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 No. 9,239,686
`
`____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ZAYDOON (“JAY”) JAWADI
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01271
`Exhibit 2001
`Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. v. SynKloud Technologies, LLC
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................... 1
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED ................................................................................ 6
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ............................................................................. 6
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 7
`
`V. OPINIONS ........................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1 Is Not Obvious in View of McCown and Dutta ............................... 8
`
`Independent Claim 1: Utilizing Download Information for the File Cached in the
`a.
`Wireless Device ...................................................................................................................... 8
`
`i. Summary of Why McCown in View of Dutta Does Not Disclose Utilizing Download
`Information for the File Cached in the Wireless Device .................................................... 8
`
`Petitioners’ Interpretation of Utilizing Download Information for the File Cached
`ii.
`in the Wireless Device in the ’686 Patent ......................................................................... 13
`
`Steps of Utilizing Download Information for the File Cached in the Wireless
`iii.
`Device in the ’686 Patent .................................................................................................. 14
`
`iv. McCown Does Not Disclose, Suggest, or Imply Storing Download Information in
`Cache or Retrieving Download Information from Cache ................................................. 15
`
`v.
`
`Dutta Does Not Disclose How Any Data in Its Cache Is Used .............................. 16
`
`vi. Dutta Does Not Disclose, Suggest, or Imply Storing Download Information in
`Cache or Retrieving Download Information from Cache ................................................. 18
`
`vii. The Combination of McCown and Dutta Does Not Disclose, Suggest, or Imply
`Storing Download Information in Cache or Retrieving Download Information from
`Cache19
`
`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 ........................................................................................................................ 20
`
`Petitioners’ Readily Accessible Theory for the Motivation for Storing the
`ix.
`Download Information in Cache ....................................................................................... 20
`
`x. McCown Contradicts Petitioners’ Theory for the Motivation for Storing the
`Download Information in Cache ....................................................................................... 21
`
`Petitioners’ Description of McCown’s Steps Contradicts Petitioners’ Theory for the
`xi.
`Motivation for Storing the Download Information in Cache............................................ 24
`
`xii. McCown Stores the Files in the Storage Site, Further Negating the Need to Store
`the Download Information in Cache ................................................................................. 27
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`’686 Patent vs. McCown’s Steps of Utilizing Download Information for the File
`xiii.
`Cached in the Wireless Device ......................................................................................... 29
`
`xiv. Difference between Retrieving from Cache and Retrieving from Displayed Web
`Page 32
`
`xv. Download Information for the File (Singular) ........................................................ 34
`
`xvi. Dutta Does Not Cure McCown’s Deficiencies in Storing Download Information in
`Cache and Retrieving Download Information from Cache .............................................. 35
`
`Petitioners’ Second Purported Reason (Re-Opening the Webpage) to Store
`xvii.
`Download Information in Cache ....................................................................................... 36
`
`Storing McCown’s URLs in Cache Is Unnecessary, Wasteful, Counterintuitive,
`xviii.
`and Not Obvious ............................................................................................................... 39
`
`xix. Coates Does Not Cure McCown’s and Dutta’s Deficiencies in Storing Download
`Information in Cache and Retrieving Download Information from Cache ...................... 40
`
`xx. Utilizing Download Information Cached in the Wireless Device: Independent
`Claim 1 Is Not Obvious in View of McCown and Dutta .................................................. 40
`
`b.
`
`Dependent Claim 2: Cached Downloading Information ............................................ 41
`
`c. Dependent Claim 9: Predefined Capacity ...................................................................... 41
`
`Dependent Claims 2-11 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown and Dutta and Are
`d.
`Not Obvious in View of McCown, Dutta, and Coates ......................................................... 42
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 12 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown, Dutta, and Coates42
`
`Independent Claim 1: Utilizing Download Information for the File Cached in the
`a.
`Wireless Device .................................................................................................................... 42
`
`b.
`
`Dependent Claim 2: Cached Downloading Information ............................................ 43
`
`c. Dependent Claim 9: Predefined Capacity ...................................................................... 43
`
`Dependent Claims 2-11 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown and Dutta and Are
`d.
`Not Obvious in View of McCown, Dutta, and Coates ......................................................... 44
`
`Independent Claim 12: Allocating Exclusively a Storage Space of a Predefined
`e.
`Capacity to a User of a Wireless Device .............................................................................. 44
`
`i. Predefined Capacity .................................................................................................... 44
`
`ii. McCown Does Not Disclose Predefined Capacity Allocated Exclusively to a User
`of a Wireless Device ......................................................................................................... 45
`
`Petitioners’ Memory Partitioning and Allocation Techniques Do Not Disclose
`iii.
`Predefined Capacity Allocated Exclusively to a User of a Wireless Device .................... 47
`
`iv. Dutta Does Not Disclose Predefined Capacity Allocated Exclusively to a User of a
`Wireless Device ................................................................................................................ 54
`
`Coates Does Not Disclose Predefined Capacity Allocated Exclusively to a User of
`v.
`a Wireless Device ............................................................................................................. 56
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`The Combination of McCown, Dutta, and Coates Does Not Disclose Predefined
`vi.
`Capacity Allocated Exclusively to a User of a Wireless Device ...................................... 56
`
`f. Dependent Claim 13: Utilizing Download Information for the File Cached in the
`Wireless Device .................................................................................................................... 56
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Dependent Claim 14: Cached Download Information ............................................... 57
`
`Dependent Claims 13-20 Are Not Obvious in View of McCown, Dutta, and Coates 57
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................58
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Review (IPR) regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`(“’686 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 ’686 Patent was filed (which I understand to be no later than
`
`September 25, 2013, 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 ’686 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 ’686 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 ’686 Patent, including its
`
`claims in view of its specification, the prosecution history of the ’686 Patent,
`
`various prior art and technical references from the time of the invention, and the
`
`IPR2020-01271 Petition (“1271 Petition”) and its exhibits (Ex. 1001 – Ex. 1034).
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`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 ’686 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 ’686 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 ’686
`
`Patent. My understanding is simply that, in the absence of a specific controversy,
`
`one arrives at the appropriate “construction” or definition of what is embraced by
`
`the claims of the ’686 Patent and what is excluded by those claims by a reading of
`
`the ’686 Patent and arriving at what, based on that reading, the inventor of the
`
`claimed subject matter intended to protect as her or his invention.
`
`V. OPINIONS
`
`25. Petitioners present two grounds under which claims of the ’686 Patent
`
`are purportedly invalid; in particular, Petitioners contend that Claims 1-4 and 8-11
`
`are obvious over McCown (Ex. 1005) in view of Dutta (Ex. 1006) and contend that
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Claims 1-20 are obvious over McCown (Ex. 1005) in view of Dutta (Ex. 1005) and
`
`Coates (Ex. 1007). Petition, 7.
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, as described below, Petitioners have not established a
`
`reasonable basis to conclude that the claims of the ’686 Patent are obvious.
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1 Is Not Obvious in View of McCown and
`Dutta
`
`27. Petitioners contend that independent Claim 1 is obvious over
`
`McCown (Ex. 1005) in view of Dutta (Ex. 1006). Petition, 7. I disagree for the
`
`reasons outlined below.
`
`a. Independent Claim 1: Utilizing Download Information for the
`File Cached in the Wireless Device
`
`28.
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’686 Patent recites utilizing download
`
`information for the file cached in the wireless device.
`
`“1. A server for delivering storage service, comprising: ... 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.” ’686, Claim 1
`
`
`i. Summary of Why McCown in View of Dutta Does Not
`Disclose Utilizing Download Information for the File
`Cached in the Wireless Device
`
`29.
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`information for the file cached in the wireless device. Below is a summary of the
`
`sections that follow (§§ V.A.a.ii – V.A.a.xix).
`
`30. Petitioners proffer an interpretation of utilizing download information
`
`for the file cached in the wireless device in the ’686 Patent. Petitioners’
`
`interpretation of utilizing download information for the file cached in the wireless
`
`device in the ’686 Patent involves four steps that include storing download
`
`information in cache and retrieving download information from cache. Petition, 9.
`
`31. McCown does not disclose cache, and McCown does not disclose,
`
`suggest, or imply storing download information in cache or retrieving download
`
`information from cache.
`
`32. 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 “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” as
`
`recited in Claim 1 of the ‘686 Patent and as similarly recited in the other
`
`independent claims.
`
`33.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`34. The combination of McCown and Dutta does not disclose, suggest, or
`
`imply storing download information in cache or retrieving download information
`
`from cache.
`
`35. 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. Petition, 37-44, 48.
`
`36. 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.
`
`Petition, 9, 41-43. This theory in unavailing.
`
`37. McCown, including McCown’s steps that purportedly disclose
`
`utilizing download information for the file cached in 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).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`38. Petitioners proffer a description of McCown’s steps that purportedly
`
`disclose utilizing download information for the file cached in 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).
`
`39. 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.
`
`40. Petitioners’
`
`interpretation of
`
`the steps of utilizing download
`
`information for the file cached in the wireless device in the ’686 Patent are
`
`different from McCown’s steps (as interpreted by Petitioners) that purportedly
`
`disclose utilizing download information for the file cached in the wireless device.
`
`41. There is no need to cache the web page containing the URL
`
`(download information), because the ’686 Patent recites download information for
`
`the file (singular) cached in the first wireless device, negating the need to revisit
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`(or re-open) the web page containing the download information and negating the
`
`need to cache the web page.
`
`42. Dutta does not cure McCown’s deficiencies in storing download
`
`information in cache and retrieving download information from cache.
`
`43. 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 ’686
`
`Patent).
`
`44. 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 ’686 Patent.
`
`45. Storing McCown’s URLs
`
`in cache
`
`is unnecessary, wasteful,
`
`counterintuitive, and not obvious.
`
`46. Coates does not cure McCown’s and Dutta’s deficiencies in storing
`
`download information in cache and retrieving download information from cache.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`47. 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 wireless device.
`
`ii. Petitioners’ Interpretation of Utilizing Download
`Information for the File Cached in the Wireless Device in
`the ’686 Patent
`
`48. Petitioners proffer an interpretation of utilizing download information
`
`for the file cached in the wireless device in the ’686 Patent. Petition, 7-11.
`
`49. 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.”
`
`Petition, 9.
`
`50. Petitioners also argue that the meaning of the phrase “utilizing
`
`download information for the file cached in the first wireless device” “is broad
`
`enough to cover using information stored in the cache storage of the first wireless
`
`device to download a file from a remote server.” Petition, 11.
`
`51. As I will describe, the cited prior art references do not teach the claim
`
`limitation “utilizing download information for the file cached in the first wireless
`
`device” under Petitioners’ definition of that phrase.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`52. Petitioners state that “The URLs are “download information for the
`
`file” because they indicate what files are available for download and also because
`
`they are a mechanism (e.g., an address) used to locate and download those files.”
`
`Petition, 36-37; emphasis in original.
`
`53. Petitioners’ interpretation of the ’686 Patent’s recitation of utilizing
`
`download information for the file cached in 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.” Petition, 8-9, emphasis added.
`
`54. 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 Wireless Device in the ’686 Patent
`
`55. Based on the above excerpts from the Petition, utilizing download
`
`information for the file cached in the wireless device involves the following steps:
`
`56. Step 1: The wireless device accesses the remote server site via a web
`
`browser to obtain the download information.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`57. Step 2: The wireless device stores the download information into a
`
`cache.
`
`58. Step 3: The wireless device
`
`later retrieves the download
`
`information from the cache and sends the retrieved download information to the
`
`storage server.
`
`59. Step 4: The download information is then used to download the file
`
`(pointed to by the download information) to the storage server.
`
`60.
`
`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
`
`61. 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.
`
`62. Even according to Petitioners, “McCown does not explicitly disclose
`
`that the URLs identifying files available for download from the remote site
`
`(“download information for the file”) are “cached [in the wireless device][.]””
`
`Petition, 37, 48.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`v. Dutta Does Not Disclose How Any Data in Its Cache Is
`Used
`
`63. 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 “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” as
`
`recited in Claim 1 of the ‘686 Patent and as similarly recited in dependent claim
`
`13.
`
`64. 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 references to cache.
`
`65. Dutta’s FIG. 2 merely cites “BROWSER CACHE 216” but does not
`
`disclose the purpose of the cache.
`
`66. Dutta’s FIG. 3 merely cites “BROWSER CACHE 316” but does not
`
`disclose the purpose of the cache.
`
`67. Dutta at ¶ [0029] refers to FIG. 2 and states that the browser may store
`
`a browser cache but does not provide any purpose, function, or utility for the data
`
`that is in the browser cache. Dutta at ¶ [0029] is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`“[0029] Client 202 maintains local storage 212 for use by browser
`application 204 and other applications. Browser 204 may store
`bookmark file 214, browser cache 216, and various types of files,
`including user-saved Web pages 218.” Ex. 1006, Dutta ¶ [0029],
`emphasis added
`
`68. Dutta at ¶ [0036] refers to FIG. 3 and states that the browser may store
`
`a browser cache but provides no purpose, function, or utility for the data that is in
`
`the browser cache. Dutta at ¶ [0036] is reproduced below.
`
`“[0036] With reference now to FIG. 3, a block diagram depicts a Web
`server for customized storage of captured Web files in accordance
`with a preferred embodiment of the present invention. In a manner
`similar to FIG. 2, FIG. 3 shows various components within the
`Internet that a user may access to retrieve information. Client 302 runs
`browser application 304, which displays web page 306 retrieved from
`Web address 308. Browser 304 may also maintain bookmarks 310 for
`selection by a user using application options and controls within
`browser 304. Client 302 maintains local storage 312; browser 304
`may store bookmark file 314, browser cache 316, and various types
`of files, including user-saved Web pages 318. Client 302 accesses
`various resources and services throughout the Internet 320. In this
`example, a user may browse content from an online newspaper
`supported by server 322 and stored within server storage 324.” Ex.
`1006, Dutta ¶ [0036], emphasis added
`
`69. Dutta at ¶ [0043] refers to “cookie cache,” which is different from a
`
`browser cache and is unrelated to the ’686 Patent. Dutta at ¶ [0043] is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`“[0043] Server-side storage configuration preferences 426 depict
`various fields that a user may use to specify the parameters may be
`needed by a server that operates the server-side functionality of the
`present invention. Entry field 428 allows a user specify the location of
`the server to which captured data should be pushed for storage and
`processing. Entry fields 430 and 432 allow a user to specify a user
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`identity and password for a user account at the server specified within
`entry field 428. The browser will forward this information to the
`server in order to obtain authorization for the user to perform various
`processes at the server. It should be understood that various
`mechanism may be used to authenticate a user, such as usin