of the remote server,] cached in the cache storage [of the ...
`
`wireless device] in response to the user from the [first] wireless device performed
`
`the operation for the downloading” as recited in independent Claims 1, 9, and 16 of
`
`the ‘780 Patent.
`
`35.
`
`In addition, Dutta does not disclose download information, and Dutta
`
`does not disclose, suggest, or imply storing download information in cache or
`
`retrieving download information from cache.
`
`36. The combination of McCown and Dutta does not disclose, suggest, or
`
`imply storing download information in cache or retrieving download information
`
`from cache.
`
`37. Petitioners provide no evidence from McCown or Dutta to show
`
`storing download information in cache or retrieving download information from
`
`cache. Instead, Petitioners rely solely on expert’s opinion that it would have been
`
`obvious to store the download information in cache and to retrieve the download
`
`information from cache. ‘1269 Petition, 44-54; ‘1270 Petition, 41-53.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`38. Petitioners’ theory for the motivation for storing the download
`
`information in cache is that storing the download information in cache would make
`
`the download information more readily accessible and more quickly retrievable.
`
`’1269 Petition, 7, 9, 10, 17, 20-21, 49-50. ’1270 Petition, 9-10, 41, 46, 48. This
`
`theory in unavailing.
`
`39. McCown, including McCown’s steps that purportedly disclose
`
`utilizing download information for the file cached in the cache storage of the
`
`wireless device, contradicts petitioners’ theory for the motivation for storing the
`
`download information in cache. McCown describes that the URLs (download
`
`information) are used only once by the user (negating the need to store the URLs in
`
`cache), and McCown provides no reason to store the URLs (download
`
`information) at the wireless device (whether in cache or otherwise).
`
`40. Petitioners proffer a description of McCown’s steps that purportedly
`
`disclose utilizing download information for the file cached in the cache storage of
`
`the wireless device. Petitioners’ own description of these McCown’s steps
`
`contradicts petitioners’ theory for the motivation for storing the download
`
`information in cache. Petitioners’ description of McCown shows that the McCown
`
`URLs (download information) are used only once by the user and provides no
`
`reason to store the URLs (download information) at the wireless device (whether
`
`in cache or otherwise).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`41. McCown provides another reason for why the URLs are not needed
`
`again by the user, namely that the files pointed to by the URLs will be stored in the
`
`storage site, negating the need to store the download information in cache at the
`
`wireless devices.
`
`42. Petitioners’
`
`interpretation of
`
`the steps of utilizing download
`
`information for the file cached in the cache storage of the wireless device in the
`
`’780 Patent are different from McCown’s steps (as interpreted by Petitioners) that
`
`purportedly disclose utilizing download information for the file cached in the cache
`
`storage of the wireless device.
`
`43. There is no need to cache the web page containing the URL
`
`(download information), because the ’780 Patent recites download information for
`
`the file (singular) cached in the wireless device, negating the need to revisit (or re-
`
`open) the web page containing the download information and negating the need to
`
`cache the web page.
`
`44. Dutta does not cure McCown’s deficiencies in storing download
`
`information in cache and retrieving download information from cache.
`
`45. McCown, alone or with Dutta, and/or Coates, retrieves the URLs
`
`(download information) from the displayed web page containing the URLs
`
`(download information) rather than from cache (as Petitioners interpret the ’780
`
`Patent).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`46. Petitioners’ other purported reason (re-opening the webpage) to store
`
`download information in cache is also unavailing, because the URLs (download
`
`information) are not needed again in McCown and because the files pointed to by
`
`the URLs are stored at the storage site. Thus, the combination of McCown and
`
`Dutta would not have taught utilizing download information for a file in a cache of
`
`a wireless device remotely at a first server for a remote storage site to download
`
`the file from a second server (e.g., web site) to the remote storage site, as required
`
`by each independent claim of the ’780 Patent.
`
`47. Storing McCown’s URLs
`
`in cache
`
`is unnecessary, wasteful,
`
`counterintuitive, and not obvious.
`
`48. Coates does not cure McCown’s and Dutta’s deficiencies in storing
`
`download information in cache and retrieving download information from cache.
`
`49. For at least all these reasons, McCown, alone or in view of Dutta (or
`
`Dutta and Coates) does not disclose utilizing download information for the file
`
`cached in the cache storage of the wireless device.
`
`ii. Petitioners’ Interpretation of Utilizing Download
`Information for the File Cached in the Cache Storage of
`the Wireless Device in the ’780 Patent
`
`50. Petitioners proffer an interpretation of utilizing download information
`
`for the file cached in the cache storage of the wireless device in the ’780 Patent.
`
`‘1269 Petition, 7-12; ‘1270 Petition, 7-12.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`51. Petitioners argue that use of the word “cache” indicates 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.” ‘1269
`
`Petition, 9; ‘1270 Petition, 9.
`
`52. Petitioners also argue that the meaning of the phrase “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.” ‘1269 Petition, 9, 12; ‘1270 Petition, 11.
`
`53. As I will describe, the cited prior art references do not teach the claim
`
`limitation of utilizing download information for the file cached in the cache storage
`
`of the wireless devices as recited in independent Claims 1, 9, and 16 of the ’780
`
`Patent under Petitioners’ definition of that phrase.
`
`54. Petitioners state that “[t]he URLs are ‘download information’ because
`
`they indicate what files are available for download and also because they are a
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`mechanism (e.g., an address) used to locate and download those files.” ‘1269
`
`Petition, 48; ‘1270 Petition, 41-42.
`
`55. Petitioners’ interpretation of the ’708 Patent’s recitation of utilizing
`
`download information for the file cached in the cache storage of the wireless
`
`device is 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 this download information into a cache in the form
`
`of a web page, and later retrieves the download information from the cache
`
`and sends it to the storage server, in order to indicate what information
`
`should be downloaded or stored.” ‘1269 Petition, 8-9 (emphasis added); ‘1270
`
`Petition, 8-9 (emphasis added).
`
`56. Next, I will elaborate on this interpretation and then show that
`
`McCown does not disclose such interpretation.
`
`iii. Steps of Utilizing Download Information for the File
`Cached in the Cache Storage of the Wireless Device in
`the ’780 Patent
`
`57. Based on the above excerpts from the Petition, utilizing download
`
`information for the file cached in the cache storage of the wireless device involves
`
`the following steps:
`
`58. Step 1: The wireless device accesses the remote server site via a web
`
`browser to obtain the download information.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`59. Step 2: The wireless device stores the download information into a
`
`cache.
`
`60. Step 3: The wireless device
`
`later retrieves the download
`
`information from the cache and sends the retrieved download information to the
`
`storage server.
`
`61. Step 4: The download information is then used to download the file
`
`(pointed to by the download information) to the storage server.
`
`62.
`
`In the following sections (§§ V.A.a.iv – V.A.a.xix), I will show that
`
`McCown, alone or
`
`in combination with Dutta, does not disclose such
`
`interpretation.
`
`iv. McCown Does Not Disclose, Suggest, or Imply Storing
`Download Information in Cache or Retrieving Download
`Information from Cache
`
`63. McCown does not disclose, suggest, or imply storing download
`
`information in cache or retrieving download information from cache. Indeed,
`
`McCown does not even mention the term cache.
`
`64. Even according to Petitioners, “McCown does not explicitly disclose
`
`that the URLs identifying files available for download from the remote site
`
`(“download information”) are “cached in a cache storage.”” ‘1269 Petition, 49, 59;
`
`‘1270 Petition, 43, 57.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`v. Dutta Does Not Disclose How Any Data in Its Cache Is
`Used
`
`65. Dutta mentions that a browser may store “browser cache,” but Dutta
`
`does not disclose, teach, or suggest what the browser cache is used for or how the
`
`data in the browser cache is used, let alone disclosing “download[ing] a file from a
`
`remote server [across the Internet] into [the first one of] the storage space through
`
`utilizing download information for the file[, including name of the file and internet
`
`protocol (“IP”) address of the remote server,] cached in the cache storage [of the ...
`
`wireless device]” as recited in independent Claims 1, 9, and 16 of the ’780 Patent.
`
`66. Dutta mentions cache only five times: at FIG. 2, at FIG. 3, at ¶ [0029],
`
`at ¶ [0036], and at ¶ [0043]. However, as I elaborate below, Dutta does not
`
`disclose the way that the cache is used or the data in the cache is used in any of
`
`these five instances. Below, I will address Dutta’s five refe