throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 51
`
` Filed: July 29, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Veeam Software Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter
`partes review of claims 16–23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,931, 558 B1 (“the ’558
`patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1–42.123.
`(Paper 6, “Pet.”). Symantec Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent
`Owner Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Taking into
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`account Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determined that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that challenged claims 17–23 are unpatentable.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted inter partes review, on August 7,
`2013, as to claims 17–23 of the ’558 patent. Paper 11 (“Dec.”). Patent
`Owner filed a request for rehearing on August 21, 2013 seeking
`reconsideration of our decision on the ground of anticipation of claims 18–
`20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Goshey. Paper 13. We denied,
`subsequently, inter partes review of claims 18–20 and 22 on that ground.
`Paper 17.
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper
`22, “PO Resp.”) and a contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 23, “Mot. to
`Amend”). Petitioner filed a reply to the Patent Owner Response. Paper 28
`(“Pet. Reply”). A hearing was held on May 5, 2014, a transcript of which
`appears in the record. Record of Oral Hearing, Paper 50 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This decision is a final
`written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 as to the
`patentability of the challenged claims. For the reasons discussed below, we
`determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claims 17–23 are unpatentable.
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`In addition to this proceeding, Petitioner filed a petition for inter
`
`partes review challenging the patentability of claims 1–15 of the ’558
`patent. See Veeam Software Corp. v. Symantec Corp., Case IPR2013-00141,
`Paper 5. In that proceeding, we instituted inter partes review as to claims 1–
`15 of the ’558 patent. Veeam Software Corp. v. Symantec Corp., Case
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`IPR2013-00141 (PTAB Aug. 7, 2013) (Paper 11). Further, we instituted
`inter partes review based on Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of
`certain claims of Patent Owner’s U.S. Patents 7,093,086 (IPR2013-00150)
`and 7,191,299 (IPR2013-00143). Our final decisions in these proceedings
`are being entered concurrently with this decision.
`
`The parties indicate that the ’558 patent is involved in a case in the
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Symantec Corp. v.
`Veeam Software Corp. (No. 3:12-cv-00700). Pet. 1; Paper 9, 2.
`
`
`B. The ’558 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’558 patent is titled “Computer Restoration Systems and
`
`Methods” and generally relates to local and wide area interconnected
`computers and data communications networks. More particularly, the patent
`relates to restoration of computer systems backed up on storage managers,
`such as in a network, upon a “crash” or other similar event that prohibits
`normal “boot[-]up” operation. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 10–15.
`
`The ’558 patent explains that the client computer has access to a
`storage manager application, such as a server computer of the network
`operating a storage management software program. Id. at Abstract. All
`client files, including configuration files, as well as application and data
`files, of the client device are saved on the network by the storage manager
`application. Id.
`
`The client device is booted over the network, rather than locally to the
`client device by a boot disk or otherwise. Id. The boot program is loaded to
`the client device, and the client device retrieves configuration and file
`information over the network from the storage manager application. Id. The
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`client device configures its disk according to the configuration information.
`Id. All other files and data of the client device at the time of a failure of the
`client device are saved on the disk substantially in the condition and state
`just prior to the failure, and as most recently backed up to the storage
`manager application. Id.
`
`Figure 3 of the ’558 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates server computer 104 having server components 300,
`including restore server 302, boot server 304, file server 306, and storage
`manager 308. Id. at col. 3, ll. 32–35; col. 5, ll. 10–15. The restore server
`shown in Figure 3 above, and described in the text of the patent, is known as
`a bare metal restore (BMR) server. Id. at col. 5, ll. 11–12.
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Independent claims 17 and 18 of the ’558 patent are illustrative of the
`claims at issue:
`17. A method of restoring a client device on failure of the
`client device, comprising the steps of:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`
`saving a state of the client device, including client disk
`
`configuration information, prior to the failure;
`
`resetting the client device;
`
`booting the client device; and
`
`configuring the client device according to the state from
`the step of saving.
`
`18. A system comprising:
`
`backup software; and
`
`a restoration server;
`wherein the backup software is configured to create one or
`more backups of a client device, wherein at least one backup of
`the one or more backups comprises client disk configuration
`information; and
`wherein, following a failure of the client device, the restoration
`server is configured to:
`
`perform a network boot of the client device; and
`restore a client disk configuration using the client disk
`configuration information.
`
`
`
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted inter partes review of the ’558 patent based upon the
`
`following grounds of unpatentability:
`1. Claims 17–23 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by BMR User
`Guide1;
`2. Claims 18–23 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by BMR
`Webpages2; and
`
`1 THE KERNEL GROUP, Bare Metal Restore User Guide For Tivoli Store
`Manager: Version 1.4.3 1–142 (2001) (Ex. 1003).
`2 THE KERNEL GROUP, Bare Metal Restore User’s Guide: Version 1.1 for
`AIX (Aug. 31, 2000),
`www.web.archive.org/web/20000831083617/http:/www.tkg.com/bmr/docs/
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`
`3. Claim 17 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Goshey3.
`Dec. 20; Paper 17, 1–2.
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Construction
`We begin our analysis by determining the meaning of the claims. In
`
`an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable
`construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`i. Client Disk Configuration Information
`We determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “client
`
`disk configuration information” is “information regarding disk partitions,
`volume groups, logical volumes, and/or file systems.” Dec. 8. The broadest
`reasonable interpretation of “client disk configuration information” was
`proposed by Petitioner (Pet. 7) and adopted by us in the Decision on
`Institution (Dec. at 8). Patent Owner maintains that the adopted
`interpretation is improper for the reason set forth in its Preliminary Response
`
`
`white.html (last visited Aug. 31, 2000); THE KERNEL GROUP, Disaster
`Recovery and the Tivoli Storage Manager: How Bare Metal Restore Fills
`the Gap (Aug. 31, 2000),
`www.web.archive.org/web/20000831083617/http:/www.tkg.com/bmr/docs/
`white.html (last visited Aug. 31, 2000) (Ex. 1002).
`3 Goshey et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,205,527 B1 (issued Mar. 20, 2001) (Ex.
`1004).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`(see Prelim. Resp. 4–5; see also Dec. at 8 (determining that Patent Owner’s
`argument regarding an alleged lexicographic definition of client disk
`configuration data was unpersuasive)), but accepts the Board’s interpretation
`for the purposes of the Patent Owner Response. PO Resp. 3.
`B. Grounds Based on BMR User Guide (Ex. 1003)
`Petitioner argues that claims 17–23 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 by BMR User Guide. Pet. 17–27; Pet. Reply 2–11. “A claim is
`anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
`either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”
`Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
`1987). For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 17–23 are
`anticipated by BMR User Guide.
`i. BMR User Guide
`As described in BMR User Guide, the BMR product allows a client
`machine to be restored completely from the data saved in an enterprise
`storage management (ESM) server, without requiring separate system
`backups or reinstalls. Ex. 1003, 1. In the event that the client loses a boot
`disk or suffers some other catastrophic failure, BMR can be used to restore
`the machine to the state at which it was backed up last to the ESM. Id.
`BMR is integrated into ESM, providing the disaster recovery feature that the
`ESM lacks. Id.
`The Figure on page 3 of BMR User Guide, reproduced below, depicts
`the BMR product.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`
`
`The Figure depicts a BMR server, connected to a boot server, a file server,
`and an ESM server. Id. at 3. The boot server, file server, and ESM server
`are connected to a restore client. Id. The Figure depicts that the boot server
`transmits the boot image to the restore client; the file server transmits “OS,
`BMR, & ESM files needed at restore time” to the restore client; and the
`ESM server transmits all backed-up client files to the restore client. Id.
`
`BMR User Guide describes a client restoration process that is “highly
`automated” and includes the following ten steps:
`1. The user tells the BMR server to prepare to restore the
`client.
`2. The BMR server retrieves the UNIX client’s configuration
`data from the ESM server. NT clients retrieve the client
`configuration file from the ESM server and to control re–
`configuration.
`3. The BMR server creates a customized client boot script and
`makes the appropriate boot image and filesystems available
`to the client.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`
`4. The client boots from the boot server and starts running its
`customized boot script.
`5. The client mounts the necessary filesystems from the file
`server or SAMBA server.
`6. The client configures its disks, logical volumes, filesystems,
`etc.
`7. The client uses the standard ESM client to restore all its files
`from the ESM server, including the operating system,
`applications, configuration data, and user files.
`8. The client configures its boot record and configuration
`database.
`9. The client reboots itself.
`10. The client performs post-boot cleanup.
`Id. at 4.
`
`ii. Independent Claims 17 and 18
`Patent Owner argues that BMR User Guide does not anticipate claims
`17 and 18 because BMR User Guide does not disclose the claimed 1) client
`disk configuration data and 2) network boot caused by the server device. PO
`Resp. 11–20. We will address each of these disputed limitations in turn.
`a. Client Disk Configuration Information
`Independent claim 17 recites “saving a state of the client device,
`including client disk configuration information” and “configuring the client
`device according to the state from the step of saving.” Independent claim 18
`recites “at least one backup . . . comprises client disk configuration
`information” and a restoration server configured to “restore a client disk
`configuration using the client disk configuration information.”
`Petitioner argues that BMR User Guide discloses these limitations
`because BMR User Guide discloses saving a state of machine configuration
`and a restoration process that includes configuring a client’s disks, logical
`volumes, filesystems, etc. Pet. Reply 8; Pet. 18–19. Petitioner argues that,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`given these disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`the saved client configuration data includes client disk configuration
`information, because in order for the client to be completely recovered, the
`saved client configuration must include the client disk configuration
`information. Pet. 18–19; Pet. Reply 6–10; see also Ex. 1007 ¶ 39; Ex. 1014
`¶¶ 11–14 (supporting testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Shenoy).
`Patent Owner argues that, although BMR User Guide discloses the
`state of the machine configuration information is saved and discloses,
`separately, a client configuring its disks, logical volume, and filesystem,
`BMR User Guide fails to disclose, explicitly, that the saved state of the
`machine configuration includes the client disk configuration information.
`PO Resp. 12–18; see also Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 39–46 (supporting testimony of
`Patent Owner’s expert Dr. John Levy). Patent Owner argues that BMR User
`Guide is vague as to where the information used to configure the client’s
`disks, logical volume, and filesystem is stored. See id.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. BMR User Guide
`discloses a ten step “highly automated” restoration process in which a client
`device is restored after a failure. Ex. 1003, 4. Step six of the BMR User
`Guide’s restoration process states “[t]he client configures its disks, logical
`volumes, filesystems, etc.” Id. In order to configure disks, logical volumes,
`and filesystems during a highly automated restoration process, the client
`must obtain information regarding disks, logical volumes, and filesystems
`(i.e., client disk configuration information) from some previously saved file.
`See Tr. 76 (in response to a question from the panel at the oral hearing,
`counsel for Patent Owner agreed that the information that the client would
`use to configure the disks “has to come from some sort of file”). BMR User
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`Guide discloses that “all files (including system files) must be backed up to
`the ESM server” and that “BMR also saves the client’s configuration at
`backup time so that an up-to-date snapshot of the machine configuration is
`always saved with the system’s data.” Ex. 1003, 2 (emphases added); see
`also id. at 5 (“It is important that every backup captures a complete snapshot
`of the system because BMR restores the machine to the state at which it was
`last backed up.”) (emphases added). BMR User Guide further discloses:
`Bare Metal Restore (BMR) allows a machine to be completely
`restored from the data that is saved in an Enterprise Storage
`Manager (ESM), without requiring separate system backups or
`reinstalls. . . . Bare Metal Restore can be used to restore the
`machine to the state at which it was last backed up to an ESM.
` . . . .
`When you use BMR, your clients are backed up normally to
`their ESM server(s). The only differences are that all of the
`clients’ files are backed up and a program is automatically run
`before the backup is performed to save the state of the machine
`configuration. This information allows BMR to completely
`recover a machine from just the ESM backup.
`Id. at 1 (emphases added). Given these disclosures, we agree with
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Prashant Shenoy, that the client disk configuration
`information must have been saved as part of the configuration information
`during the backup. Ex. 1007 ¶ 39.
`For the reasons given above, we determine that BMR User Guide
`discloses that information for configuring disks, logical volumes, and
`filesystems (i.e., client disk configuration information) is saved with the
`configuration information on the ESM.
`b. Network Boot
`Independent claim 18 recites that the restoration server is configured
`to “perform a network boot of the client device.” Petitioner argues that this
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`limitation is met by BMR User Guide’s disclosure of a boot server network-
`booting a client. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1003, 2); Pet. Reply 10–11. Patent
`Owner argues that, although BMR User Guide describes a network boot,
`BMR User Guide does not describe that the server device or boot server
`causes the network boot, because BMR User Guide describes that a human
`operator is required to perform multiple steps prior to the initiation of a
`network boot. PO Resp. 17–20. Patent Owner’s argument implies that this
`limitation precludes the intervention of a human operator, in any capacity,
`during a network boot. See id.
`We see nothing in this limitation that would preclude a human
`operator from performing steps prior to the initiation of a network boot.
`BMR User guide discloses that the boot server performs a “network boot” to
`boot the client device prior to restoration. Ex. 1003, 2. Further, BMR User
`Guide states: “BMR uses the standard bootp or bootparam protocol to
`network-boot the client from the boot server.” Id. at 2. These are the same
`protocols that the ’558 patent uses as the network boot. Ex. 1001, col. 6,
`ll. 59–62 (“The network boot performed by the client computer 106 in such
`manner uses the standard ‘bootp’ and/or ‘bootparams’ protocols to network
`boot the client computer 106 from the boot server 304 . . . .”).
`For the reasons discussed above, we determine that BMR User Guide
`discloses a restoration server performing a network boot.
`iii. Dependent Claims 19–23
`
`Patent Owner makes no arguments regarding the additional limitations
`recited in dependent claims 19–23. Upon review of the Petitioner’s
`evidence and analysis (Pet. 23-26), we determine that Petitioner has shown
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence that the dependent claims are
`unpatentable.
`
`
`C. Ground Based on BMR Webpages (Ex. 1002)
`
`
`BMR Webpages describes essentially the same BMR product
`described in BMR User Guide, which we determined anticipates claims 17–
`23, we find it unnecessary to address separately the question of patentability
`of claims 17–23 as being anticipated by BMR Webpages. However, BMR
`User Guide is a more complete description of the product from BMR
`Webpages. We do not find claims 17-23 to be anticipated by BMR
`Webpages.
`
`
`D. Ground Based on Goshey (Ex. 1004)
`Petitioner argues that claim 17 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`Goshey. Pet. 28–37; see Pet. Reply 11–14. For the reasons discussed
`below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of
`the evidence that claim 17 is anticipated by Goshey.
`i. Goshey
`Goshey discloses an “intelligent” backup system. Ex. 1004, col. 1,
`ll. 16–20. The system is illustrated in Figure 1A, which is reproduced
`below:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 1A of Goshey illustrates computer system 100 including computer
`monitor 101 and computer housing 102. Computer housing 102 is shown
`connected to exemplary peripheral stoarge devices, such as external hard
`disk 104a and removable media storage device 104b. Computer housing
`102 typically includes a standard hard disk and may also include extra
`internal hard disk 104c. Id. at col. 6, l. 61–col. 7, l. 10.
`ii. Independent Claim 17
`
`Patent Owner argues that Goshey does not anticipate claim 17 because
`BMR User Guide does not disclose 1) saving or restoring client disk
`configuration information and 2) resetting the client device. PO Resp. 20–
`22. We will address each of these disputed limitations in turn.
`a. Client Disk Configuration Information
`Independent claim 17 recites “saving a state of the client device,
`including client disk configuration information” and “configuring the client
`device according to the state from the step of saving.”
`Petitioner argues that the Goshey disclosures of saving partition
`information and using this information to duplicate partitions on another
`hard drive meets these limitations. Pet. 29–31, 34–35; Pet. Reply 11–13.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`Patent Owner argues, generally, that Goshey’s relied upon disclosure is not
`the same as saving and restoring client disk configuration information. PO
`Resp. 20–22. Patent Owner, however, does not include any other
`explanation as to how the Goshey disclosures are different. Id.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Goshey discloses
`partitioning of the cartridge storage media and the formatting of each
`partition in the same scheme as the drive it represents. Ex. 1004, col. 21,
`ll. 19–49. Goshey discloses that after a failure, a new “hard drive is
`partitioned to match the settings that existed in the host computer’s hard
`drive previous to the system failure.” Id. at col. 25, ll. 27–29; see also id. at
`col. 4, ll. 65–67 (“[T]he . . . system . . . assists in partitioning and formatting
`the hard disk for the user.”). Further, Table A of Goshey includes partition
`information. Id. at col. 15, ll. 48–66. We fail to see why these disclosures
`of Goshey do not meet the claimed limitations and Patent Owner’s argument
`includes no explanation. See PO Resp. 20–22.
`We, thus, determine that Goshey discloses saving and restoring of
`client disk configuration information.
`b. Resetting the Client Device
`Independent claim 17 recites “resetting the client device.” Petitioner
`
`relies upon Goshey’s disclosure of re-booting the peripheral storage device
`to meet this limitation. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 3, ll. 9–13); Pet. Reply
`13–14. Petitioner, relying upon its expert, Dr. Shenoy, argues that Goshey’s
`“re-boot procedure is necessarily preceded by a reset of the computer.” Pet.
`30 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 49). Patent Owner, relying upon its expert, Dr. Levy,
`argues that Goshey’s re-boot procedure does not necessarily require a re-
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`boot because a soft boot does not require any reset. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex.
`2011 ¶ 70).
`
`We give weight to the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Levy, and
`determine that Goshey’s re-boot is necessarily preceded by a reset. Patent
`Owner’s expert, Dr. Levy, states that the re-boot could include a soft boot
`(i.e., a soft rest) or a hard boot. Ex. 2011 ¶ 70. Claim 17 broadly recites
`“resetting” and does not distinguish whether the claimed reset is a soft reset
`or a hard reset, and therefore, encompasses both. We, thus, determine that
`Goshey’s disclose of a re-boot meets the resetting limitation of claim 17.
`For this reason, we determine that Goshey discloses resetting the
`client device.
`
`
`
`E. Motion to Amend
`Patent Owner filed a contingent Motion to Amend the claims under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Amend
`(Paper 29, “Am. Opp.”), and Patent Owner filed a Reply to the Motion to
`Amend (Paper 39, “Am. Reply”).
`Patent Owner proposes to substitute claims 28–33 for challenged
`claims 17–20, 22, and 23. Mot. to Amend, 1–4. To the challenged claims,
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend proposes to add four limitations: 1) that
`the client device is reset by a controlling device, 2) that the client disk
`configuration information comprises partitions, volume groups, logical
`volumes, and files systems, and 3) that the configuration files are mounted at
`the client device from a file server. Patent Owner argues that each of these
`additional limitations are not disclosed in the prior art of record, and,
`therefore, the proposed substitute claims are not anticipated by the cited
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`prior art. See id. at 6–13; Am. Reply 2–4. Petitioner argues that Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Amend is deficient because it fails to consider all prior
`art references cited in this proceeding and fails to demonstrate that the
`substitute claims are obvious over the cited prior art. See Am. Reply 3–7.
`We shall address each of the proposed additional limitations in turn.
`For the reasons discussed below, Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is
`denied.
`
`
`i. Patentability
`a. Controlling Device for Resetting the Client Device
`
`Substitute claim 29 adds that the server device is “configured to: reset
`the client device using a controlling device connected to the client” to
`challenged claim 18. Mot. to Amend, 3. Patent Owner argues that none of
`BMR Webpages, BMR User Guide, Deshayes, or DRAC4 anticipates the
`substitute claims because none of these prior art references describe a
`controlling device for resetting the client device. Id. at 6–7, 10–12. Patent
`Owner also argues that the added feature is “significant” and broadly states
`that none of the prior art known to it “used such a device in connection with
`the claimed [device restoration] system of substitute claim 29 of the [’]558
`patent.” Id. at 10–12.
`
`Patent Owner, however, fails to demonstrate that the substitute claims
`are patentable because of the addition of a controlling device for resetting
`the client. Patent Owner bears the burden of proof in demonstrating
`patentability of the proposed substitute claim over the prior art of record and
`also prior art known to Patent Owner, and, thus, entitlement to add these
`
`4 DELL™, DELL OPENMANAGE™ REMOTE ASSISTANT CARD VERSION 2.X
`USER’S GUIDE 1-1–4-6, A-1–C-10, Index 1–2 (1999) (Ex. 1013).
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`proposed substitute claims to its patent. See Idle Free Sys., Inc. v.
`Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR2012-00027, slip op. at 7 (PTAB June 11, 2013)
`(Paper 26) (“Idle Free”). It is insufficient for Patent Owner simply to
`explain why the proposed substitute claims are patentable in consideration of
`the ground of unpatentability on which the Board instituted review. Id.
`Patent Owner’s argument is confined to whether the cited prior art
`anticipates the substitute claims, and fails to demonstrate that the addition of
`the controlling device is unobvious over the cited prior art and over all prior
`art known to Patent Owner. Further, neither Patent Owner’s Motion to
`Amend nor its supporting Declaration by Dr. Levy (Ex. 2013), addresses the
`fact that ’558 patent discloses that such resetting devices are known. The
`’558 patent states:
`Remote re-boot and restoration can also occur according to the
`method 400, for example in the case of a system like an AIX SP
`node, where the physical “front panel” (i.e., on, off, reset and
`similar control circuitry and equipment) of the client computer
`106 can be manipulated through software from another device,
`so that the controlling device can electrically (and, if necessary,
`mechanically) initiate a reset as if the reset button on the client
`computer 106 is triggered.
`Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 58–66 (emphasis added); see also id. at col. 2, ll. 27–29
`(describing AIX as a “conventional” backup system). Patent Owner’s
`Motion to Amend, thus, fails to demonstrate that the addition of the
`controlling device causes the substituted claim to be patentable over not only
`the prior art of record but also over all the prior art known to Patent Owner,
`particularly, in light of the fact that BMR User Guide discloses using an AIX
`client (see Ex. 1003, 108).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`
`b. Client Disk Configuration Information and Partitions, Volume Groups,
`Logical Volumes, and File Systems
`
`Substitute claim 28 adds that the configuration files include client disk
`configuration information to challenged claim 17. Mot. to Amend, 2.
`Substitute claim 29 adds that the client disk configuration information
`“compris[es] partitions, volume groups, logical volumes, and file systems”
`to challenged claim 18. Id. at 3. Patent Owner argues that neither BMR
`Webpages nor BMR User Guide describes that the client disk configuration
`information comprises partition or volume group information. Id. at 7–8.
`Patent Owner’s argument is confined to whether some of the cited
`prior art anticipates the substitute claims, and fails to demonstrate that the
`addition of this feature causes the substitute claim to be novel and unobvious
`over all the cited prior art and all prior art known to Patent Owner. See
`discussion of Idle Free above. As previously discussed, we determined that
`the BMR User Guide discloses client disk configuration information that
`includes “disks, logical volumes, filesystems, etc.” Ex. 1003, 4. Neither
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend nor the supporting Declaration of
`Dr. Levy (Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 38–43) addresses whether the addition of partition
`and volume group information to the BMR User Guide would have been
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in light of Dr. Levy’s
`statements that a volume group is multiple logical volumes, which are
`partitions that are managed as a single disk drive (Id. ¶¶ 39, 41). See Am.
`Opp. 4.
`
`c. Mounting Configuration Files
`
`Substitute claim 28 adds “mounting configuration files at the client
`device from a file server” and that the client disk configuration information
`is from “the mounted configuration files” to challenged claim 17. Mot. to
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`Amend 2. Patent Owner argues that BMR Webpages, BMR User Guide,
`and Goshey do not disclose mounting configuration files, which include
`client disk configuration information, from a file server. Id. at 8–10, 12–13.
`
`Again, Patent Owner’s argument is confined to whether some of the
`cited prior art anticipates the substitute claim, and fails to demonstrate that
`the addition of the configuration files being mounted from the file server
`causes the substitute claims to be novel and unobvious over all the cited
`prior art and all prior art known to Patent Owner. See Am. Opp., 8.
`ii. Broadening
`Patent Owner argues that substitute claims 29–33 include all of the
`
`limitations of the respective challenged claim and that “[e]ach one of Patent
`Owner’s proposed substitute claims narrows the scope of the original claim
`it replaces.” Mot. to Amend, 5. Patent Owner, however, replaces the term
`“restoration server” with the facially broader term “server device” in each of
`substitute claims 29–33. Id. at 2–4. This amendment is not responsive to an
`alleged ground of unpatentability and appears to enlarge the scope of the
`claims. During inter partes review, a patent owner may not amend a
`challenged claim in a manner that enlarges the scope of that claim. 35
`U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). A substitute claim is not
`responsive to an alleged ground of unpatentability of a challenged claim if it
`does not either include or narrow each feature of the challenged claim being
`replaced. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 (a)(2). See Idle Free, Paper 26, slip op. at 5.
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend makes no other mention of this
`replacement nor does it contain any explanation as to why this amendment
`does not broaden the substitute claims. As the moving party, Patent Owner
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00142
`Patent 6,931,558 B1
`
`bears the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the relief requested.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`For the reasons discussed above, Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is
`denied.
`
`
`
`F. Motion to Exclude
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 34, “Motion to
`Exclude”) on March 31, 2014. Petitioner filed an opposition to the Motion
`to Exclude (Paper

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket