Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: March 8, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: March 8, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a
`Corrected Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No.
`9,239,686 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’686 patent”). Paper 4 (“Pet.”). Patent
`Owner, Synkloud Technologies, LLC filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to
`institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the
`petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the
`Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we
`determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of
`the challenged claims of the ’686 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter
`partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’686 patent on the grounds asserted in
`the Petition.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify several district court proceedings involving, or
`relating to, the ’686 patent. Pet. 3; Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`Notices). Patent Owner identifies several other matters pending before the
`Board involving patents related to the ’686 patent. Paper 6.
`B. Overview of the ’686 Patent
`The ’686 patent describes how a wireless device may access and use
`external storage provided by a storage server. Ex. 1001, 1:24–25. The
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`’686 patent aims to address the lack of storage capacity faced by users on
`their wireless devices by allowing a wireless device to use an external server
`for storing and retrieving data. Id. at 2:39–47, 5:4–58.
`In one embodiment, the storage server’s external storage may be
`partitioned by dividing it into multiple small volumes of storage space that
`may be exclusively assigned to users. Id. at 4:12–37. Partitioning may be
`done through a web-console on a console host by an administrator. Id. at
`4:16–19. Based on storage information received from the storage server’s
`support software, the administrator may use the web-console to partition
`each storage device and send storage partition information to the support
`software. Id. at 4:20–29. The support software may perform the actual
`partition by dividing the storage device into multiple small volumes, each of
`which may be exclusively assigned to and used by a user of a specific
`wireless device. Id. at 4:31–37.
`The ’686 patent also describes a “wireless out-band download”
`approach for downloading data from a remote location to an assigned
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`storage volume. Id. at 2:18–21, 2:61–64, 5:16–47, Fig. 3. Figure 3 is
`illustrative and is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 shows a “wireless out-band download” approach, which includes a
`sequence of steps for downloading data from remote web site server 15 into
`assigned storage volume 11 of external storage system 10 on server 3. See
`id. at 2:18–21, 2:61–64, 5:16–47. First, the user of wireless device 1 may
`access remote web server site 15 via web-browser 8 to obtain information
`about the data for downloading (e.g., data name) via path (a). Id. at 5:23–28.
`Second, other software modules 9 of wireless device 1 may obtain the
`download information for the data, which becomes available in cached
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`web-pages on wireless device 1. Id. at 5:29–33. Third, other software
`modules 9 of wireless device 1 may send obtained download information to
`other service modules 7 of storage server 3 via path (b). Id. at 5:34–37.
`Fourth, other service modules 7 may send a web download request to remote
`web site server 15 via path (c) based on the obtained download information
`and receive the downloaded data streams from remote web site server 15.
`Id. at 5:38–43. Lastly, other service modules 7 may write (i.e., store) the
`data streams to assigned storage volume 11 in server 3 for wireless device 1.
`Id. at 5:44–47.
`The ’686 patent additionally describes retrieving data from an
`assigned storage volume. Id. at 5:48–58. In one embodiment, the user may
`use the wireless device’s web-browser (with embedded video or music
`functionality) to retrieve and play multimedia data files already stored in the
`assigned storage volume on the server. Id. at 5:50–54. In another
`embodiment, the wireless device may retrieve data from the file system of
`the assigned storage volume on the server. Id. at 5:55–58.
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 of the ’686 patent. Claims 1 and 12
`are independent, claims 2–11 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and
`claims 13–20 depend directly or indirectly from claim 12. Claims 1 and 12
`are illustrative and reproduced below:
`1. A server for delivering storage service, comprising:
`a plurality of storage spaces; and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`
`a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising
`program instructions that, being executed by the server,
`causes the server delivering the storage service; wherein
`the program instructions comprise:
`program instructions for allocating exclusively 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 presenting the first one of the storage
`spaces to the user on the first wireless device through
`communication with the first wireless device; and
`program instructions for updating the first one of the storage
`spaces according to a requested operation for remotely
`access to the first one of the storage spaces in response to
`the user from the first wireless device performing the
`operation,
`wherein said operation comprises storing data into the first one
`of the storage spaces or retrieving data therefrom, the
`storing of said data including to download a file from a
`remote server across a network into the first one of the
`storage spaces through utilizing download information
`for the file cached in the first wireless device in response
`to the user from the first wireless device performing the
`operation for downloading the file.
`Ex. 1001, 6:11–38.
`12. A server for delivering storage service, comprising:
`a plurality of storage spaces, and a non-transitory computer-
`readable medium comprising program instructions that,
`executed by the server, causes the server to deliver the
`storage service; wherein the program instructions
`comprises:
`program instructions for the server allocating exclusively a first
`one of the storage spaces of a predefined capacity to a
`user of a first wireless device;
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`
`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 sending information of the first one of
`the storage spaces to the first wireless device for
`presenting the first one of the storage spaces to the user;
`and
`program instructions for updating the first one of the storage
`spaces according to a requested operation for remotely
`access to the first one of the storage spaces in response to
`the user from the first wireless device performing the
`operation,
`wherein said operation comprises creating from the first
`wireless device a folder structure of a plurality of folders
`in the first one of the storage spaces, and comprises to
`delete or move or copy or rename a first one of the
`folders in the folder structure, wherein each of the folders
`being used by the first wireless device for storing data
`therein or retrieving data therefrom.
`Ex. 1001, 7:18–8:4.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–20 are unpatentable based on the
`following grounds (Pet. 3):
`Claims Challenged
`1–4, 8–11
`1–20
`
`References
`35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)1 McCown,2 Dutta3
`103(a) McCown, Dutta, Coates4
`
`
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`A. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the
`’686 patent has an effective filing date before the effective date of the
`applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102 and 103.
`2 WO 01/67233 A2, published Sept. 13, 2001 (Ex. 1005, “McCown”).
`3 U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. US 2002/0078102 A1, published June 20, 2002
`(Ex. 1006, “Dutta”)
`4 U.S. Pat. No. 7,266,555 B1, issued Sept. 4, 2007 (Ex. 1007, “Coates”).
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of
`non-obviousness.5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Citing the Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh, Petitioner contends that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “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 systems, with related experience in
`wireless technologies and wireless devices.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47).
`Patent Owner does not propose an alternative assessment of the level of
`ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.; Ex. 2001 ¶ 21
`(Declaration of Mr. Zaydoon Jawadi).
`To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt
`Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is
`consistent with the ’686 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`C. Claim Construction
`In this inter partes review, we apply the same claim construction
`standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). In applying this standard, we generally give
`claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the
`
`
`5 With respect to the fourth Graham factor, the parties at this time do not
`present arguments or evidence regarding objective indicia of non-
`obviousness. Therefore, the obviousness analysis at this stage of the
`proceeding is based on the first three Graham factors.
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`context of the entire patent disclosure. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for “cached” and “utilizing
`download information,” both recited in independent claim 1 and dependent
`claim 13. Pet. 6–11. Patent Owner proposes a construction for the longer
`claim phrase containing those two terms: “download a file from a remote
`server across a network into the first one of the storage spaces through
`utilizing download information for the file cached in the first wireless
`device.” Prelim. Resp. 10–12. Petitioner also proposes a construction for
`“folder structure,” recited in independent claim 12. Pet. 11–12. Patent
`Owner also proposes a construction for “allocating exclusively a first one of
`the storage spaces of a predefined capacity to a user of a first wireless
`device,” recited in independent claim 12 and similarly recited in dependent
`claims 9 and 20. Id. at 12–14. Based on the parties’ arguments, we
`determine that “cached,” “utilizing download information,” and “allocating
`exclusively a first one of the storage spaces of a predefined capacity to a
`user of a first wireless device” require construction for purposes of this
`Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in
`controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`1. “cached”
`Petitioner contends that “cached” should be construed as “stored in
`storage that is more readily accessible by the user or user application than
`the original storage location.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Petitioner
`explains that its proposed construction reflects the ordinary meaning of the
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`term in the context of the ’686 patent, which “discloses that the user
`accesses a web page via a web browser ‘to obtain information for the
`downloading.’” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:23–25). Petitioner further
`explains that the information becomes available in the cached web pages on
`the wireless device after the web browser accesses the web site. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1001, 5:29–33, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–62). According to Petitioner, a
`skilled artisan
`would understand 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.
`Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 2–3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 64).
`Patent Owner does not propose a construction of “cached” but argues
`the longer phrase “download a file from a remote server across a network
`into the first one of the storage spaces through utilizing download
`information for the file cached in the first wireless device” requires the
`download information to be “stored in a cache storage of a wireless device.”
`Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner, however, does not further argue what
`“cached” itself means, nor does Patent Owner specifically disagree with
`Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`At this juncture, based on the present record, we find Petitioner’s
`proposed construction sufficiently persuasive. Accordingly, for purposes of
`this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the term
`“cached” as “stored in storage that is more readily accessible by the user or
`user application than the original storage location.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`
`2. “utilizing download information”
`Petitioner contends “utilizing download information for the file
`cached in the first wireless device” means “using information stored in the
`cache storage of the first wireless device to download a file from a remote
`server.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 73). According to Petitioner, “the file
`being downloaded is . . . transferred directly from the remote site to the
`assigned storage location.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:38–43). Petitioner
`further contends that “it is the download information that gets stored in the
`cache of the wireless device.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:29–33; Ex. 1003 ¶ 71).
`Patent Owner does not specifically contest Petitioner’s proposed
`construction of “utilizing download information,” but argues the longer
`phrase “download a file from a remote server across a network into the first
`one of the storage spaces through utilizing download information for the file
`cached in the first wireless device” requires information needed to download
`a file from a remote server (i.e., the “download information”) to be
`“(i) stored in a cache storage of a wireless device and (ii) utilized to
`download the file across a network into an assigned storage space for the
`user of the wireless device.” Prelim. Resp. 10–11.
`At this juncture, based on the present record, we find Petitioner’s
`proposed construction sufficiently persuasive and Patent Owner’s
`construction consistent with Petitioner’s construction. Accordingly, for
`purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the
`term “utilizing download information” as “using information stored in the
`cache storage of the first wireless device to download a file from a remote
`server.”
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`
`3. “allocating exclusively a first one of the storage spaces of a predefined
`capacity to a user of a first wireless device”
`Independent claim 12 recites “program instructions for the server
`allocating exclusively a first one of the storage spaces of a predefined
`capacity to a user of a first wireless device.” Ex. 1001, 7:24–26. Dependent
`claims 9 and 20 recite similar phrases. Id. at 7:6–10, 8:35–39. Petitioner
`does not propose any specific construction for this limitation. See generally
`Pet.; see also Prelim. Resp. 13 (acknowledging that Petitioner does not
`explicitly set forth a construction for this limitation).
`Patent Owner argues that “allocating exclusively a first one of the
`storage spaces of a predefined capacity to a user of a first wireless device” in
`the context of the claims requires “deciding or setting in advance by a
`storage server an amount of storage space exclusively to a user of a wireless
`device.” Prelim. Resp. 12. Patent Owner argues that the claim language
`“recites that the ‘capacity’ ‘allocat[ed] exclusively . . . to a user of a first
`wireless device’ is ‘predefined[,’] meaning that it is decided or set in
`advance” and “that the assigning of ‘a first one of the storage spaces of a
`predefined capacity’ is done ‘by a server for delivering storage services.’”
`Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:18–26). Patent Owner further argues that its
`proposed construction is consistent with the Specification of the ’686 patent,
`which, Patent Owner contends, “repeatedly states that an amount of storage
`space is defined in advance to a user of a wireless device,” and “also
`indicates that it is the storage server that defines the capacity of the storage
`space for each of the users.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:50–58).
`We begin our analysis with the claim language. Claim 12 recites
`“program instructions for the server allocating exclusively a first one of the
`storage spaces of a predefined capacity to a user of a first wireless device.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:24–26. That claim language requires that a storage space be
`allocated by the server, but the claim does not require that the server be the
`entity that defines the capacity of the storage space. Further, the claim
`language requires that a storage space be allocated exclusively to a user, but
`it does not require that the capacity of the storage space be defined in
`advance to a user. On this record, although we agree with Patent Owner that
`“predefined” means “decided or set in advance,” it does not follow that
`claim 12 requires only the server to perform the predefining or that the
`capacity be defined in advance to a particular user.
`Moreover, based on the present record, we are not persuaded that the
`Specification of the ’686 patent requires the claim language to be interpreted
`as narrowly as Patent Owner proposes. The disclosure cited by Patent
`Owner provides that “each server unit . . . partition[s] its storage system into
`volumes, such that each of the volumes will have multiple GB in size.”
`Ex. 1001, 2:50–53; see Prelim. Resp. 13. But elsewhere, the ’686 patent
`describes an administrator partitioning volumes of storage on the server.
`Ex. 1001, 3:41–52, 4:24–29. On the present record, we are not persuaded
`that the preferred embodiment of the ’686 patent requires the capacity of a
`storage space to be predefined only by the server. Furthermore, the
`additional disclosure cited by Patent Owner in support of its proposed
`construction merely provides an example of how storage on a server could
`be partitioned among a number of users; it does not state that capacity is
`“defined in advance to a user of a wireless device,” as Patent Owner
`contends. See Prelim. Resp. 13; Ex. 1001, 2:55–57 (“For example, if we
`need to provide each user a 4 GB storage space, then a 160 GB disk drive
`can support 40 users.”). In any event, even if the disclosure relied on by
`Patent Owner were as restrictive as Patent Owner urges, which we find that
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`it is not, we decline to import unclaimed features into the claim language.
`See Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. BioGenex Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[E]ach claim does not necessarily cover every feature
`disclosed in the specification, [and] it is improper to limit the claim to other,
`unclaimed features.”).
`For these reasons, we determine that, on this record, “allocating
`exclusively a first one of the storage spaces of a predefined capacity to a
`user of a first wireless device,” as recited in claim 12 and similarly recited in
`claims 9 and 20, does not require that the capacity be defined “in advance to
`a user of a wireless device” or that the capacity be predefined by the server.
`The parties may wish to address the construction of this limitation further at
`trial.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–4 and 8–11
`over McCown and Dutta
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–4 and 8–11 of the ’686 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over McCown and Dutta.
`Pet. 14–60. Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Houh in support of its
`showing. Id. (citing Ex. 1003). In support of its Preliminary Response
`directed to these grounds, Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of
`Mr. Jawadi. Prelim. Resp. 19–49 (citing Ex. 2001).
`1. McCown
`McCown describes a method for downloading files across a network,
`from a remote site into a client’s storage space account within a storage site.
`Ex. 1005, 3:26–28, 8:12–13. The method may include the use of a user site,
`a remote site that has a web server, and a storage site. See, e.g., id. at 3:26–
`4:7, 7:17–25.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`
`The user site may be a machine capable of digital network
`communications with input and output devices for sending and receiving
`information, and a browser for Internet connectivity. Id. at 7:27–8:1, 8:5–6.
`Examples of a user site include a personal computer, laptop, palmtop, or a
`cell phone. Id. at 7:27–29.
`The remote site may be a web site on the Internet with one or more
`files available for downloading. Id. at 6:17–18. The remote site may
`include a storage medium for storing files as well as file lists used to identify
`each file, for example, by URL. Id. at 6:23, 7:8–14. The remote site may
`also include a web server for interfacing the remote storage medium to the
`Internet, and the web server may be capable of sending and receiving
`information over the Internet, the information sent including webpages, file
`lists, and files. Id. at 7:17–25.
`The storage site may include a storage medium with storage space
`accounts implemented thereon for clients to access on the Internet. Id. at
`8:11–13, 8:17–18. To access its storage space account, a client must
`provide a user identification and password, which may be authenticated by
`an account manager. Id. at 8:27–9:6. The storage space account may appear
`as a mounted drive to the user site and client. Id. at 9:14–16. The storage
`site may also include a web server for sending and receiving information
`over the Internet and may communicate with the remote site’s web server.
`Id. at 9:9–13.
`In one embodiment, the user site may generate a request for a web
`page containing a file list and send the request to the remote site. Id. at
`10:19–23. Having received the request, the remote site may send the
`requested web page to the user site. Id. at 10:24–25. The user site may then
`display the file list to the client through an output device. Id. at 10:25–29.
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`Using an input device, the client may select files from the file list for
`downloading. Id. at 11:4–7. The user site’s software application may accept
`and use the URL of a selected file to generate a data request and send it over
`the Internet to the storage site’s software application. Id. at 11:17–22. The
`data request may be used to generate a download request, which is sent to
`the storage site’s web server. Id. at 12:23–26. The web server may then
`send the download request to the remote site, which may download the files
`identified by the URLs to the storage site. Id. at 12:26–29. The storage site
`may receive the downloaded files and store them into the client’s storage
`space account. Id. at 12:29–13:2.
`2. Dutta
`Dutta describes a method and system for customizing the storage of
`captured Web content. Ex. 1006 ¶ 10. A client may receive a Web page
`displayed by a browser application in response to a user’s request to browse
`the Web page. Id. The user may use a control within a toolbar of the
`browser application to capture content being displayed, and the captured
`data and user parameters may be pushed over a wired or wireless network to
`a server for customized processing. Id. ¶¶ 10, 21, 35, 37.
`The server may receive the pushed information from the client and
`automatically stores captured data. Id. ¶ 11. In addition, the server may
`automatically modify a user Web page or file that was previously stored in
`the server’s storage, for example, by inserting a hyperlink to the captured
`data. Id. ¶¶ 11, 53. Such a modification may be accomplished by executing
`a server-side script (e.g., a user-specified script contained in the information
`the server received from the client). Id. ¶¶ 11, 44, 52.
`Dutta also describes that the client may maintain a local storage for
`use by the browser and other applications. Id. ¶ 29. The browser may store
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`a bookmark file, a browser cache, and other types of files such as user-saved
`Web pages. Id. A user of the client may also register to create a personal
`account for gaining authorization and access to the server and its services.
`Id. ¶ 38. After the user has been registered, the user may be allocated a
`certain amount of online storage space within the server’s storage for storing
`various types of data. Id.
`
`3. Claim 1
`Claim 1 recites “[a] server for delivering storage service.” Ex. 1001,
`6:11. Petitioner contends McCown discloses network-based storage spaces
`having client accounts and methods for downloading files from remote sites
`into client account spaces. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:3–5). Petitioner
`further contends that a web server operates in the storage space to provide
`web pages, directories, and other information to aid the client. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1005, 9:9–11). Petitioner further explains that the storage site’s web
`server is capable of communicating with, and downloading files to and from,
`other Internet sites. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 9:11–13; Ex. 1003 ¶ 105).
`Claim 1 further recites “a plurality of storage spaces.” Ex. 1001, 6:12.
`Petitioner contends that McCown describes storage space accounts (“a
`plurality of storage spaces”) implemented on a storage medium. Pet. 15
`(citing Ex. 1005, 8:17–18). Petitioner further contends that McCown
`describes embodiments in which the storage medium comprises multiple
`storage devices (e.g., magnetic hard drives), thus disclosing “a plurality of
`storage spaces.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:17–21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 108).
`Claim 1 further recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium
`comprising program instructions that, being executed by the server, causes
`the server delivering the storage service.” Ex. 1001, 6:13–15. Petitioner
`accounts for this limitation. Pet. 16–20. For example, Petitioner contends
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`that McCown discloses a storage site software application and a user site
`software application provided to a storage site and a user site, respectively,
`as computer programs recorded on information storage media. Id. at 16–17
`(citing Ex. 1005, 9:23–30; Ex. 1009, 8:5–6; Ex. 1030, 450; Ex. 1003 ¶ 111–
`112).
`
`Claim 1 further recites “program instructions for allocating
`exclusively a first one of the storage spaces to a user of a first wireless
`device.” Ex. 1001, 6:17–18. Petitioner accounts for this limitation. Pet. 20–
`26. Petitioner contends that McCown describes the use of storage space
`accounts provided by the storage space (“allocating exclusively a first one of
`the storage spaces”) to individual users (“to a user of a first wireless
`device”). Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:15–18, 8:27–28). Petitioner also
`contends that McCown discloses an account manager that requires clients to
`provide a user identification and password in order to log into their
`respective accounts and authenticates the user identification and password
`against registered user identifications and their respective passwords.
`Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:27–9:4). According to Petitioner, a person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have understood McCown’s
`“disclosure of the storage space provisioned into accounts assigned to
`respective users . . . to include partitioning of storage volumes and allocation
`of said partitioned memory to specific users.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 127–129; Ex. 1031 ¶ 10).
`To the extent McCown does not disclose partitioning and allocation
`functionality, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to modify
`McCown’s system to include that functionality because “[m]emory
`partitioning and allocation techniques, based from remote sites, in order to
`predefine a particular amount of storage were well-known in the prior art.”
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Patent 9,239,686 B2
`
`Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1017, 4:38–43; Ex. 1018 ¶ 8). Petitioner argues that
`a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to
`employ memory partitioning and allocation in order to conserve, reserve, or
`segment memory when employed in a system with a finite amount of
`memory available.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 130; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 7–8).
`Petitioner further argues that partitioning and allocating a remote memory
`storage “would have been simply the arrangement of old elements . . . with
`each performing the same function it had been known to perform and
`yielding no more than what one would expect from such an arrangement.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 131; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 7–8).
`Petitioner alternatively relies on Dutta for teaching storage allocation
`techniques. Id. at 23–26 (citing Ex. 1006, code (57), ¶ 38; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–
`134). Petitioner argues that in Dutta, “the storage server partitions and
`allocates a certain amount of storage space to each user for data storage after
`the user has registered.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 38; Ex. 1003 ¶ 133).
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Dutta with McCown would have
`been obvious because, for example, it would have been the arrangement of
`old elements (McCown’s remote storage method and Dutta’s storage
`partitioning and allocation technique) with each performing the same
`function it had been known to perform and yielding no more than what one
`would expect from such an arrangement. Id. at 25 (citin
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
