`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`BOX, INC., and DROPBOX, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TOPIA TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2023-00427
`Patent 9,143,561
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2023-00429
`Patent 10,289,607
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2023-00433
`Patent 10,067,942
`____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PRASHANT SHENOY, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 1 of 78
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .......................................... 3
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................... 6
`
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 6
`
`B. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 7
`
`III. OPINION ............................................................................................. 9
`
`A. Claim Construction ............................................................................. 10
`
`B. Background of the Technology ........................................................... 10
`
`C. ’561 Ground 1: The Petition Has Failed to Establish Unpatentability
`for Challenged Claims Based on Sigurdsson and Shappell ................ 14
`
`D. ’561 Ground 2: The Petition Has Failed to Establish Unpatentability
`for Challenged Claims Based on Brown and Hesselink ..................... 21
`
`E. ’942 Ground 1: The Petition Has Failed to Establish Unpatentability
`for Challenged Claims Based on Sigurdsson and Shappell ................ 34
`
`F. ’942 Ground 2: The Petition Has Failed to Establish Unpatentability
`for Challenged Claims Based on Brown and Hesselink ..................... 43
`
`G. ’607 Ground 1: The Petition Has Failed to Establish Unpatentability
`for Challenged Claims Based on Sigurdsson, Shappell, and Rao ....... 54
`
`H. ’607 Ground 2: The Petition Has Failed to Establish Unpatentability
`for Challenged Claims Based on Brown, Hesselink, Shappell, and Rao
` ............................................................................................................. 63
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 2 of 78
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I am a Distinguished Professor and Associate Dean in the College of
`
`Information and Computer Sciences at University of Massachusetts, Amherst. I
`
`practice, research, and teach broadly in the area of Distributed Systems and
`
`Networking.
`
`2.
`
`I hold a PhD. (1998) and an M.S. (1994) in Computer Science from The
`
`University of Texas at Austin, where I was awarded the best dissertation award in
`
`Computer Science. I also hold a B. Tech (1993) in Computer Sciences from the
`
`Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, where I was awarded the IIT
`
`Bombay Silver Medal for the top ranking student in Computer Science.
`
`3.
`
`I have published over 300 technical papers in reputed scientific journals and
`
`conferences, and those publications have been cited 24,000 times. My research has
`
`received several awards, including best paper awards and the ACM Sigmentrics
`
`Test of Time Award. I am currently a Fellow at four professional computer
`
`societies – Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Institute of Electrical
`
`and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), American Association of Advancement of
`
`Science (AAAS), and Asia-Pacific Artificial Intelligence Association (AAIA).
`
`4.
`
`I have over 25 years of practical, research, and teaching experience in
`
`distributed systems, file systems and management systems, data storage, backup,
`
`and networking. I have led research projects and industry collaborations in storage
`
`
`
`3
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 3 of 78
`
`
`
`and file systems, web and internet systems, content distribution, streaming media,
`
`database systems, cloud computing, virtualization, RFID and sensor networks, and
`
`energy systems. In my 25 years of experience, I have consulted with both large
`
`companies and startups in a technical advisory role related to product architecture,
`
`IP issues, and applied research. My qualifications are further summarized in my
`
`curriculum vitae, which is submitted as EX 2025.
`
`5.
`
`I have been retained by Plaintiff Topia Technology, Inc., (“Topia”) to
`
`provide my independent opinion on certain issues in the matter. I do not have any
`
`financial interest in Topia or the outcome of this matter. My compensation in this
`
`matter is independent of the substance of my opinions and analysis in this matter or
`
`in the outcome of this matter.
`
`6.
`
`In connection with this matter, I have studied and reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`U.S. Patent 9,143,561 (“’561 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent 10,067,942 (“’942 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent 10,289,607 (“’607 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent 10,642,787 (“’787 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent 10,754,823 (“’823 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent 11,003,622 (“’622 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’561 Patent
`
`
`
`4
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 4 of 78
`
`
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`Prosecution History of the ’942 Patent
`
`Prosecution History of the ’607 Patent
`
`Prosecution History of the ’787 Patent
`
`Prosecution History of the ’823 Patent
`
`Prosecution History of the ’622 Patent
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00782, Paper No. 1, Petition for IPR
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00782, Paper No. 17, Decision Granting
`Institution of IPR
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/986,896 (“’896
`Provisional”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0174246 A1 to
`Johann Tomas Sigurdsson, et al. (“Sigurdsson”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2007/0174246 A1 to Johann Tomas Sigurdsson, et al.
`(“Sigurdsson File History”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,734,690 B2 to George P. Moromisato, et al.
`(“Moromisato”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0190506 A1 to
`Rajest M. Rao, et al. (“Rao”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0091289 A1 to
`Michael Shappell, et al. (“Shappell”)
`
`European Patent Application Publiciation No Ep 1,621,990 A2
`to Kitamaru, et al. (“Kitamaru”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,923,325 to Ronald Jason Barber and Edwin
`Joseph Selker (“Barber”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,035,847 B2 to David K. Brown, et al.
`(“Brown”)
`
`
`
`5
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 5 of 78
`
`
`
`1026
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0120082 A1 to
`Lambertus Hesselink, et al. (“Hesselink”)
`
`Paper No. 3
`
`Petition for IPR of the ‘561 Patent (IPR2023-00427)
`
`Paper No. 3
`
`Petition for IPR of the ‘942 Patent (IPR2023-00433)
`
`Paper No. 3
`
`Petition for IPR of the ‘607 Patent (IPR2023-00429)
`
`Paper No. 3
`
`Petition for IPR of the ‘787 Patent (IPR2023-00431)
`
`Paper No. 3
`
`Petition for IPR of the ‘823 Patent (IPR2023-00432)
`
`Paper No. 3
`
`Petition for IPR of the ‘622 Patent (IPR2023-00430)
`
`
`
`
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`7.
`
`I am a technical expert and do not offer legal opinions. However, I have been
`
`informed about certain legal principles regarding patentability and related
`
`matters under United States patent law, which I have applied in performing
`
`my analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this matter.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`8.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is invalid as
`
`“anticipated” if each and every feature of the claim is found in a single prior art
`
`reference. I also understand that anticipation requires the presence in a single prior
`
`art a description of all elements of the claim arranged as required in the claim. I
`
`have been informed that for a reference to be considered as anticipating, it must
`
`disclose the relevant technology in a manner such that a POSA (person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art) would be able to carry out or utilize the technology that the
`6
`
`
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 6 of 78
`
`
`
`reference describes without having to undertake undue experimentation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`9.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is not patentable if
`
`the claimed invention would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time the patent application was filed. This means that even if all of the
`
`requirements of the claim cannot be found in a single prior art reference so as to
`
`anticipate the claim, the claim might still not be patentable if the subject matter in
`
`the claim would have been obvious. I also have been informed that a claim would
`
`have been obvious when the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to someone of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.
`
`10.
`
`I have been informed and understand that to prove that a prior art reference
`
`or a combination of prior art references renders a patent obvious, it is necessary to:
`
`(1) identify the particular references that either alone, or in combination, render the
`
`patent obvious; (2) specifically identify which elements of the patent claim appear
`
`in each of the asserted references; and (3) explain how the prior art references
`
`could have been combined in order to create the inventions defined in the
`
`particular claim at issue.
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed that, in order to establish that a claimed invention
`
`
`
`7
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 7 of 78
`
`
`
`would have been obvious based on a combination of prior art documents, a clear
`
`articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious,
`
`or why a certain prior art document would have been modified, must be provided.
`
`12.
`
`I have been informed and understand that for a patent claim to have been
`
`obvious, the claim must be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention. I have been informed that the factors to consider in
`
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level
`
`and experience of people working in the field at the time the invention was made,
`
`(2) the types of problems faced in the art and the solutions found to those
`
`problems, and (3) the sophistication of the technology in the field.
`
`13.
`
`I also have been informed and understand that it is improper to combine
`
`references where the references teach away from their combination. I have been
`
`informed that a prior art reference may be said to teach away when a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the prior art reference, would have been led
`
`in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the inventors.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a final determination of
`
`obviousness should also consider secondary considerations, if any, such as
`
`commercial success of products covered by the patent. I understand that to date
`
`secondary considerations have not been raised in these proceedings.
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that for purposes of this proceeding, Petitioners are
`
`
`
`8
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 8 of 78
`
`
`
`of the opinion that a POSA in November 2007 would have been: (1) a person with
`
`an undergraduate degree in computer science or closely related field and (2) two or
`
`more years of experience with systems and architecture for file management in a
`
`distributed network environment.
`
`16.
`
`Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the field of
`
`the claimed invention, I exceed the level and abilities of a POSA at the time of the
`
`claimed invention. Although my qualifications may exceed those of one skilled in
`
`the art, my analysis and opinions regarding the Patents have been rendered from
`
`the perspective of one skilled in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`III. OPINION
`17.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1, 3-4, 8, and 10-11 of the ‘561 Patent are patentable
`
`based on my review of the ‘561 Patent, the file history, and scope of the references
`
`discussed herein and in the petition, the knowledge and skill of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have has at the time of the invention and
`
`priority date of the ‘562 Patent, and the documents listed in the above-mentioned
`
`table.
`
`18.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1, 3-4, 10, and 12-13 of the ‘942 Patent are patentable
`
`based on my review of the ‘942 Patent, the file history, and scope of the references
`
`discussed herein and in the petition, the knowledge and skill of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have has at the time of the invention and
`
`
`
`9
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 9 of 78
`
`
`
`priority date of the ‘942 Patent, and the documents listed in the above-mentioned
`
`table.
`
`19.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 of the ‘607 Patent are
`
`patentable based on my review of the ‘607 Patent, the file history, and scope of the
`
`references discussed herein and in the petition, the knowledge and skill of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have has at the time of the invention
`
`and priority date of the ‘607 Patent, and the documents listed in the above-
`
`mentioned table.
`
`20.
`
`I have also relied on my considerable academic and practical experience
`
`about the relevant field of technology in forming my opinions as expressed herein.
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`21.
`
`In my analysis I have interpreted the claims in accordance with their plain
`
`and ordinary meaning, as instructed. In my opinion, these interpretations are
`
`consistent with the claims, specification, and knowledge of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`B.
`
`Background of the Technology
`
`22. The ’561 Patent1, including the claims thereof, relate to architecture for
`
`management of digital files across distributed network. EX1001, Title, Abstract.
`
`
`1 While U.S. Patent No. 9,143,561 (the “’561 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,067,942 (the “’942
`patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 10,289,607 (the “’607 patent”) are discussed in this declaration,
`since these patents share a specification, references have been made to the specification of the
`‘561 patent.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 10 of 78
`
`
`
`23. The ‘561 Patent discloses a system to perform full-file synchronization
`
`across multiple local devices associated with a user through a server, e.g., a user
`
`centric architecture. EX1001, Title, Abstract.
`
`24. The background of the ‘561 Patent describes various problems in connection
`
`with computerized file management systems circa 2007/2008 timeframe. Id., 1:22-
`
`3:39. As the ‘561 Patent explains, at least as late as 2007, users of modern
`
`computing systems were increasingly finding themselves in high-speed networked
`
`environments. Id., 1:24-32. With the recent proliferation of personal computing
`
`devices, these users would have several computing devices, such as a desktop
`
`computer at home, one at work, and a handheld device, such as a personal digital
`
`assistant (PDA), on which they would access their device files. Id. A user having
`
`multiple computing devices led to problems with managing the user’s files across
`
`those various devices. Id., 1:33-61. Users, or customers, needed and desired a
`
`seamless environment for accessing their files across their various electronic
`
`devices without having to worry about the details of getting the file, and any of its
`
`related components, transferred between those devices. Id.
`
`25. Although a user could copy files to have them accessible on the user’s other
`
`devices, this often resulted in a proliferation of redundant file copies that created
`
`confusion about which was the latest or “official” version of the file. Id., 1:40-44.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 11 of 78
`
`
`
`This conventional process was tedious to resolve, error prone, and complex. Id.,
`
`1:40-61.
`
`26. Since copying of files across a user’s devices was tedious and complex,
`
`another approach for accessing files from various devices was for users to store
`
`the file at a central location, such as a file server. Id., 1:63-2:46. At that time there
`
`were several automated solutions to allow a user to access the most current version
`
`of the user’s file from any of their devices, but these too had problems. Id.
`
`Remote desktop software, distributed file systems, and file transfer protocol (FTP)
`
`systems purported to offer a way for a user to access the most current version of
`
`the user’s files across their devices, but these methods relied on the files being
`
`stored in a single central location, such as the server, rather than locally on
`
`multiple devices of a user. Id. Because these solutions depended on the devices of
`
`the user being connected to a server through a network to access the user’s file, the
`
`availability and performance of the network was a limiting factor for accessing and
`
`using the file. Id., 2:19-26.
`
`27. At the time, connections between a server and a user’s local device (e.g.,
`
`desktop computer, laptop, PDA, etc.) through a communication network, such as
`
`the Internet, often were intermittent and not as reliable as they are today. For a
`
`user to access the user’s file residing on the server the user’s device had to be
`
`connected to the server through the communication network. In this case, these
`
`
`
`12
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 12 of 78
`
`
`
`computerized file management systems would store a document file on the server
`
`and not on the user’s device. The user’s device had to be connected through the
`
`network to the server to access and edit the document. If the network connection
`
`was down or inaccessible, the user would not be able to access the document file,
`
`or if the network was operating slowly, the user might not be able to edit the
`
`document file effectively because of the poor performance due to the slow
`
`communication connection.
`
`28. These server-centric improvements for providing the most current version of
`
`a file to a user still had problems. Id., 1:40-61. These problems frustrated the goal
`
`of providing customers with a seamless environment in which a user could use any
`
`one of a variety of the user’s electronic devices to access the most current version
`
`of the user’s file. Id.
`
`29. Since server-centric systems stored files centrally on a server, alternative
`
`approaches were needed since the file became unavailable when the network was
`
`unavailable. Accordingly, users would store a copy of the file locally in addition
`
`to the version that resided on the server. However, this required that the local copy
`
`be synchronized with the server so that the server and the client had the up-to-date
`
`version of the file. Moreover, in view of communication network capabilities at the
`
`time, file synchronization techniques that made efficient use of network bandwidth
`
`were needed.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 13 of 78
`
`
`
`C.
`’561 Ground 1: The Petition Has Failed to Establish
`Unpatentability for Challenged Claims Based on Sigurdsson and
`Shappell
`
`30.
`
` I have reviewed the Sigurdsson reference, and in my opinion, Sigurdsson
`
`reference teaches an HTTP server architecture for file synchronization which is
`
`fundamentally different from the teachings of the ’561 patent.
`
`31. Sigurdsson discloses a system, in which, a receiving device (i.e., a Client C
`
`406) performs several operations before requesting a copy of missing content.
`
`Much of Sigurdsson discusses client devices requesting such missing content from
`
`other client devices, in a peer-to-peer arrangement. See Abstract. Sigurdsson
`
`describes an embodiment in which Client C obtains missing content from a server
`
`106. But that embodiment requires Client C to expressly request the missing
`
`content. Only in response to the server receiving the request from Client C does it
`
`transmit that content to Client C. (FIG. 4, 6, ¶¶71-75, 80). Therefore, in
`
`Sigurdsson, the server does not automatically transfer a modified first electronic
`
`file copy to the receiving device, such as Client C, since it only transfers the
`
`missing content when the receiving device expressly requests it.
`
`32. The automatic transfer in the claims of the ‘561 Patent refers to the first
`
`electronic device automatically transferring the copy of the first file.
`
`33. Sigurdsson fails to teach or suggest that the first electronic device
`
`“automatically transfer the modified first electronic file copy to the third electronic
`
`
`
`14
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 14 of 78
`
`
`
`device.” Sigurdsson’s transfer to Client C is the result of Client C requesting the
`
`transfer.
`
`34. Sigurdsson, in FIG. 6 (reproduced below with annotations), discloses a
`
`sequence diagram of a request/response based mixed peer-to-peer and client/server
`
`architecture, including a server, and clients A, B, and C. As shown in FIG. 6, the
`
`server in Sigurdsson provides missing content only in response to a request from a
`
`client (e.g., “Client C” at steps 612 and 620). That is, in FIG. 6, client/server
`
`structure and operation of Sigurdsson requires at least two separate requests from
`
`the client device (“Client C”) to the server, before the server provides the missing
`
`content to the client device, neither of which are “receiving the copy of the first file
`
`from the first client device”.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 15 of 78
`
`
`
`Sigurdsson (EX 1016), FIG. 6
`
`
`
`35.
`
`It is only after going through this sequence of Client C expressly requests the
`
`server for any missing content, Client C determining where it can obtain that
`
`
`
`16
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 16 of 78
`
`
`
`missing content, and then requesting the content from the server, before the server
`
`responds by transferring the content to Client C. As such, Sigurdsson does not
`
`teach or suggest that the server 106 automatically transfers the content 410 to the
`
`Client C 406 responsive to receiving the content 410 from Client A 402.
`
`36. Sigurdsson at FIG. 2 and ¶¶ 37, 40 and 46 discloses a request for missing
`
`content from the second client. For instance, “the second client polls for updates”
`
`(¶37), the request is “periodically issue[d]”, and “the request 310 includes a
`
`Time Range 312 parameter identifying the range of time stamps for the missing
`
`content” ¶40 and “the Request 310 is issued in order for the Client B 104 to obtain
`
`the Client A Content 108 that the Server 106 has yet to send to the Client B104”
`
`(¶46).
`
`37. FIG. 5 and the related text is general description without disclosing several
`
`of the claimed features including the “the first electronic device “automatically
`
`transfer the modified first electronic file copy to the third electronic device” as
`
`discussed above. In fact, the disclosure in FIG. 5 simply summarizes the request-
`
`based file transfer approach from FIG. 6 discussed above in detail.
`
`38. When viewed under proper context, Sigurdsson discloses that only if the
`
`server 106 receives a request for the content from the Client C 406 (step 620), will
`
`the server provide the content to the client (step 626). ¶¶ 79-80.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 17 of 78
`
`
`
`39. Sigurdsson discloses that the server 106 passes the list of content, and only if
`
`the server 106 receives a request for the content from the Client C 406 (step 620),
`
`the server will provide the content to the client (step 626). ¶¶ 79-80.
`
`40. Sigurdsson does not teach or suggest that the server system the first
`
`electronic device “automatically transfer the modified first electronic file copy to
`
`the third electronic device”
`
`41. A POSA would not have found it obvious to replace the request-response
`
`architecture taught by Sigurdsson with the claimed that automatic transfer of data
`
`without any client request.
`
`42. Since Sigurdsson requires the server only transfers the missing content when
`
`requested by the second client device, the content is not automatically transferred
`
`by the first electronic device.
`
`43.
`
`In Figure 3, Sigurdsson discloses that the client devices 102 and 104 are
`
`implemented as a hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS) client/server
`
`structure (i.e., HTTPS Client/Server 256 and HTTPS Client/Server 356).
`
`
`
`18
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 18 of 78
`
`
`
`Sigurdsson (EX 1016), FIG. 3
`
`
`
`44. HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) is a protocol used to carry requests
`
`from a browser to a Web server and to transport pages from Web servers back to
`
`the requesting browser. (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, p.259). Moreover, a
`
`HTTP server is server software that uses the HTTP protocol to serve up HTML
`
`documents and any associated files and scripts when requested by a client, such as
`
`a Web browser (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, p. 260). An HTTP/HTTPS server
`
`(e.g., the web server) plays the role of a server in a client–server model by
`
`implementing the server part of the HTTP/HTTPS network protocol. An important
`
`feature of an HTTP/HTTPS server is that the HTTP/HTTPS server waits for
`
`
`
`19
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 19 of 78
`
`
`
`incoming client requests and for each request the HTTP/HTTPS server responds by
`
`providing the requested information or performing a requested task. The
`
`HTTP/HTTPS server does not perform actions on its own without a request from a
`
`client. Since the HTTP protocol is a request-response protocol, where clients send
`
`HTTP requests to the server and the server sends HTTP responses after processing
`
`each request, the HTTP protocol does not support a functionality where the server
`
`can automatically send data to a client without the client making requests for data.
`
`45. Figure 3 of Sigurdsson teaches a HTTPS server, which does not perform
`
`functions “automatically” without client requests for content. Thus, Sigurdsson
`
`requires a HTTPS server system based on an HTTP request/response process for
`
`data transfer between the client and the server as illustrated in FIG. 3. Therefore,
`
`Sigurdsson not only fails to satisfy the features of “automatically transferring the
`
`modified first electronic file copy to the third electronic”, it would not have been
`
`obvious to replace the principal structure (i.e., the server system based on an HTTP
`
`request/response process ) taught by Sigurdsson with the automatically transfer of
`
`a copy of the file to a client without any client request to disclose the claim
`
`features. Specifically, a POSA would not have found it obvious to replace the
`
`request-response based HTTP server taught by Sigurdsson with the claimed
`
`features of “automatic transfer” of the copy of the file to a client without any client
`
`request for the missing data.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 20 of 78
`
`
`
`46.
`
`I have reviewed the secondary reference Shappell and in my opinion it
`
`discloses a peer-to-peer network environment which is fundamentally different
`
`from a Client-Server environment. Paragraph 0007 of Shappell. The Abstract of
`
`Shappell indicates that the disclosed system and methods disclosed are used to
`
`enable users to share files in a server-less shared space. By emphasizing a “server-
`
`less” environment, Shappell does not teach a Client-Server system that uses a
`
`server.
`
`47. Shappell discloses “a computer implemented method and system enable
`
`users to share files in a server-less shared space. By providing access to such
`
`server-less spaces via a visual presentation, the system renders content available
`
`for access by other group members. Access is sometimes provided through
`
`propagation of metadata or other uniquely identifying indicia associated with the
`
`shared space to all group members.” Abstract. Since Shappell expressly teaches
`
`away from using a server, Shappell cannot teach or suggest the first electronic
`
`device “automatically transfer the modified first electronic file copy to the third
`
`electronic device.”
`
`D.
`’561 Ground 2: The Petition Has Failed to Establish
`Unpatentability for Challenged Claims Based on Brown and Hesselink
`
`48.
`
`I have reviewed the Brown reference and in my opinion, the process
`
`disclosed by Brown can be best understood within the context of a pull vs push
`
`architectural feature. In a “pull” based system, the initiating command for a file to
`21
`
`
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 21 of 78
`
`
`
`be copied from the server to the client arises from the client. On the other hand, in
`
`a “push” based system, the initiating command for a file to be copied from a server
`
`to the client arises from the server.
`
`49.
`
` Brown discloses a “pull” based file transfer from the server to the client.
`
`That is, the client or the user initiates a file synchronization that leads to transfer of
`
`the data/file from the server to the client. The Petition cites to Brown at 2:63-67,
`
`3:1-8 and Balakrishnan, ¶¶896-898 and agrees with my analysis. The Petition
`
`argues “After execution of the functionality discussed for claim [1b], above, client
`
`135 would initiate communication with the server and receive a copy of the
`
`modified first electronic file sent to server 105 by client 130.” Pet., 55. Consistent
`
`with this, Brown, 2:63-67, 3:1-8 discloses that “The client component is a client
`
`Synchronization Application (SA) that uses the server SFS to synchronize its local
`
`client data with the server. client machines synchronize with each other by
`
`synchronizing to a common server account.”
`
`50.
`
`In other words, the client SA pulls changes from the server, and the modified
`
`file is not “pushed” or “automatically” transferred from the server to the client.
`
`Thus, Brown uses a protocol that uses a “pull” mechanism and not the “push”
`
`mechanism where the server automatically pushes the modified file to the client.
`
`In the “pull” mechanism, the client does not know when new data is available and
`
`
`
`22
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 22 of 78
`
`
`
`the client must poll the server to see if there is new data available to the client and
`
`request that data from the server (i.e., pull the data).
`
`51. Consistent with the above, at 5:14-24, Brown discloses that the
`
`synchronization process is initiated by the client SA when it makes a sync call to
`
`the server. Likewise, at 8:48-65 Brown discloses again that the client polls the
`
`server for changes.
`
`52.
`
`In Brown, the client SA needs to poll the server to check if there are any
`
`changes to make to the client’s directory and metadata to be synchronized to the
`
`server state. In detail, referring to FIG. 4A and 10:9-30 of Brown, the client 130
`
`first sends the client sync index (CSI) to server 105, as shown in box 405, to see if
`
`server 105 and client 130 are synchronized. server 105 compares the received CSI
`
`with the server' current server sync index (SSI). If server 105 returns the SSI
`
`having the same value as the CSI to the client, as shown in box 410, client 130
`
`knows that client 130 is synchronized with server 105. If the SSI received from
`
`server 105 does not match with the CSI of the client, the client’s directory is not up
`
`to date and the client then requests server synchronization data (SSD) to learn
`
`about the new changes that have been made at server 105. (“If the CSI matches the
`
`server account's SSI value, then the client is up to date with the server. Otherwise
`
`the client SA requests server synchronization data (SSD).”; Brown 8:51-53).
`
`
`
`23
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 23 of 78
`
`
`
`Brown (EX 1025), FIG. 4A
`
`
`
`53.
`
`If server 105 has changes that client 130 lacks, server 105 then “sends the
`
`SSD to client 130 (in response to a request for the SSD by the client), informing
`
`the client of the pertinent changes, as shown in box 415.” Brown 10:19-21. Based
`
`on the SSD received from the server, “the client SA updates the client's directory
`
`and metadata to match the server state.” Brown 8:62-63.
`
`54. Specifically, the client SA maintains client synchronization data (CSD) that
`
`it uses to track the state changes of the server, and by comparing the SSD with its
`
`CSD, client 130 can determine what changes have been made to the account on
`
`server 105. Brown 8:63-65. Referring to FIG. 4B, Brown illustrates the update
`
`process performed by the client in which the client determines what updates need
`24
`
`
`
`Topia Exhibit 2013
`Page 24 of 78
`
`
`
`to be retrieved from the server based on any of four possible results of the
`
`comparison between the SSD and the CSD and requests the changes rela
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
