`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner by:
`
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Reg. No. 50,474
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43,988
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Gregory F. Corbett, pending admission pro hac vice
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Ave.
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`Tel: 617-646-8000
`Fax: 617-646-8646
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01408
`Patent No. 7,748,005
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`MANDATORY NOTICES .................................................................................... xiii
` Real Party-In-Interest – § 42.8(b)(1) ....................................................... xiii
` Related Matters – § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................ xiii
`1. United States Patent & Trademark Office ........................................ xiii
`2. United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board ................................... xiii
`3. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ...................... xiii
` Counsel and Service Information – §§ 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4) ................. xiv
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. CERTIFICATION OF STANDING ................................................................. 3
`III. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS .................................................................. 3
` References ................................................................................................... 3
` Grounds. ...................................................................................................... 4
`IV. THE ’005 PATENT ........................................................................................... 4
` ’005 Patent Specification ............................................................................. 4
` Challenged Claims ....................................................................................... 6
` Prosecution History ..................................................................................... 6
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................... 7
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ........................................................................... 8
`VII. GROUND 1: JONES+AGRAWAL RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1
`& 8 ..................................................................................................................... 8
` References ................................................................................................... 8
`1. Jones ...................................................................................................... 8
`2. Agrawal ............................................................................................... 13
`3. Jones+Agrawal .................................................................................... 14
`a. Reasons to Combine .................................................................... 15
`b. Reasonable Expectation of Success. ........................................... 20
` Jones+Agrawal Renders Obvious Claim 8 ................................................ 20
`1. [8.p]: A method, comprising ............................................................... 21
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. [8.a]: creating a plurality of computing domains; ............................... 21
`a. Meaning of “computing domains” .............................................. 21
`b. Jones+Agrawal meets [8.a] ......................................................... 22
`3. [8.b]: allocating a plurality of resources between said
`plurality of computing domains by a first manager process; .............. 22
`4. [8.c]: executing at least one application, a second manager
`process, and a performance monitor process in each of said
`plurality of computing domains, ......................................................... 24
`a. “at least one application” ............................................................ 24
`b. “second manager process” .......................................................... 25
`c. “performance monitor process” .................................................. 26
`5. [8.d]: wherein said second manager process maintains a list
`comprising a plurality of application priority levels for said
`at least one application and an indication of a quantity of
`said plurality of resources needed to meet said at least one
`level of said application priority levels and ........................................ 27
`a. [8.d] is Met by One Priority Level for One
`Application .................................................................................. 27
`(1) The claims only require one priority level .......................... 27
`(2) Jones+Agrawal determines and stores resource
`requirements for each activity ............................................ 28
`(3) Each activity maintains the application priority
`level for its associated application ...................................... 29
`(4) Jones+Agrawal Maintains a “List” ..................................... 29
`b. [8.d] is Met by Multiple Priority Levels for One
`Application .................................................................................. 32
`6. [8.e]: wherein said performance monitor process generates
`performance data related to said at least one application
`and ....................................................................................................... 32
`7. [8.f]: said second manager process requests additional
`resources from the first manager process in response to
`analysis of said performance data in view of at least one
`service level parameter; and ................................................................ 33
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`8. [8.g]: dynamically reallocating said plurality of resources
`between said plurality of computing domains by the first
`manager process in response to received requests for
`additional resources according to service level parameters. ............... 35
` Jones+Agrawal Renders Claim 1 Obvious. ............................................... 35
`1. [1.p]: A computing system, comprising: ............................................. 35
`2. [1.a]: a plurality of resources; ............................................................. 35
`3. [1.b]: a computer readable storage medium having
`instructions stored therein for executing a first manager
`process for allocating said plurality of resources to a
`plurality of computing domains on a dynamic basis
`according to service level parameters; and ......................................... 36
`4. [1.c]: at least one application, a respective second manager
`process, and a respective performance monitor process are
`executed within each computing domain, ........................................... 37
`5. [1.d]: wherein said respective second manager process
`maintains a list comprising a plurality of application
`priority levels for said at least one application and an
`indication of a quantity of said plurality of resources needed
`to meet said at least one level of said plurality of application
`priority levels and ................................................................................ 37
`6. [1.e]: wherein said performance monitor generates
`performance data related to the execution of said at least
`one application and .............................................................................. 37
`7. [1.f]: said second manager process requests additional
`resources from said first manager process in response to
`analysis of performance data in view of at least one service
`level parameter. ................................................................................... 37
`VIII. GROUND 2: JONES+AGRAWAL+GIEN RENDERS OBVIOUS
`CLAIMS 1-20 .................................................................................................. 38
` Jones+Agrawal+Gien ................................................................................ 38
`1. Gien ..................................................................................................... 38
`2. Reasons To Combine Jones+Agrawal+Gien ...................................... 43
`3. Reasonable expectation of success ...................................................... 44
`4. Resulting Jones+Agrawal+Gien Combination .................................... 45
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
` Method Claims 8-14 .................................................................................. 47
`1. Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 47
`a. Limitation [8.p] ........................................................................... 47
`b. Limitation [8.a] ........................................................................... 47
`c. Limitation [8.b] ........................................................................... 48
`d. Limitation [8.c] ........................................................................... 48
`e. Limitation [8.d] ........................................................................... 48
`f. Limitation [8.e] ........................................................................... 49
`g. Limitation [8.f] ............................................................................ 49
`h. Limitation [8.g] ........................................................................... 49
`2. Claim 9: The method of claim 8 wherein said creating a
`plurality of computing domains comprises: creating
`multiple virtual machines from a single server platform
`using a virtualization software layer. .................................................. 49
`a. “virtual machine” ........................................................................ 49
`b. Mapping to Claim 9 .................................................................... 50
`3. Claim 10: The method of claim 9 wherein said virtualization
`software layer is implemented within a host operating
`system of said single server platform. ................................................. 51
`4. Claim 11: The method of claim 10 wherein said dynamically
`reallocating is performed by a process executing on top of
`said host operating system. .................................................................. 51
`5. Claim 12: The method of claim 10 further comprising:
`executing a respective guest operating system on top of said
`host operating system for each of said multiple virtual
`machines. ............................................................................................. 52
`6. Claim 13: The method of claim 10 wherein said dynamically
`reallocating comprises: performing system calls to said host
`operating system to reassign virtual resources. ................................... 53
`7. Claim 14: The method of claim 10 wherein said performing
`system calls reassigns time slices associated with at least one
`processor. ............................................................................................. 56
` System Claims 1-7 ..................................................................................... 57
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 57
`a. Limitation [1.p] ........................................................................... 57
`b. Limitation [1.a] ........................................................................... 57
`c. Limitation [1.b] ........................................................................... 57
`d. Limitation [1.c] ........................................................................... 58
`e. Limitation [1.d] ........................................................................... 58
`f. Limitation [1.e] ........................................................................... 58
`g. Limitation [1.f] ............................................................................ 58
`2. Claim 2: The computing system of claim 1 wherein said
`plurality of computing domains are virtual machines. ........................ 59
`3. Claim 3: The computing system of claim 2 wherein said first
`manager process operates on a host operating system of said
`computing system. ............................................................................... 59
`4. Claim 4: The computing system of claim 3 wherein a
`respective operating system executes on top of said host
`operating system for each of said plurality of computing
`domains. .............................................................................................. 60
`5. Claim 5: The computing system of claim 3 wherein said first
`manager process allocates said plurality of resources
`between said plurality of computing domains by assigning
`virtual resources to said plurality of computing domains
`through system calls to a kernel of said host operating
`system. ................................................................................................. 60
`6. Claim 6: The computing system of claim 1 wherein said
`plurality of resources comprise at least one processor. ....................... 61
`7. Claim 7: The computing system of claim 6 wherein said first
`manager allocates time slices of said at least one processor
`between multiple computing domains of said plurality of
`computing domains. ............................................................................ 61
` CRM Claims 15-20. ................................................................................... 62
`1. CRM .................................................................................................... 62
`2. Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 62
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`a. [15.p]: A computer readable storage medium having
`computer readable code stored thereon when
`executed by a processor perform a method
`comprising: .................................................................................. 62
`b. [15.a]: creating a plurality of computing domains; ..................... 62
`c. [15.b]: allocating, by a first manager process, a
`plurality of resources between said plurality of
`computing domains; .................................................................... 63
`d. [15.c]: generating, by a performance monitor process,
`performance data related to respective applications
`associated with a plurality of computing domains; .................... 63
`e. [15.d]: requesting, by a second manager process,
`additional resources for ones of said plurality of
`computing domains from the first manager process,
`in response to analysis of performance data from said
`generating in view of at least one service level
`parameter and an indication of a quantity of
`resources needed to meet said at least one service level
`parameter; and ............................................................................. 63
`[15.e]: dynamically allocating, by the first manager
`process, resources between said plurality of
`computing domains in response to said requesting,
`wherein said dynamically allocating determines when
`to reallocate resources using service level parameters
`associated with applications of said plurality of
`computing domains. .................................................................... 65
`3. Claim 16: The computer readable storage medium of claim
`15, wherein said plurality of computing domains are virtual
`machines. ............................................................................................. 66
`4. Claim 17: The computer readable storage medium of claim
`16 wherein said code for dynamically allocating performs
`calls to a software virtualization layer to reassign resources
`between said plurality of computing domains. ................................... 66
`5. Claim 18: The computer readable storage medium of claim
`16 wherein said code for dynamically allocating performs
`system calls to a host operating system to reassign resources
`between said plurality of computing domains. ................................... 66
`
`f.
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`6. Claim 19: The computer readable storage medium of claim
`15 wherein said resources comprise processors. ................................. 67
`7. Claim 20: The computer readable storage medium of claim
`19 wherein said code for dynamically allocating reassigns
`time slices of said processors between said plurality of
`computing domains. ............................................................................ 68
`IX. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT WARRANTED ................................. 68
` Discretionary Denial Not Warranted Under Fintiv ................................... 68
`1. Factor 1: Potential for litigation stay. .................................................. 68
`2. Factor 2: Trial date relative to FWD deadline. ................................... 69
`3. Factor 3: Investment in parallel proceedings. ..................................... 69
`4. Factor 4: Issue Overlap. ...................................................................... 69
`5. Factor 5: Parties. .................................................................................. 70
`6. Factor 6: Other considerations. ........................................................... 70
` Discretionary Denial Not Warranted Under Section 314(a) ..................... 70
` Section 325(d) discretionary denial is not warranted. ............................... 72
`X. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 72
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,748,005 CLAIM LIST .......................................................... 75
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Advanced Bionics LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinische Gerate GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) ...................................................... 71, 72
`Amperex Tech. Ltd. v. Maxell Holding, Ltd.,
`IPR2021-01442, Paper 16 (April 12, 2022) ......................................................... 69
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) ................................................... 68, 69
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (May 13, 2020) ................................................... 68, 69
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 (June 15, 2020) ................................................... 69, 70
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 3
`
`General Plastic v. Canon,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sep. 6, 2017) ..................................................... 70, 71
`Google LLC v. Parus Holdings Inc.,
`IPR2020-00846, Paper 9 (Oct. 20, 2020) ............................................................. 70
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-01309, Paper 29 (December 20, 2019) .......................................... 38, 39
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 38, 39
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 19
`Mercedes-Benz v. Carucel,
`IPR2019-01404, Paper 12 (Jan. 22, 2020) ........................................................... 71
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 8
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. iFIT, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00030, Paper 12 (April 22, 2022) ......................................................... 69
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 3
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) .......................................................... 69
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.,
`IPR2022-01399, Paper 2 (Aug. 10, 2022) ..................................................... 70, 71
`Valve Corp.v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (Apr. 2, 2019) ............................................................ 70
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Arbor Global Strategies LLC,
`IPR2020-01568, Paper 12 (Mar. 5, 2021) ............................................................ 71
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................... 3, 4, 38
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 282 .......................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ................................................................................................. 71, 72
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 3
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial
`Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) ...................................................................... 8
`Interim Procedure For Discretionary Denials In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings
`With Parallel District Court Litigation, USPTO (June 21, 2022) ........................ 68
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`1008
`
`Exhibit Description
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,748,005
`1002
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,748,005
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti (“Madisetti”)
`1004
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,140,020
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 7,228,546
`1007
`E. Bugnion et al., “Disco: Running Commodity Operating Systems on
`Scalable Multiprocessors,” ACM Transactions on Computer Systems,
`Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 412-447 (Nov. 1997).
`Robert P. Goldberg, “Survey of Virtual Machine Research,” Computer,
`vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 34-45 (1974).
`Intentionally left blank
`1009
`1010
`Intentionally left blank
`Pages from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th Ed. 1999)
`1011
`Pages from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (16½ Ed. 2000)
`1012
`1013 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0037092 A1
`(“McCarthy”)
`Statutory Declaration of Anthony Corsini with Exhibit A, Michel Gien
`and Lori Grob, “Micro-kernel Based Operating Systems: Moving
`UNIX onto Modern System Architectures.” Proceedings of the
`UniForum’92 Conference, pp. 45-55 (1992) (“Gien”)1
`Pages from IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard
`Terms (7th Ed. 2000)
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`1 The ribbon copy of Ex. 1014 is available for inspection in the offices of
`
`Petitioner’s counsel on request.
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1020
`
`1016 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0100250 A1
`(“Chen”)
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 7,085,705 B2 (“Traut”)
`1018
`Intentionally left blank
`1019 A. Silberschatz and P.B. Galvin, Operating System Concepts (5th Ed.
`1998).
`B. Herrmann and L. Philippe, “Multicomputers UNIX based on
`CHORUS,” in European Conference on Distributed Memory
`Computing, pp. 440-449, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991.
`1021 U.S. District Court—Judicial Caseload Profile for Northern District of
`Texas in U.S. District Courts-Combined Civil and Criminal Federal
`Court Management Statistics (March 31, 2022), available at
`https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-court-management-
`statistics/2022/03/31-1
`Intentionally left blank
`1022
`Intentionally left blank
`1023
`1024 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0221290 A1
`(“Casey”)
`1025 M. Migliardi et al. “Dynamic Reconfiguration and Virtual Machine
`Management in the Harness Metacomputing System” in Computing in
`Object-Oriented Parallel Environments. ISCOPE 1998. Lecture Notes
`in Computer Science, vol 1505, pp. 127-134. (Caromel, D., Oldehoeft,
`R.R., Tholburn, M. Eds., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 1998).
`1026 U.S. Patent No. 3,980,992 (“Levy”)
`1027 Dkt. 51, Scheduling Order, Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. v. Google LLC,
`No. 3:22-cv-00066-N (N.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2022)
`1028 Docket in Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 3:22-cv-00066-
`N (N.D. Tex.)
`1029 Declaration of James L. Mullins, Ph.D.
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 6,075,938 (“Bugnion”)
`1031 U.S. Patent No. 5,675,739 (“Eilert”)
`
`- xi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1038
`
`1032 M. Rozier et al., “CHORUS Distributed Operating Systems,”
`Computing Systems, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 305-370 (1988)
`1033 A. Bricker et al., “Architectural issues in microkernel-based operating
`systems: The CHORUS experience.” Computer Communications, vol.
`14, no. 6, pp.347-357 (1991).
`1034 V. Uhlig et al. “Towards Scalable Multiprocessor Virtual Machines,” in
`Proceedings of the 3rd Virtual Machine Research and Technology
`Symposium, San Jose, California, pp. 43-56 (USENIX 2004).
`1035 U.S. Patent No. 5,553,291 (“Tanaka”)
`1036
`Intentionally left blank
`1037 M. Rozier et al. “Overview of the Chorus Distributed Operating
`System,” in Workshop on Micro-Kernels and Other Kernel
`Architectures, pp. 39-69, (1992).
`S. Famorzadeh et al., “BEEHIVE: an adaptive, distributed, embedded
`signal processing environment,” in 1997 IEEE International
`Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 1, pp.
`663-666 (1997).
`1039
`Intentionally left blank
`1040 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0041858 (“Lewis”)
`1041 U.S. Patent No. 6,282,561 B1 (“Jones”)
`1042 U.S. Patent No. 5,761,091 (“Agrawal”)
`1043
`Canadian Patent Application 2,284,588 (“Forget”)
`1044 U.S. Patent No. 6,691,067 B1 (“Ding”)
`1045 Open Group Technical Standard. Systems Management: Application
`Response Measurement (ARM) API, The Open Group (1998).
`C.E. Kozyrakis and D.A. Patterson, “A New Direction for Computer
`Architecture Research,” Computer, Vol. 31, No. 11, pp. 24-32 (Nov.
`1998).
`1047 U.S. Patent No. 6,008,806 (“Nakajima”)
`1048
`S. Famorzadeh, 1998. “BEEHIVE: An Adaptive, Distributed,
`Embedded Signal Processing Environment.” Ph.D. Dissertation,
`Georgia Tech.
`
`1046
`
`- xii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
` Real Party-In-Interest – § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner Google LLC is the Real Party-in-Interest.
`
` Related Matters – § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`
`
`A decision in this proceeding could affect or be affected by the following:
`
`1.
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`
`All related patents have expired for nonpayment of maintenance fees. There
`
`are no related applications pending. There are no known related proceedings at the
`
`Office. The ’005 patent has expired.
`
`2.
`
`United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(i) Unified Patents, LLC v. Valtrus Innovations LTD, Case No. IPR2022-
`
`01399;
`
`(ii) Concurrently with this Petition, Petitioner is filing a second petition,
`
`IPR2022-01406, challenging claims 1-20 of the ’005 patent. Petitioner requests
`
`that these two petitions challenging the ’005 patent be reviewed by the same panel.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
`
`The following pending federal district court litigation may affect or be
`
`affected by the decision in this proceeding: Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. v. Google
`
`LLC, No. 3:22-cv-00066-N (N.D. Tex.) (the “Texas case”). The complaint was
`
`filed on January 10, 2022 as Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 4:22-cv-
`
`00020-O (N.D. Tex.). On January 11, 2022, the district court transferred the action
`
`- xiii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`to the Dallas division where it was captioned 3:22-cv-00066-N. Petitioner was
`
`
`
`served with the complaint in the Texas case on January 12, 2022.
`
` Counsel and Service Information – §§ 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4)
`
`Lead Counsel
`Backup Counsel
`
`Service
`Information
`
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Reg. No. 50,474
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43,988
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Gregory F Corbett, pending admission pro hac vice
`
`E-mail: GHrycyszyn-PTAB@WolfGreenfield.com
` AWichman-PTAB@WolfGreenfield.com
`
`RGiunta-PTAB@WolfGreenfield.com
`
`Gregory.Corbett@WolfGreenfield.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`
`
`
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`Telephone: 617-646-8000
`Facsimile: 617-646-8646
`
` power of attorney is submitted with the Petition. Counsel for Petitioner
`
` A
`
`consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`- xiv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Petitioner Google requests cancellation of claims 1-20 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,748,005 (Ex. 1001, “’005 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`311.
`
`In a concurrently-filed petition, Petitioner demonstrates the Challenged
`
`Claims are not entitled to priority earlier than the ’005 patent’s actual filing date
`
`and are unpatentable over the inventors’ own prior published patent application.
`
`This Petition demonstrates the Challenged Claims are unpatentable even assuming
`
`they are entitled to the ’005 patent’s earliest-listed priority date. A ranking paper is
`
`separately provided.
`
`The Challenged Claims concern dynamically allocating computer resources
`
`between “computing domains” using first and second manager processes. Within
`
`each domain a performance monitor process generates performance data relating to
`
`one or more applications. Based on analyzing performance relative to performance
`
`goals, a second manager process can ask a first manager process for additional
`
`resources. This functionality was well-known before the ’005 patent’s earliest
`
`listed priority date in 2000.
`
`Jones (Ex. 1041) describes using first and second manager processes to
`
`manage resources for applications in distributed computing systems with multiple
`
`computing domains. Jones concerns guaranteeing performance levels for
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`applications like video streaming that have requirements like real-time data
`
`
`
`delivery. Jones guarantees applications have the needed resources to run
`
`predictably. Jones’s resource management mechanism renegotiates resource
`
`reservations based on changing resource needs or performance degradation (e.g.,
`
`drop in video quality). Agrawal (Ex. 1042) describes a technique for performance
`
`monitoring and analysis. A POSA would have had reasons to use Agrawal’s
`
`performance monitoring in Jones’s distributed system to prompt resource
`
`renegotiations based on observed performance degradations, and thereby enable
`
`the resulting system to meet performance guarantees Jones describes. Ground 1
`
`demonstrates the Jones-Agrawal combination renders obvious claims 1 and 8,
`
`which broadly recite “computing domains.”
`
`Dependent claims 2-5, 9-14, & 16-18 narrow “computing domains” to
`
`virtual machines (“VMs”). VMs were known since at least the 1970s. Gien
`
`(Exhibit A to Ex. 1014) describes VMs used in distributed systems like Jones. A
`
`POSA had reasons to use Gien’s VMs in the Jones+Agrawal system. Ground 2
`
`demonstrates Jones+Agrawal+Gien renders obvious claims 1-20, including
`
`dependent claims requiring VMs.
`
`The grounds demonstrate that no Challenged Claim is patentable.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF STANDING
`
`
`
`The ’005 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting IPR of the Challenged Claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`III. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`
`Pre-AIA law applies.
`
` References
`
`Patent Owner bears the burden to show entitlement to priority earlier than
`
`the ’005 patent’s filing date in 2004. Dynamic Drinkware v. Nat'l Graphics, 800
`
`F.3d 1375, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (patent owner’s burden to show “why the
`
`written description in [an] earlier application supports [a] claim”); PowerOasis v.
`
`T-Mobile USA, 522 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (continuation-in-part claims
`
`have no presumption to effective filing date before the actual filing date).
`
`Regardless, all