IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent 9,239,686
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`
`SynKloud Technologies, LLC’s Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Storage Systems ..............................................................................................2
`
`The ’686 Patent: Mr. Sheng Tai Tsao Invents An Approach For Downloading
`Data From A Web Site To A Remote Storage Server Using Download
`Information Stored In The Cache Of A Wireless Device. .............................................3
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE INSTITUTED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW .........................................5
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. ....................................................................................................5
`
`a. 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 (independent claim 1 and dependent
`claim 13). ...........................................................................................................6
`
`b. Allocating exclusively a first one of the storage spaces of a predefined
`capacity to a user of a first wireless device (independent claim 12 and
`dependent claims 9 and 20). .............................................................................10
`
`THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE BY A
`PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS ON ANY
`INSTITUTED GROUND. ...........................................................................................11
`
`Independent Claims 1 And 12 As Well As The Claims Dependent Therefrom
`Would Not Have Been Obvious Over McCown In Combination With The
`Secondary References (Proposed Grounds 1 and 2). ...................................................13
`
`The Combination Of McCown and Dutta (Ground 1) Would Not Have
`Taught “download[ing] 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,” As Recited in Independent
`Claim 1 and As Similarly Recited in Dependent Claim 13. ..................................15
`
`The Combination of McCown and Dutta (Ground 1) Would Not Have
`Taught “transmitting the cached downloading information [obtained for a
`file from a remote server] to the server,” As Recited in Dependent Claim 2
`And As Similarly Recited In Dependent Claim 14. ...............................................25
`
`The Petitioners Failed To Show That A POSITA Would Have Been
`Motivated To Modify McCown With Dutta To Achieve A Device
`“download[ing] a file from a remote server across a network into the first
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`one of the storage spaces through utilizing download information for the
`file cached in the first wireless device,” As Recited In Independent Claim
`1 And Similarly In Dependent Claim 13 And Reasonably Expect Success. .........31
`
`The Combination Of McCown and Dutta (Ground 1) Would Not Have
`Taught “allocating exclusively a first one of the storage spaces of a
`predefined capacity to a user of a first wireless device,” As Recited in
`Independent Claim 12 and As Similarly Recited In Dependent Claim 9. .............38
`
`i. Responses to the Board’s Decision Regarding Predefined Capacity .....................42
`
`The Petitioners Failed To Show That A POSITA Would Have Been
`Motivated To Modify McCown With Dutta To Achieve A Device
`“allocating exclusively a first one of the storage spaces of a predefined
`capacity to a user of a first wireless device,” As Recited In Independent
`Claim 12 And Similarly In Dependent Claim 9 And Reasonably Expect
`Success. ..................................................................................................................43
`
`B.
`
`Objective Indicia Of Non-Obviousness Support The Patentability Of The
`Claims Of The ’686 Patent. .........................................................................................47
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................76
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE NO.
`
`CASES
`
`Arista Networks, Inc., v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`
`2016 WL 1083023 *5 (PTAB 2015)
`
`CCS Fitness Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`
`288 F.3d 1366, 62 USPQ2d at 1662
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`
`809 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc. v. Sierra Pacific Industries,
`
`2019 WL 5070454 *20 (PTAB 2019)
`
`
`
`
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH,
`
`2017 WL 1052517*1 (PTAB 2017)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.,
`
`2017 WL 3447870 *8 (PTAB 2017)
`
`SAS Institute v. Iancu,
`
`138 S.Ct 1348 (2018)
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N Am. Corp.,
`
`299 F.3d 1313, 63 USPQ2d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35
`
`9
`
`15, 48
`
`16, 17, 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17, 31
`
`4, 21
`
`22, 29
`
`15, 23
`
`16
`
`15
`
`2, 14, 18, 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`15
`
`16
`
`15
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.,
`
`308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`
`Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. v. Aqua Products, Inc.,
`
`2018 WL 6604633 *1 (PTAB 2018)
`
`
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3)
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Number Description
`
`2001
`2002
`2003
`
`2004
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`2009
`2010
`
`2011
`2012
`
`2013
`2014
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`Declaration of Zaydoon Jawadi
`Curriculum Vitae of Zaydoon Jawadi
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1, rfc2616, June
`1999.
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary - 5th Edition – 2002
`Dictionary Definitions of Predefine, Merriam-Webster
`Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary.
`Patrick-Turner's Industrial Automation Dictionary;
`Clarence T. Jones, S. Percy Jones; 1996
`Macmillan Dictionary of Information Technology;
`Dennis Longley, Michael Shain; 1988
`Claim Chart of wireless devices with Microsoft OneDrive
`Claim Chart of wireless devices with Adobe cloud services
`Claim Chart of wireless devices with Dropbox cloud
`services
`Claim Chart of wireless devices with Microsoft OneDrive
`Claim Chart of wireless devices with Microsoft OneDrive
`for the ‘686 Patent
`Reserved
`Second Declaration of Jaydoon Jawadi
`Claim Chart of the HP Laptop computers with Microsoft
`OneDrive for the ’254 Patent
`Claim Chart of wireless devices with Microsoft OneDrive
`for the ’254 Patent
`Microsoft Securities and Exchange Commission Form
`10K filing for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019
`https://blog.goptg.com/microsoft-office-365-statistics, last
`viewed September 15, 2020
`https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-
`365/onedrive/compare-onedrive-
`plans?activetab=tab:primaryr2, last viewed September 15,
`2020.
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-
`onedrive-blog/top-4-tips-to-protect-your-remote-
`workforce-with-data-compliance/ba-
`p/1452108?WT.mc_id=eml_CXM_EN-
`US_Comm_M365_Engagement_NewsletterEdition02_Em
`ail_01_V01_622_FY21Aug_ENUS, last viewed September
`15, 2020.
`Claim Chart of BLU wireless device with Google Drive for
`the ’254 Patent
`“The Verizon Plan FAQs,” Verizon website
`(https://www.verizonwireless.com/support/the-verizon-
`plan-faqs/), last viewed September 15, 2020
`“Report: State of the Web,” HTTP Archive website
`(https://httparchive.org/reports/state-of-the-web), last
`viewed September 15, 2020.
`Microsoft OneDrive Pricing
`(https://products.office.com/en-US/onedrive-for-
`business/compare-onedrive-for-business-plans), last
`viewed September 15, 2020.
`“Cloud Data Storage Service Use Among Consumers in
`the United States, as of 2017,” Statista
`(https://www.statista.com/statistics/714140/us-usage-
`cloud-storage-services/), last viewed September 15, 2020.
`“Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1,
`2010 to July 1, 2018,” U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact
`Finder.
`“United States Population,” Worldometer website
`(https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-
`population/), last viewed September 15, 2020.
`Ballard, John, “What is Dropbox’s Competitive
`Advantage?” The Motley Fool, August 21, 2018
`https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/21/what-is-
`dropboxs-competitive-advantage.aspx), last viewed
`September 15, 2020.
`Claim chart of smart phone with cloud storage (filed under
`seal)
`License to the ’254 Patent (filed under seal)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`https://www.microsoft.com/en-
`us/surface/devices/surface-pro/tech-specs, last viewed
`September 19, 2020.
`https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/using-office-
`for-the-web-in-onedrive-dc62cfd4-120f-4dc8-b3a6-
`7aec6c26b55d#:~:text=In%20your%20web%20browser%2
`C%20go,Office%20for%20the%20web%20program, last
`viewed September 19, 2020
`https://www.dummies.com/computers/operating-
`systems/windows-10/how-to-access-onedrive-from-
`anywhere/, last viewed September 19, 2020
`https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-
`365/onedrive/compare-onedrive-
`plans?ef_id=CjwKCAjwkoz7BRBPEiwAeKw3qwWV_91
`zlJtXmTwNvg1VRHD4lR_L8VuIUbASJYJAIKfOODGF
`tWQzwhoCuaMQAvD_BwE:G:s&OCID=AID2100137_
`SEM_CjwKCAjwkoz7BRBPEiwAeKw3qwWV_91zlJtX
`mTwNvg1VRHD4lR_L8VuIUbASJYJAIKfOODGFtWQ
`zwhoCuaMQAvD_BwE:G:s&lnkd=Google_O365SMB_
`App&gclid=CjwKCAjwkoz7BRBPEiwAeKw3qwWV_91
`zlJtXmTwNvg1VRHD4lR_L8VuIUbASJYJAIKfOODGF
`tWQzwhoCuaMQAvD_BwE&activetab=tab:primaryr2,
`last viewed September 19, 2020
`https://www.steeves.net/news/top-9-reasons-for-
`onedrive-in-your-business/, last viewed September 19,
`2020.
`Modified Protective Order
`Redline Version of Modified Protective Order
`"Number of internet users in the United States from 2015
`to 2025 (in millions),” Statista
`(https://www.statista.com/statistics/325645/usa-number-
`of-internet-users/), last viewed September 20, 2020.
`License to the ’254 Patent (filed under seal)
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`2037
`2038
`
`2039
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
` The Board should not cancel any claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686 (“the
`
`’686 patent”) because Petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that any claim is unpatentable for three separate and independent reasons.
`
`First, each of Petitioners’ proposed grounds of rejection is missing one or more
`
`limitations of the claims of the ’686 patent. Infra, §§ V.A.2 and V.B.2-8. For
`
`example, none of the combinations of prior art references asserted by Petitioners
`
`would have taught “download[ing] 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,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly
`
`recited in dependent claim 13 of the ’686 patent. Petitioners sole primary reference
`
`(International Publication No. WO 01/67233 to McCown (“McCown”)) does not
`
`even mention cache. And although the secondary reference (U.S. Publication No.
`
`2002/0078102 to Dutta (“Dutta”)) does mention cache, it does not make any
`
`mention of how any of the data in cache would be used, let alone that download
`
`information in the cache of a wireless device would be used remotely from the
`
`wireless device—not locally at the wireless device—to download a file from a remote
`
`server (e.g., a web site) to a remote storage space.
`
`Second, the Petitioners did not present any objective evidence as to why one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify McCown, the sole
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`primary reference, with the teachings of the secondary references (Dutta and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,266,555 to Coates (“Coates”)), and reasonably expect success. OSRAM
`
`Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Third, objective indicia of non-obviousness, including the commercial success of
`
`the devices that infringe the claims of the ’686 Patent and two licenses showing industry
`
`respect for the claimed invention support the patentability of the claims. Infra, § V.B.
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A. Prior Art Storage Systems
`
`As discussed in the background section of the ’686 patent, prior art storage
`
`systems are “categorized as internal storage or external storage.” EX1001, 1:33-34.
`
`“The internal storages of a computing system include those storage media such as
`
`hard disk drives, memory sticks, memory, and others that are internally connected
`
`within the computing system through [a] system bus or a few inches of cable.” Id. at
`
`1:35-38. That is, internal storage media “are internal components of the computing
`
`system in a same enclosure.” Id. at 1:39-40.
`
`In contrast, “[t]he external storages of a computing system are those storage
`
`media that are not the internal components of the computing system in a same
`
`enclosure.” Id. at 1:42-45. Instead, external storage is “connected through [a] longer
`
`cable, such as through Ethernet cable for IP based storage, Fiber channel cable for
`
`fiber channel storage, or wireless communication media, and others.” Id. at 1:43-47.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`“[E]xternal storage could be magnetic hard disk drives, solid state disk, optical
`
`storage drives, memory card and others, and could be in any form.” Id. at 1:47-51.
`
`The inventor of the ’686 patent, however, recognized that storage on users’
`
`“wireless devices such as in their cell phone or personal data assistant devices
`
`(“PDA”) … [was] usually limited to 256 MB for the PDA and much less for the cell
`
`phone.” Id. at 2:39-42. Accordingly, the invention recognized a need to provide
`
`wireless devices with “multiple gigabytes (GB) of storage” from a remote storage
`
`server to support multimedia applications. Id. at 2:43-47. Moreover, because
`
`multimedia data require large amounts of memory, there was a need to store data
`
`from various sources (e.g., a web server) to the remote storage server. Id. at 2:50-54.
`
`
`
`B. The ’686 Patent: Mr. Sheng Tai Tsao Invents An Approach For
`Downloading Data From A Web Site To A Remote Storage Server Using
`Download Information Stored In The Cache Of A Wireless Device.
`
`The ’686 patent addresses the deficiencies of the prior art with an approach
`
`that downloads data from a web site to a remote storage server using download
`
`information in a cache of a wireless device, as shown by FIG. 3, which is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`
`
`One embodiment of the invention includes a wireless device (1) having a web
`
`browser (8) and other software (9); a website (15); and external storage (10) having
`
`file systems (11) on a server (3). Id. at 3:60-4:2. The present invention downloads
`
`data using the download information in the cache of the user’s wireless device (1)
`
`from the web site (15) to the user’s assigned file system (11) on the server. The
`
`downloaded data can later be accessed by the user device. Id. at 5:48-58.
`
`Thus, the invention of the ’686 patent includes a novel and non-obvious way to
`
`utilize download information in a cache of a wireless device to enable easy and
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`efficient downloading of data (e.g., a web page, a file) from a web server to a remote
`
`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`storage space.
`
`
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE INSTITUTED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
`
`Below is a summary of the proposed grounds instituted by the Board:
`
`i.
`
`Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are alleged to have been obvious under §103 over
`
`International Publication No. WO 01/67233 to McCown (“McCown”) in view of
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2002/0078102 to Dutta (“Dutta”); and
`
`ii. Claims 1-20 are alleged to have been obvious under §103 over McCown
`
`in View of Dutta, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,266,555 to Coates
`
`(“Coates”).
`
`
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.
`
`Claim construction is generally an issue of law. Claims in an inter partes review
`
`are construed pursuant to the principle set forth by the court in Phillips v. AWH Corp,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under Phillips, the specification is
`
`the single best source for claim interpretation. 415 F.3d at 1312. “The terms used in
`
`the claims bear a heavy presumption that they mean what they say and have the ordinary
`
`meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.”
`
`Texas Digital System, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, the “appropriate
`
`context” to read a claim term includes both the specification and the claim language
`
`itself. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`
`
`a.
`
`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
`(independent claim 1 and dependent claim 13).
`
`The claim limitation “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” is recited in independent claim 1, and
`
`similarly recited in dependent claim 13. This claim limitation requires information
`
`needed to download a file from a remote server 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.
`
`This claim construction is consistent with the claim language itself. Claim 1
`
`explicitly recites that the “download information for the file cached in the first
`
`wireless device.” EX1001, 6:35-36. Claim 1 also recites “download[ing] a file from a
`
`remote server.” Id. at 6:34-35. Therefore, the claimed “download information” is for
`
`the file at the remote server and this “download information” is stored in the cache
`
`storage of the “wireless device.” Claim 13 recites similar limitations, id. at 8:5-11,
`
`and therefore, also supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction is also consistent with the Specification.
`
`The Specification explains that the claimed “download information for the file” is
`
`stored in the cache of the wireless device: “the downloading information for the data,
`
`which becomes available in the cached web-pages on the wireless device.” Id. at 5:30-
`
`33. This download information in the wireless device’s cache is, in fact, utilized to
`
`download the file:
`
`3) The other software modules (9) of the wireless device (1) send the
`
`obtained downloading information to other service modules (7) of the
`
`storage server (3) via path (b) of FIG. 3.
`
`
`
`4) Upon receiving the downloading information from the wireless device
`
`(1), the other service module (7) of the storage server (3) sends a web
`
`download request to the web-site (15) via path (c) of FIG. 3 based on
`
`download information obtained. and receives the downloading data
`
`streams from the web server of the web-site (15).
`
`EX1001, 5:34-43.
`
`Petitioners’ construction of “cache” as “storage that is more readily accessible
`
`by the user or user application than the original storage location” (Petition, 10) is
`
`flawed. As explained by Mr. Jawadi, “[a] POSITA would have known that cache
`
`storage is not merely any storage location ‘that is more readily accessible by the user or
`
`user application than the original storage location’” because it “omits three basic cache
`
`principles.” EX2014, ¶ 27.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`“First, cache storage is used to save information that may be needed multiple times
`
`(subsequent to initial access) in a more readily accessible location, eliminating the need to
`
`retrieve the data again from the original source of the information.” Id. at ¶ 28 (emphasis
`
`in original). “Second, cache storage includes a cache search mechanism invoked when
`
`information is needed. The cache search mechanism is used to determine if the requested
`
`information is in cache (cache hit) or not in cache (cache miss).” Id. at ¶ 29 (emphasis in
`
`original). “Third, cache storage includes a replacement algorithm, mechanism, or policy
`
`for replacing information in cache, such as least recently used (LRU) algorithm.” Id. at ¶
`
`30 (emphasis in original).
`
`Indeed, Petitioner’s own references describe these three principles. For example,
`
`“Petitioner’s EX-1008 (Newton’s Telecom Dictionary) confirms that cache storage is used
`
`to save information that may be needed multiple times (subsequent to initial access), that
`
`cache storage includes a mechanism to determine cache hit/miss, and that cache storage
`
`includes a replacement algorithm” (EX2014, ¶ 32):
`
`A cache works like this. When the CPU needs data from memory, the
`system checks to see if the information is already in the cache. If it is, it
`grabs that information; this is called a cache hit. If it isn’t, it’s called a
`cache miss and the computer has to fetch the information by access the main
`memory or hard disk, which is slower. Data retrieved during a cache miss is
`often written into the cache in anticipation of further need for it.
`...
`Generally, when the cache is exhausted, it is flushed and the data is written
`back to main memory, to be replaced with the next cache according to a
`replacement algorithm.
`...
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`The cache also will hold information that you recently accessed, in
`anticipation of your wanting to back up, or access it again.
`...
`Caching A process by which information is stored in memory or server in
`anticipation of next request for information.
`
`EX-1008, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (emphasis added). “Petitioner’s EX-1030
`
`(Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary) also confirms that cache storage is used to save
`
`information that may be needed multiple times (subsequent to initial access) and that cache
`
`storage includes a mechanism to determine cache hit/miss” (EX2014, ¶ 33):
`
`A special memory subsystem in which frequently used data values are
`duplicated for quick access. A memory cache stores the contents of
`frequently accessed RAM locations and the addresses where these data
`items are stored. When the processor references an address in memory, the
`cache checks to see whether it holds that address. If it does hold the
`address, the data is returned to the processor; if it does not, a regular
`memory access occurs.
`
`EX-1030, Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, Petitioner’s construction, which deems as cache any location that is “more
`
`readily accessible … than the original storage location” neglects to consider that a
`
`POSITA would have known of these three basic cache principles (i.e., that cache stores
`
`information that may be needed multiple times / subsequent to initial access, that cache
`
`storage includes a mechanism to determine cache hit/miss, and that cache storage
`
`includes a replacement algorithm). “[U]nder such overly broad and flawed construction,
`
`any storage location (e.g., disk drive, random access memory, etc.) that stores the
`
`information and that is faster than the original source would constitute cache, even if the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`information is only transitorily and temporarily stored in that location and not saved for
`
`future hits, even if the location is never intended or designed to operate as cache, even if
`
`the location does not operate as cache (missing the three basic cache principles
`
`mentioned above), and even if the location entirely contradicts the three basic cache
`
`principles described earlier.” EX2014, ¶ 34. Indeed, “[u]nder Petitioner’s construction,
`
`other than the original location where a web page is stored at the web server, any storage
`
`location where the web page is stored would constitute cache, because any such alleged
`
`storage location other than the original location is ‘more readily accessible by the user or
`
`user applications than the original storage location.’” Id. at ¶ 35.
`
`
`
`b. Allocating exclusively a first one of the storage spaces of a
`predefined capacity to a user of a first wireless device
`(independent claim 12 and dependent claims 9 and 20).
`
`This claim limitation requires deciding or setting in advance by a server an amount
`
`of storage space exclusively to a user of a wireless device.
`
`This construction is consistent with the language of the claim itself and the
`
`Specification. Claim 9 recites that the “exclusively” assigned “capacity to a user of a
`
`second wireless device” is “predefined” (EX1001, 7:6-9), meaning that it is decided or
`
`set in advance. Claim 9 also recites that the assigning of “storage spaces of a predefined
`
`capacity” is done by a “server.” Ibid.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`Also, the Specification repeatedly states that an amount of storage space is defined
`
`in advance to a user of a wireless device:
`
`each user of the wireless devices can be exclusively assigned for access to a
`
`specific storage volume on a server unit. For example, if we need to provide
`
`each user a 4 GB storage space, then a 160 GB disk drive can support 40
`
`users. Therefore, a 4096 GB storage system on the server unit can support a
`
`total of 1024 the users.
`
`Id. at 2:53-58. The Specification also indicates that it is the storage server that defines the
`
`capacity of the storage space for each of the users of wireless devices: “each server unit
`
`(i.e., the server 3 of the FIG. 2) partitions its storage system into volume[s] and each of
`
`the volumes will have multiple GB in size.” Id. at 2:50-53.
`
`Although Petitioners did not explicitly set forth a construction for this claim
`
`limitation (see Petition 6-12), their obviousness analysis is based upon an improper
`
`understanding of this limitation’s meaning. Petitioners conflate predefining capacity
`
`(predefining an amount of storage) and allocating (reserving or assigning) storage.
`
`EX2001, ¶¶ 174, 175. Moreover, “a POSITA would have understood predefining
`
`capacity to mean defining (i.e., deciding or setting in advance) the amount of storage
`
`before the storage is allocated or assigned to the user.” Id. at ¶ 174.
`
`
`
`V. THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE BY A
`PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS ON ANY
`INSTITUTED GROUND.
`
`As set forth by the Supreme Court, 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 skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148
`
`USPQ 459, 467 (1966); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007)
`
`(“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case,
`
`the [Graham] factors define the controlling inquiry.”) A petitioner seeking to
`
`invalidate a patent as obvious must demonstrate that a “skilled artisan would have
`
`been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the
`
`claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so.” OSRAM Sylvania, 701 F.3d at 706. The Petition’s
`
`evidence must also address every limitation of every challenged claim. Where the
`
`Petitioner seeks to rely on the knowledge of skill in the art, how and why one of skill
`
`in the art would modify the references relied upon to demonstrate obviousness must
`
`be set forth with specificity. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Petitioners cannot prevail on any claim on any of the instituted obviousness
`
`grounds because they (i) failed to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the numerous prior art
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`references in the combination to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success, (ii) failed to demonstrate that any of the different
`
`combinations teaches every element of any of the challenged claims, and; (iii) failed
`
`to consider objective indicia of non-obviousness including commercial success and
`
`two licenses showing industry respect for the claimed invention.
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claims 1 And 12 As Well As The Claims Dependent Therefrom
`Would Not Have Been Obvious Over McCown In Combination With The
`Secondary References (Proposed Grounds 1 and 2).
`
`The combination of McCown and Dutta would not have taught or suggested
`
`the claim limitations of “download[ing] 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,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as
`
`similarly recited in dependent claim 13. EX1001, 6:33-36; 8:6-11. Indeed, the
`
`combination would not even have taught that this “[download] information for the
`
`file [is] cached in the wireless device.”
`
`Moreover, the combination would not have taught “transmitting the cached
`
`downloading information [obtained for a file from a remote server] to the server,” as
`
`recited in dependent claim 2 and as similarly recited in dependent claim 14.
`
`EX1001, 6:42-44, 8:14-16. In addition, the combination would not have taught
`
`transmitting download information cached in the wireless device “causing the server
`
`in accordance with the downloading information to download the file into the first
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01271
`U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`one of the storage spaces,” as recited in dependent claim 2, and as similarly recited in
`
`dependent claim 14. Id. at 6:44-46, 8:16-18. The combination of references would
`
`also not have taught “allocating exclusively a first one of the storage spaces of a
`
`predefined capacity to a user of a first wireless device,” as recited in independent
`
`claim 12 and as similarly recited in dependent claim 9. Id. at 7:7-10, 24-26.
`
`Moreover, Petitioners’ argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(POSITA) would have been motivated to store download information in a cache of a
`
`wireless device and to use it to download a file from a second server across a network
`
`into a remote storage space is inconsistent with the disclosure of McCown itself. As
`
`explained by Mr. Jawadi, the universal resource locators (URLs) in McCown “are
`
`used only once by the user (negating the need to store the URLs in cache),” and thus,
`
`there would not have been any motivation to store the URLs “at the wireless device
`
`(whether in cache or otherwise).” EX2001 at ¶ 37. As further explained by Mr.
`
`Jawadi, “the files pointed to by the URLs [in McCown] will be stored in the storage
`
`site, negating the need to store the download information in