IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`DROPBOX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ENTANGLED MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`Case No. IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,484,260
`
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-8
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 1
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)):.................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)): ............................................. 1
`C.
`Lead Counsel (37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) & 42.10): .................................... 2
`D.
`Service (37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3)-(4)): ...................................................... 2
`SUMMARY OF THE ’260 PATENT ............................................................ 2
`A.
`Brief Description of the ’260 Patent .................................................... 3
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History ................................................... 4
`IV. THE PRIOR ART ........................................................................................... 5
`A. Havewala – Ex-1005 ............................................................................ 5
`B.
`Adams – Ex-1006 ................................................................................. 7
`C.
`Saridakis – Ex-1007 ............................................................................. 7
`D.
`Rothman– Ex-1008............................................................................... 8
`REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. §42.104 ................................................................................................ 8
`A. Grounds for Standing 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) and Fees ......................... 8
`B.
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) and
`Relief Requested ................................................................................... 8
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE .................. 9
`A.
`§325(d) ................................................................................................. 9
`B.
`§314(a) .................................................................................................. 9
`C.
`General Plastic Does Not Apply ......................................................... 9
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 10
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 11
`IX. GROUND 1: HAVEWALA IN VIEW OF ADAMS RENDERS
`CLAIMS 1, 4-8 OBVIOUS .......................................................................... 11
`A.
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................... 11
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1[P]: “A process for operating on files located on
`multiple devices using a singular file system” ........................ 11
`1[A]: “accepting a request to operate on a file at a first
`device, wherein the file is selected from the singular file
`system on the first device” ....................................................... 20
`1[B]: “modifying the singular file system on the first
`device to make local files and virtual files appear
`indistinguishable to the singular file system, the local
`files and virtual files sharing a same location on the first
`device”...................................................................................... 22
`1[C]: “intercepting the request by a software client on the
`first device” .............................................................................. 32
`1[D]: “determining by the software client if the file is
`physically located on the first device or if the file is a
`virtual file of a corresponding file physically stored on a
`second device by reviewing file metadata” ............................. 34
`1[E]: “wherein a visual representation of the singular file
`system on the first device is identical to a visual
`representation of the singular file system on the second
`device”...................................................................................... 40
`1[F]: “if the file is the virtual file of the corresponding
`file physically located on the second device, requesting
`by the software client on the first device that a peer-to-
`peer connection be brokered by a server-based web
`service between the first device and the second device” ......... 43
`1[G]: “if the peer-to-peer connection is brokered,
`transferring the corresponding physical file from the
`second device to the first device” ............................................ 48
`1[H]: “performing the operation on the transferred
`corresponding physical file at the first device.” ...................... 53
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................... 56
`B.
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................... 58
`C.
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................... 60
`D.
`E. Motivation to Combine Havewala and Adams .................................. 61
`
`8.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`9.
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`F.
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`G.
`
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................... 64
`1.
`7[P]: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage
`medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed
`by a processor, cause the processor to perform
`operations, comprising:” .......................................................... 64
`7[A]-[H] ................................................................................... 65
`2.
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................... 66
`1.
`8[P]: “A client comprising:” .................................................... 66
`2.
`8[A]: “a memory;” ................................................................... 66
`3.
`8[B]: “at least one processor configured to:” ........................... 67
`4.
`8[C]-[J] ..................................................................................... 67
`GROUND 2: HAVEWALA IN VIEW OF ADAMS AND
`SARIDAKIS RENDERS CLAIMS 2 AND 3 OBVIOUS ........................... 68
`A.
`Claim 2 ............................................................................................... 68
`B.
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................... 70
`C. Motivation to Combine Havewala, Adams, and Saridakis ................ 71
`XI. GROUND 3: HAVEWALA IN VIEW OF ADAMS, SARIDAKIS
`AND ROTHMAN RENDERS CLAIMS 1-8 OBVIOUS ............................ 73
`A.
`Claims 1-8 .......................................................................................... 73
`B. Motivation to Combine Havewala, Adams, Saridakis, and
`Rothman ............................................................................................. 77
`XII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 79
`
`
`X.
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`Ex-1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260 (the “’260 patent”)
`
`Ex-1002
`
`File History of the ’260 patent
`
`Ex-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Patrick McDaniel
`
`Ex-1004
`
`CV of Dr. Patrick McDaniel
`
`Ex-1005
`
`U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0016621 (“Havewala”)
`
`Ex-1006
`
`U.S. Patent Publication 2002/0046232 (“Adams”)
`
`Ex-1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,874,691 (“Saridakis”)
`
`Ex-1008
`
`U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0289218 (“Rothman”)
`
`Ex-1009
`
`Dropbox, Inc.’s Sotera Stipulation
`
`Ex-1010
`The Linux Information Project, “Metadata Definition.” 2006.
`Ex-1011 Wayback printout, “NTFS Master File Table (MFT)”,
`NTFS.com
`
`Ex-1012
`
`Eberspächer, Jörg and Schollmeier, Rüdiger. “Peer-to-Peer
`Systems and Applications.” (2005), Chapter 5 First and Second
`Generation of Peer-to-Peer Systems.
`
`Ex-1013
`Frystyk, Henrik. “The World-Wide Web.” (1994).
`Ex-1014 Wayback printout, “POSIX® 1003.1 Frequently Asked
`Questions (FAQ Version 1.10)”
`
`Ex-1015
`
`Sandberg, Russel. “The Sun Network File system: Design,
`Implementation and Experience.” (2001).
`
`Ex-1016 Wayback printout – “File systems”
`
`Ex-1017 Webpage printout – “Multics”
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Ex-1018
`
`Sandberg, Russel, et al. “Design and implementation of the Sun
`network file system.” Proceedings of the summer 1985 USENIX
`conference. 1985.
`
`Ex-1019
`
`[Reserved]
`
`Ex-1020 Wayback printout – Napster
`
`Ex-1021
`
`Shuler, Rus. “How Does the Internet Work?” (2002).
`
`Ex-1022
`
`Fox, Geoffrey and Pallickara, Shrideep. “Peer-to-Peer
`Interactions in Web Brokering Systems.” (2002).
`Ex-1023 Wayback printout – Introduction to Linux Loadable Kernel
`Modules
`Ex-1024 Webpage printout – Deploying your hardware and software
`systems
`
`Ex-1025 Wayback printout – Invasion of the Data Snatchers
`Ex-1026 Warrick, R. Drake. “File Management: My Computer and
`Explorer.” (2002).
`Ex-1027 MacManus, Richard. “Microsoft has 97% of OS market, says
`OneStat.com.” (2006)
`
`Ex-1028
`
`Alan Freedman, Computer Desktop Encyclopedia, Ninth Edition,
`Osborne/McGraw-Hill, 2001.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §311 and 37 C.F.R. §42.100 et seq., Petitioner,
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`Dropbox, Inc. (“Petitioner”), requests Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-8 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260 (“’260 patent,” Ex-1001) (“Challenged Claims”).1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)):
`The real party-in-interest is Dropbox, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)):
`Purported Patent Owner Entangled Media, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO”)
`
`has asserted the ’260 patent and U.S. Patent No. 8,296,338 (the “’338 patent”)
`
`against Petitioner in Entangled Media, LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., Civ. No. 5-23-cv-
`
`03264-PCP (N.D. Cal., filed Dec. 16, 2022). Petitioner has also filed a Petition
`
`challenging the ’338 patent in IPR2024-00284. Third-party Unified Patents, LLC
`
`has also filed an unrelated request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’260 Patent
`
`(Application No. 90/015,221) on April 17, 2023 (the “Unified Reexam”).
`
`As of the filing of this petition, no other judicial or administrative matters
`
`are known to Petitioner that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in an IPR of
`
`
`1 Because the ’260 patent’s priority is before March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA statute
`
`applies.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`the ’260 patent.
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`Entangled Media, LLC purports to own all rights, title and interest in the
`
`’260 patent, see id., ECF No. 6-1, ¶7. Copies of this Petition and all supporting
`
`exhibits have been sent via Priority Mail Express to each identified party.
`
`C. Lead Counsel (37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) & 42.10):
`Petitioner designates Dion M. Bregman (Reg. No. 45,645) as lead counsel,
`
`and designates Michael J. Lyons (Reg. No. 37,386) and Austin L. Zuck (Reg. No.
`
`81,341) as backup counsel.
`
`Service (37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3)-(4)):
`D.
`Service Address: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1400 Page Mill Road,
`
`Palo Alto, CA (Telephone: 650.843.4000; Fax: 650.843.4001).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(4), Petitioner consents to e-mail service at:
`
`MLB-Dropbox-IPR-Team@morganlewis.com.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this
`
`Petition.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE ’260 PATENT
`The application resulting in the ’260 patent was filed on March 19, 2012,
`
`and is a divisional application of application No. 12/774,231, filed on May 5, 2010
`
`which claims priority to provisional application No. 61/175,489, filed on May 5,
`
`2009 (hereinafter, the purported “Critical Date”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Brief Description of the ’260 Patent
`The ’260 patent claims a system and method for maintaining a file system
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`that stores a physical file on one device and enables access to the physical file on
`
`other devices. The ’260 patent states that data “synchronization across all devices
`
`for all content on all devices is limited or even prohibited by space restrictions.”
`
`Ex-1001, 1:57-59. The ’260 patent proposes a system that “ensures that all [of] a
`
`user’s devices appear to share one single native file system containing all [of] the
`
`user’s files across all devices” while “not requir[ing] physical data replication
`
`across multiple devices.” Id., 2:16-24. This was not new, however, as such
`
`systems were well known prior to the Critical Date.
`
`The ’260 patent’s claimed system is shown in Figure 42:
`
`
`2 All emphasis and coloring added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’260 patent illustrates in Figure 4 above that when a user selects a
`
`virtual file on Device A, a software client intercepts the request (S110) to
`
`determine whether the file is locally stored on Device A. If the file is not local, the
`
`software locates and requests the corresponding physical file from the device
`
`where it is locally stored, here Device B (S125, 130). The corresponding physical
`
`file is then transferred from Device B to Device A (S140). Ex-1003, ¶¶43-54.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`B.
`During prosecution, the claims were rejected as being anticipated by U.S.
`
`Patent Publication No. 2006/0161585 to Clarke and also rejected as obvious by
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Clarke in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0050069 to Aboulhosn. After
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`an Examiner interview, claim 1 was amended to include “modifying the singular
`
`file system on the first device to make local files and virtual files appear
`
`indistinguishable to the singular file system, the local files and virtual files sharing
`
`a same location on the first device.” Ex-1002, p. 50. The Applicant argued that
`
`the client in Clarke “distinguishes and discriminates locally stored object[s] and
`
`shared objects,” id., p.54, that the file system in Aboulhosn “uses the file name
`
`extension ‘vf’ to discriminate and distinguish between virtual files and local files,”
`
`id., p.55, and therefore, both Clarke and Aboulhosn were distinguishable from the
`
`amended claim 1.
`
`To gain allowance, a subsequent Examiner’s amendment incorporated the
`
`limitation of a dependent claim requiring determination of whether a file is a
`
`virtual file “by reviewing file metadata” into the independent claims. Ex-1002,
`
`pp.18, 20; Ex-1003, ¶¶56-57.
`
`IV. THE PRIOR ART
`A. Havewala – Ex-1005
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0016621 (“Havewala”) published on
`
`January 18, 2007 and is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`Havewala discloses a file system displaying both physical files located on a
`
`source (first device) as well as “ghosted” (i.e., virtual) files that correspond
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`physical files stored at an alternate location or sink (second device). Ex-1005,
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`FIG. 2. To maintain the appearance of the presence of files on a device, Havewala
`
`discloses “ghosting” a file by moving data from the “files to the alternate location
`
`or [] copy[ing] the entire file to the alternate location.” Id. ¶12; FIG. 2.
`
`
`
`Ghosted and non-ghosted files are “organized by, accessed through, and
`
`otherwise controlled by a file system.” Ex-1005, ¶41. When an application
`
`requests to operate on the ghosted file (virtual file) at the source, a physical file is
`
`transferred from the “alternate location 18” to the source 10 and opened in an
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`application on the source. Ex-1005, ¶60; Ex-1003, ¶¶59-61, 22-52.
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`B. Adams – Ex-1006
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0046232 (“Adams”), published April 18,
`
`2002, is prior art under at least §102(b).
`
`Adams discloses a system for “locating desired files in distributed file
`
`sharing over a computer network” (Ex-1006, Abstract) through a “peer-to-peer
`
`network connection” that utilizes a “central index server.” Id., ¶25; Ex-1003, ¶63.
`
`Saridakis – Ex-1007
`C.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,874,691 (“Saridakis”), published October 28, 2014, is
`
`
`
`prior art under at least §102(b).
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Saridakis discloses a method of “provid[ing] a peer-to-peer communication
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`channel between peers utilizing hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP).” Ex-1007,
`
`Abstract. Saridakis discloses an alternative connection for “circumventing
`
`network obstacles,” such as firewalls, that may at times impair peer-to-peer
`
`communication channels. Id., 2:48-53; 3:7-9; Ex-1003, ¶65.
`
`D. Rothman– Ex-1008
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0289218 (“Rothman”), published on
`
`December 29, 2005, is prior art under at least §102(b).
`
`V. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) and Fees
`Petitioner certifies that the ’260 patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting this IPR.
`
`Any additional fees for this IPR may be charged to Deposit Account No. 50-
`
`0310 (Order No. 105817-8002).
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`In view of the prior art and evidence identified below, IPR of claims 1-8 of
`
`the ’260 patent should be granted because claims 1-8 are unpatentable and should
`
`be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(2).
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Statute
`§103
`
`Reference(s)
`Havewala, Adams
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`Claims
`1, 4-8
`
`2
`
`3
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`Havewala, Adams, Saridakis
`
`Havewala, Adams, Saridakis, Rothman
`
`2-3
`
`1-8
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE
`§325(d)
`A.
`Discretionary denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because none of the
`
`references relied upon in the Grounds were cited during prosecution of the ’260
`
`patent, the related ’338 patent, or in the Unified Reexam.
`
`§314(a)
`B.
`Discretionary denial is also inappropriate under §314(a).
`
`Sotera Stipulation. Following the guidance that “the PTAB will not
`
`discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation” if a
`
`Sotera stipulation is filed (Director Vidal’s June 21, 2022 Memorandum),
`
`Petitioner herewith provides such a Sotera stipulation (Ex-1009).
`
`C. General Plastic Does Not Apply
`In at least one decision the Board found that the General Plastic (“GP”)
`
`factors do not apply here, where the previous challenge to the ’260 patent was in
`
`an ex parte reexamination proceeding. See Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist,
`
`Inc., IPR2022-00615, Paper 20, 21-22 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2022).
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`Even if the Board finds that the GP factors apply, they weigh heavily against
`
`denial. The Unified Reexam challenged only four of the eight claims challenged in
`
`this Petition (GP Factors 1, 3, 6), which uses entirely different references from, and
`
`is not informed by, the Unified Reexam (GP Factors 1-5). This Petition is being
`
`filed less than a week after Petitioner served its invalidity contentions in district
`
`court (GP Factors 2-3). See Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00861,
`
`Paper 18, 5-6 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2022) (precedential). Petitioner was not involved
`
`with the Unified Reexam and this is the first petition that Petitioner has filed
`
`challenging any claim of the ’260 patent (GP Factors 2, 6). See also Mercedes-
`
`Benz v. Carucel Investments, LP, IPR2019-01404, Paper 12, 12 (PTAB Jan. 22,
`
`2020) (finding even membership in Unified Patents did not amount to a
`
`relationship that justifies discretionary denial). No reasons exist that would
`
`interfere with the Board’s ability to issue a Final Written Decision within a year of
`
`institution (GP Factor 7).
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention of the ’260 patent would have been a person holding at least a
`
`master’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering, or a related degree,
`
`and with at least two years training or experience with networking and file
`
`systems. Ex-1003, ¶21.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The Board need only construe terms “to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`disputed issues.” Apple Inc., v. SEVEN Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00285, Paper 10,
`
`8 (PTAB July 28, 2020) (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner does not propose that
`
`any terms require construction, because the claims of the ’260 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under any reasonable construction, and there are no constructions
`
`necessary to resolve any disputes.
`
`IX. GROUND 1: HAVEWALA IN VIEW OF ADAMS RENDERS
`CLAIMS 1, 4-8 OBVIOUS
`A. Claim 1
`1[P]: “A process for operating on files located on multiple
`1.
`devices using a singular file system”
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, Havewala discloses it.
`
`Singular File System. The ’260 patent describes “a singular file system” as
`
`a system used to manage and display files across multiple devices, which is
`
`consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “singular” and “file
`
`system.” See, e.g., Ex-1001, 3:22-24, 5:67-6:1; 6:18-20. The ’260 patent
`
`describes “file system” as “the component within an operating system responsible
`
`for managing all manner of files, as well as presenting them within a graphical user
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`interface.” Id. 4:30-32. As shown in Figure 6 below, the ’260 patent illustrates a
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`singular file system using an “exemplary unified file structure 20UFS [shown as
`
`20FS in yellow] created from the individual device file structures 12UFS, 14UFS and
`
`16UFS [green] and on-line service file structure 18UFS.” Id., 9:15-22.
`
`
`
`Ex-1001, Fig. 6; Ex-1003, ¶86.
`
`Havewala discloses the same. Havewala discloses implementing a system
`
`for remotely accessing files in “a computing device [that] has a storage volume, a
`
`file system managing the storage volume, and a file stored on the storage volume
`
`by the file system and accessed through such file system.” Ex-1005, ¶18; see id.
`
`¶41 (“computer files 14, and the files 14 on the volume 12 are organized by,
`
`accessed through, and otherwise controlled by a file system 16 running on the
`
`computing device 10.”), ¶9. Havewala further explains that “a user or the like can
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`browse the entire volume 12 of the source 10 by way of the file system 16 even
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`if some of the files 14 on the volume 12 are ghosted and some of the files 14 on the
`
`volume 12 are not ghosted.” Id., ¶51. The file system may “organize[] the volume
`
`12 according to a directory format or otherwise” (id., ¶50) and may display a file
`
`using “a graphic representation such as a ‘thumbnail’” (id. ¶52). Havewala also
`
`discloses that its system may be “practiced in distributed computing
`
`environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are
`
`linked through a communications network.” Ex-1005, ¶34; Ex-1003, ¶87.
`
`In particular, Havewala’s system contemplates a scenario where a first
`
`device—source 10—may include a ghosted (or virtual) file that “is present [on the
`
`source 10] in a reduced or ‘stub’ form” (id. ¶49) such that “source 10 contains all
`
`metadata 22 from the original, non-ghosted file 14, and also contains ghosting
`
`information 24, that may be employed to retrieve the data 20 for the file 14 from
`
`the sink 18” (id. ¶50). When a file is ghosted, the data with the metadata is
`
`transferred to a second device—alternate location/sink 18. See, e.g., id. ¶54 (when
`
`removing “primary data” from a non-ghosted file at the source and transferring the
`
`data with the metadata to the sink, “the entirety of such file 14 is stored at the sink
`
`18”); see also id. ¶12. Ex-1003, ¶88.
`
`Havewala uses different terminology throughout the specification to refer to
`
`both the “source 10” and the “alternate location 18.” For example, Havewala
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`refers to “source 10” as “computing device 10,” “storage device 10,” (Ex-1005,
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`¶43) and “branch server 10” (id., ¶46). Havewala refers to “alternate location 18”
`
`as a “sink 18” or “hub server 18.” Id., ¶48. Havewala further explains that
`
`“alternate location 18 may be local to the computing device or may be remote
`
`therefrom” and “may be another volume 12 on the storage device 10, another
`
`volume 12 on another computing device 10, a file warehouse at a server, a long-
`
`term storage device at a remote server, or the like.” Id., ¶43. Therefore, as
`
`discussed in this Petition, “source 10” (and its associated uses of this term) refers
`
`to a first device (e.g., computing device) including the storage volume storing the
`
`ghosted file in its common file system; and the “alternate location 18” (or its
`
`associated uses of this term) refers to a second computing device including the
`
`storage volume storing the non-ghosted file in its common file system. Ex-1003,
`
`¶89.
`
`Havewala’s Disclosure of Implementing its Singular File System in Multiple
`
`Computing Devices. Havewala discloses that the alternate location may be
`
`“another volume 12 on another computing device 10” (Ex-1005, ¶43) and that “a
`
`computing device has a storage volume [and] a file system managing the storage
`
`volume” (id. ¶18). In other words, Havewala discloses that the source and sink
`
`may both be computing devices 10, that look and behave exactly the same, i.e.,
`
`they have the same file system stored on both devices. For example, Havewala’s
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`system of ghosting a file is enabled through the installation of software programs
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`and program modules onto a computing device with a pre-existing operating
`
`system (e.g., Microsoft Windows computer). See Ex-1005, ¶34; Ex-1003, ¶90.
`
`Havewala explains that its system is designed to overcome problems in the
`
`prior art. Havewala explains that the prior art’s replication of copies of files at
`
`multiple branch locations increases the “amount of traffic over the
`
`network…perhaps to a point that exceeds available bandwidth” and also that, “as
`
`the overall size of all the files at the hub server increases, it may in fact become the
`
`case that each branch server does not have enough space available thereon to store
`
`all of such files.” Id. ¶14; Ex-1003, ¶91.
`
`To overcome this problem, Havewala’s system can be installed on multiple
`
`computing devices at those branch locations such that the computing devices
`
`would “be able to ‘ghost’ the non-relevant files at the branch server [e.g., first
`
`computing device/source 10] of the particular branch, such that each non-relevant
`
`file remains on the branch server [e.g., first computing device/source 10] in a
`
`smaller, ‘ghosted’ form.” Ex-1005, ¶16; Ex-1003, ¶92. The “data [of the ghosted
`
`file on branch server/first computing device] is stored at a sink such as an alternate
`
`location or a hub server [i.e., second computing device].” Ex-1005, ¶17. If “the
`
`ghosted file is needed at the branch server [e.g., first computing device/source 10],
`
`the data for such ghosted file may be retrieved from the hub server [i.e., second
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`computing device/sink 18], the ghosted file may be reconstituted” and made
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`available at the branch server/first computing device. Id., ¶16. This is shown, for
`
`example, in annotated Figure 2 below. Ex-1003, ¶92.
`
`
`
`Ex-1005, Fig.2.
`
`Havewala explains that the system is designed to be utilized in, for example,
`
`situations where multiple different computers throughout a particular organization
`
`wish to have access to a file, but the organization wishes to reduce at least
`
`networking and storage constraints and store a file at only one computing device.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex-1003, ¶93. In such a situation, Havewala’s programs and program modules are
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`stored on similar devices (computing device 10 acting as a source, a sink, or both),
`
`for example computing devices running Windows operating software. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex-1005, ¶¶9, 34-40, p.1 (Assignee: Microsoft Corporation). In such a situation,
`
`the same file system (e.g., the Window’s file system as modified by Havewala) is
`
`installed and operates on the multiple devices to enable ghosting files between
`
`devices as discussed herein in more detail. Id.; Ex-1026. Havewala confirms that
`
`just like the source, files can be modified on both the first device and the second
`
`device. Ex-1005, ¶119 (“the file 14 has been modified at the sink”), ¶127 (“if the
`
`data 20 of the file 14 at the source 10 is not modified but the corresponding data 20
`
`at the sink 18 is modified”), ¶103.
`
`Therefore, consider a scenario where a file is ghosted on Computer A (e.g.,
`
`first computing device/branch server 10) on which Havewala’s system has been
`
`installed and the physical data of the file is stored on Computer B (e.g., second
`
`computing device/alternate location/branch hub 18) also with Havewala’s system
`
`installed. A request to open the non-ghosted file on Computer B using, e.g.,
`
`Windows file system modified by Havewala, would result in the file being opened
`
`as usual because the physical contents of the file are present on Computer B. See,
`
`id., ¶54 (“[W]here the hub server 18 replicates files 14 to the branch server 10, it
`
`may in fact be the case that while the primary data of the data 20 is removed from
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`the remainder of the replicated file 14 at the source 18 to form the ghosted file 14,
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`the entirety of such file 14 is stored at the sink 18.”), ¶52, Figs.3A-3B.
`
`Conversely, an attempt to open the ghosted file at Computer A (again using, e.g.,
`
`Windows file system modified by Havewala) results in the physical file and/or
`
`associated data from Computer B being transferred to Computer A so that the file
`
`can be “reconstituted” and opened on Computer A. See, e.g., id., ¶¶49, 24; Ex-
`
`1003, ¶94.
`
`As discussed further below, Havewala explains that its system is installed
`
`such that any operation performed on a file (e.g., opening) is performed
`
`transparently, such that the computing device’s user need not know that
`
`Havewala’s system is being run or utilized when opening any particular file. See
`
`id., ¶64 (“[O]perations may be performed transparently or with notice to the user
`
`or application 30, although transparency is likely preferable to such user or
`
`application 30.”). As a result, Havewala discloses a singular file system at each
`
`computing device that utilizes the same file system interface (e.g., Windows file
`
`system modified by Havewala) presenting a “directory” of files available across
`
`multiple devices in an organization in such a way that a user does not know
`
`whether the file is ghosted or physically present on a particular computing device.
`
`Operating on Files. Havewala discloses performing certain commands (i.e.,
`
`operations) on files, for example through “issuing an open command to the file
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`system 16 with regard to the file 14.” Id. ¶66; see also id., ¶66-69 (further
`
`IPR2024-00285
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,260
`
`
`discussing “open” and “read” operations); Ex-1003, ¶96. Modifying a file always
`
`requires opening it.
`
`Havewala Also Renders Obvious a Singular File System. Havewala
`
`discloses a singular file system across at least the computing devices 10 and 18.
`
`To the extent PO argues that Havewala does not disclose a singular file system, it
`
`would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to implement Havewala’s invention using
`
`a singular file system across multiple devices. Ex-1003, ¶¶97-98. For example,
`
`an organization attempting to at least reduce overheads and storage use associated
`
`with