throbber
Paper 54
`Entered: July 29, 2014
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and TRENTON A.
`WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Veeam Software Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for inter partes
`review of claims 1, 11, 12, and 22 of U.S. Patent 7,093,086 B1 (“the ’086 patent”).
`Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Symantec Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted
`inter partes review, on August 7, 2013, as to claims 1, 11, 12, and 22 of the
`’086 patent. Paper 10 (“Dec.).
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 28, “PO
`Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 33, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner also
`filed a Motion to Amend Claims (Paper 27, “Mot. to Amend”), which Petitioner
`opposed (Paper 32, “Opp.”) and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 43, “Reply to
`Mot. to Amend”). Oral hearing was held on May 5, 2014. The hearing transcript
`has been entered in the record as Paper 53 (“Tr.”).
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the
`reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 11, 12, and 22 of the ’086 patent are
`unpatentable. Furthermore, for reasons discussed below, Patent Owner’s motion to
`amend original claims 1, 11, 12, and 22 with proposed substitute claims 31-34 is
`denied.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`In addition to this petition, we instituted inter partes review on August 7,
`2013 based on Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of certain claims of
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent 77,093,086 BB1
`
`IPR201
`3-00150
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent OOwner’s UU.S. Patentss 6,931,5588 (IPR20133-00141, IPPR2013-0
`0142) and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7,191,299 (IPR2013-00143)). Our finaal decisionss in those pproceedinggs are bein
`g
`
`
`
`
`entered concurrenntly with thhis decisionn.
`
`
`
`C. TThe ’086 Paatent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe ’086 paatent is titled “Disastter Recoverry and Bacckup Usingg Virtual
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Machinnes” and geenerally rellates to commputer sysstems and mmethods foor backing
`up
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`virtual mmachines. Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 3-4. The ppatent desccribes a commputer sysstem
`
`
`
`that exeecutes one or more viirtual machhines, havi
`
`
`
`ng multiplle applicatiions. To
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`create aa backup, thhe computer system mmay captuure a state oof each virttual machiine
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and bacckup the staate. Id. at col. 2, ll. 553-56. Thee state mayy include thhe informaation
`
`
`
`e virtual mmachine. Idd. at
`created in
`
`in a virttual image
`
`
`response tto a suspennsion of th
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 2, ll. 60-62. FFigure 1 off the ’086 ppatent is reeproduced
`below:
`
`
`
`’086 paatent, Figuure 1
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`As illustrated above in Figure 1, the ’086 patent discloses that multiple virtual
`machines, 16A-C, can be controlled by Virtual Machine (“VM”) Kernel 18, all of
`which may comprise software and/or data structures executed on the underlying
`hardware 20 of computer system 10. Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 30-37. Figure 1 further
`illustrates that computer system 10 can include storage device 22 and backup
`medium 24. Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 40-42. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject
`matter and is reproduced below:
`
`1. A computer readable medium storing a plurality of
`instructions comprising instructions which, when
`executed:
`(i) capture a state of a first virtual machine executing on a
`first computer system, the state of the first virtual
`machine corresponding to a point in time in the
`execution of the first virtual machine, wherein the first
`virtual machine comprises at least one virtual disk
`storing at least one file used by at least one
`application executing in the first virtual machine, and
`wherein
`the state of
`the first virtual machine
`comprises the at least one file; and
`(ii) copy at least a portion of the state to a destination
`separate from a storage device to which the first
`virtual machine is suspendable, wherein suspending
`the first virtual machine is performed responsive to a
`suspend command.
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the AIA,1 the Board
`will interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent. See Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 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).
`
`1. “state of a virtual machine”
`Claims 1 and 12 require capturing the “state of a first virtual machine.” In
`the Decision to Institute, we adopted the prior construction of the District Court for
`the Northern District of California as the broadest reasonable construction, which
`construed “‘a state of [first] virtual machine’ as ‘information regarding the [first]
`virtual machine to permit the virtual machine to resume execution of the
`application at the point in time the state was captured.” Dec. 5-6 (citing Symantec
`Corp. v. Veeam Software Corp., Case No. 12-cv-00700-SI, Mar. 8, 2013 Claim
`Construction Order, 9 (Ex. 2005) (“Claim Construction Order”) (brackets in
`original)).
`Patent Owner argues that this construction is unreasonably narrow and
`inconsistent with the specification because the Board’s construction does not
`require capturing all of the state information needed to resume execution of the
`
`
`1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011)
`(“AIA”).
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`virtual machine. PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner proposes the “a state of [a] virtual
`machine” be construed to mean “information regarding [the] virtual machine to
`resume execution of [the] virtual machine on any computer at the point in time the
`state was captured.” Id. at 18 (brackets in original). Petitioner counters that Patent
`Owner’s construction is overly narrow because the claims are not limited to
`backup and do not require that all of the state information be copied to a
`destination, but rather claims 1 and 12 expressly recite that “at least a portion of
`the captured state is copied.” Pet. Reply. 5 (quoting claims 1 and 12). We agree
`and are not persuaded by Patent Owner to modify the construction set forth in the
`Decision to Institute. See Dec. 6. Accordingly, in light of the specification and in
`the context of the claims, we construe “a state of [first] virtual machine” as
`“information regarding the [first] virtual machine to permit the virtual machine to
`resume execution of the application at the point in time the state was captured.”
`
`2. “backup program”
`Patent Owner contends that claims 1 and 12 require a backup “program” that
`“performs the two recited steps in order to backup a virtual machine”. PO Resp.
`20. Petitioner argues that the explicit language of claims 1 and 12 neither recites
`nor requires a backup program. Pet. Reply 2-3. Petitioner also points out claims 2
`and 13 narrow independent claims 1 and 12 by adding the limitation that “the
`destination is a backup medium coupled to the first computer system and used to
`backup data from the first computer system.” Pet. Reply 3 (emphasis added). We
`are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, as claims 1 and 12 do not include
`the term “backup.” Therefore, we do not import the limitation of a “backup
`program,” as urged by Patent Owner, from the specification into the claims.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Anticipation by Lim
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims of the ’086 patent are
`anticipated by Lim. Pet. 7-15. “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).
`
`1. Overview of Lim
`Lim is titled “mechanism for restoring, porting, replicating, and
`checkpointing computer systems using state extraction” and discloses a virtual
`machine monitor on which multiple virtual computer systems are installed whose
`states can be checkpointed under control of the virtual machine monitor. Ex. 1004,
`Abstract. The checkpointed virtual machine may be restored into the system at a
`later time. Id. Figure 2 of Lim is reproduced below:
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent 77,093,086 BB1
`
`IPR201
`3-00150
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LLim, Figurre 2
`
`
`
`) 200, e (“VM1”)ual machineloses virtu, Lim discn Figure 2As showwn above i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`includinng virtual ooperation ssystem (“VVOS”) 202,, virtual prrocessor (“VVPROC”)
`
`
`
`
`
`204, a vvirtual diskk that is virrtual memoory (“VMEEM”) 206,
`
`
`and virtuaal peripheraal
`
`
`
`
`
`devices 208, “all oof which arre implemeented in sooftware to
`
`emulate thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`correspoonding commponents oof an actuaal computeer.” Ex. 10004, col. 144, ll. 27-322.
` in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, as shhown in Fiigure 2, Limm disclosees virtual mmachine moonitor 250
`Ex. 1004,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`betweenn the virtuaal machinees 200 to 2000n and thhe system hhardware.
`
`
`
`col. 15, ll. 26-31. To enablee computerr system reestoration, LLim disclooses capturring
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`the “total machine state” of a computer system, which is “the entire collection of
`all information that is necessary and sufficient to uniquely determine the status of
`all hardware and software components at the completion of any given processor
`instruction.” Ex. 1004, col. 10, ll. 26-30. Therefore, if the processor’s execution is
`interrupted,
`
`The total machine state is then the set of data that, when loaded at any
`time into the appropriate memory positions (both internal and external
`to the processor), will cause the processor, and all connected hardware
`and software components, to continue executing in exactly the same
`way as if there had been no interruption at all.
`Ex. 1004, col. 10, ll. 32-38.
`
`2. Analysis
`a. Claims 1 and 12
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1 and 12 of the ’086 patent are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lim. Pet. 7-15. Patent Owner argues
`against Petitioner’s challenge based on Lim on multiple grounds.
`First, Patent Owner argues that Lim fails to anticipate claims 1 and 12
`because Lim fails to disclose a separate backup program that performs the capture
`and copy steps in claims 1 and 12. PO Resp. 25. In particular, Patent Owner
`argues that Petitioner’s expert never refers to Lim as a backup system. PO Resp.
`25 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Prashant Shenoy (“Shenoy Decl.”) ¶¶ 13-14).
`Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing, as they are not commensurate with the
`scope of the claims. Specifically, they are premised on an overly narrow
`construction of claims 1 and 12, namely, that they require a “backup program.” As
`discussed above, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s narrow construction because
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`it would import limitations from the specification into the claims, improperly
`limiting the claims to a preferred embodiment.
`Second, Patent Owner argues that Lim does not anticipate claims 1 and 12
`because Lim fails to disclose capturing “a state of [a] virtual machine.” PO Resp.
`29. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Lim does not capture or transmit any
`configuration information because it is not concerned with capturing sufficient
`state information for the virtual machine to resume execution of the virtual
`machine on any computer. Id. In its Reply, Petitioner counters that Lim discloses
`capturing “the state of a virtual machine,” which Lim identifies as “the entire
`collection of all information that is necessary and sufficient to uniquely determine
`the status of all hardware and software component at the completion of any given
`processor instruction.” Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 10, ll. 27-30).
`Furthermore, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Matthew Green, agreed
`that Lim describes capturing “the type of hardware” as part of its state and Dr.
`Green agreed that this hardware information is included in the configuration
`information of the virtual machine. Id. at 9-10 (citing Ex. 1026, 284:4-7, 258:20-
`25). In view of the cited disclosures from Lim and the testimony, we are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner that Lim fails to disclose capturing a state of a virtual
`machine.
`Additionally, Patent Owner argues that Lim fails to anticipate claims 1 and
`12 because it does not allow the virtual machine to continue executing when its
`alleged state is captured. PO Resp. 33. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the
`capturing step, step (i) of claims 1 and 12, requires that the virtual machine
`continue executing while its state is captured, i.e., without suspending the virtual
`machine. Id. Petitioner counters this argument by stating that claims 10 and 21,
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`dependent from claims 1 and 12 respectively, recite “wherein [step] (i) comprises
`suspending the first virtual machine.” Pet. Reply. 6 (quoting claims 1 and 12).
`Thus, Petitioner argues that the independent claims 1 and 12 must be interpreted
`broadly to encompass embodiments where the virtual machine is suspended during
`capture. Id. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that in view of the
`limitations in dependent claim 10 and 22, claims 1 and 12 must be interpreted to
`include, at least, suspending the virtual machine during capture. Thus, we are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that claims 1 and 12 require capturing
`while the virtual machine is executing.
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 12 are anticipated by Lim.
`
`b. Claims 11 and 22
`Patent Owner argues that Lim fails to anticipate dependent claims 11 and 22
`because Lim discloses conventional Copy-On-Write (“COW”) files and memories,
`and “not the ‘new log of uncommitted updates’ or the new ‘memory area’ which
`are specifically created during the capture step (i) according to the claims.” PO
`Resp. 40. More particularly, Patent Owner argues that claims 11 and 22 require
`the “new log of uncommitted updates” and the new “memory area” to be created as
`the virtual machine continues execution during the capture step (i). Id.
`Petitioner responds that Lim explicitly discloses creating a “new log of
`uncommitted updates” and a “memory area” in describing the use of copy-on-write
`techniques to capture the contents of memory and disk. Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex.
`1030 ¶¶ 19-22). Specifically, Dr. Shenoy states that Lim discloses creating a log of
`uncommitted updates for keeping track of changes and that the log of changes can
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`be stored in a memory area. Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 19-22 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 11, l. 67 –
`col. 12, l. 3; col. 19, ll. 51-55; col. 23, ll. 52-55). In fact, Lim discloses “to keep a
`log of changes” and that “complete state vector” can be stored in “a dedicated
`memory partition.” Ex. 1004, col. 11, l. 67 – col. 12, l. 3; col. 19, ll. 51-55.
`Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that Lim discloses creating “a new log of
`uncommitted updates” and “a memory area.”
`Patent Owner additionally argues that Lim fails to disclose a virtual machine
`that is capable of continuing to execute during both the capture and copy steps. PO
`Resp. at 41. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments as they not
`commensurate with the scope of the claims. Contrary to Patent Owner’s
`arguments, claims 11 and 22 recite “creating a memory area to capture writes to a
`memory of the first virtual machine, such that the first virtual machine can
`continue executing during (ii).” Claims 11 and 22 (emphasis added). Therefore,
`the limitation regarding continued execution is directed to the copy step (ii), not
`the capture step (i). Accordingly, claims 11 and 22 do not require that the virtual
`machine is capable of continuing to execute during both the capture and copy
`steps.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 11 and 22 are anticipated by Lim.
`B. Anticipation by VMware ESX of claims 1, 11, 12, and 22
`Overview of VMware ESX VMware ESX provides a user’s manual for
`installing and configuring the VMware ESX Server, including how to create and
`provision virtual machines and how to manage virtual machines. Ex. 1005, 18.
`VMware ESX discloses that a virtual machine can be suspended at any desired
`point in its operation and then later resumed at that same state. Ex. 1005, 97. In
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`order to capture the state of a virtual machine, VMware ESX discloses storing
`information in two files: (1) an .std file, which “contains the entire state of the
`virtual machine,” and (2) a redo-log file (.redo file) used to save changes while the
`virtual machine is operation. Ex. 1005, 58, 97-98, 149. Furthermore, VMware
`ESX describes that the .std file and the .redo file can be stored locally or remotely.
`See Ex. 1005, 97, 106.
`VMware ESX discloses the creation of a redo log (.redo file), which
`“contains the incremental changes to the disk image.” Ex. 1005, 106.
`Furthermore, VMware ESX discloses that the ESX server captures changes during
`a working session in redo log and “continually adds changes to the redo log until
`you remove the redo-log file or commit the changes using the commit command.”
`Ex. 1005, 39.
`1. Analysis
`a. Claims 1 and 12
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1 and 12 of the ’086 patent are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by VMware ESX. Pet. 15-22. Patent
`Owner argues against Petitioner’s challenge based on VMware ESX on multiple
`grounds.
`First, Patent Owner counters that VMware ESX does not disclose a separate
`backup program that captures and copies state. PO Resp. 23. As discussed above,
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding a “backup program” are unavailing because
`we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s narrow construction that claims 1 and 12
`require a backup program.
`Second, Patent Owner argues that the ’086 patent discloses backing up
`machines automatically and periodically, while VMware ESX requires the user to
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`perform commands manually each time the user intends to capture the state of the
`virtual machine. We are not persuaded by this argument because Patent Owner
`fails to direct us to any limitations in claims 1 and 12 that prohibit user interaction.
`Furthermore, as Petitioner notes, Patent Owner’s argument is contradicted by an
`embodiment in the ’086 patent that explains that “[v]arious operations have been
`assigned to the backup program… in other embodiments, various ones of these
`operations may be performed manually by a user.” Pet. Reply 8 (quoting Ex.
`1001, col. 14, ll. 7-11) (emphasis added).
`Third, Patent Owner further argues that that VMware ESX does not disclose
`capturing “the state of a virtual machine” because VMware ESX does not save
`configuration information and the VMware ESX redo log only saves changes to
`the virtual disk. PO Resp. 26-27. Patent Owner also argues that the information
`recorded in VMware ESX would not be sufficient to resume execution of the
`virtual machine. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2016, Declaration of Matthew Green (“Green
`Decl.”) ¶¶ 73-76). Petitioner counters that Patent Owner’s argument is premised
`on an impermissibly narrow construction that the “state of a virtual machine” must
`include virtual machine configuration information. Pet. Reply 9. We agree with
`Petitioner because, as discussed above, we do not construe the “state of a virtual
`machine” to require configuration information. Petitioner additionally asserts that
`Patent Owner’s argument that the redo logs do not “permit the virtual machine to
`resume execution of the application” is incorrect because redo logs can contain
`such information. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶ 26). Dr. Shenoy states that VMware
`ESX discloses that that the redo log includes any modification to the virtual disk
`made during the execution of the virtual machine. Ex. 1030 ¶ 26 (citing Ex. 1005,
`39, 94 (describing the various modes of virtual disk operation, including persistent,
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`nonpersistent, undoable, and append)). In view of the cited disclosures and
`supporting testimony, we agree with Petitioner that VMware ESX discloses the
`claimed step of capturing the “state of a virtual machine.”
`Fourth, Patent Owner repeats its argument that claims 1 and 12 require that
`the state is captured while the virtual machine is executing and active.
`PO Resp. 31. As discussed above, we do not interpret claims 1 and 12 to require
`continued execution during capturing. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent
`Owner’s argument that VMware ESX fails to disclose this limitation.
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 12 are anticipated by VMware
`ESX.
`
`b. Claims 11 and 22
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s challenge of anticipation of claims 11
`and 22 by VMware ESX fails because VMware ESX does not disclose a “new log
`of uncommitted updates,” as recited in the claims. PO Resp. 34. In particular,
`Patent Owner argues that because VMware ESX requires the virtual machine be
`suspended in order to capture its alleged state, it does not need to create a new log
`since there are no updates being made to the disk. Id. at 35.
`Patent Owner further argues that the ’086 patent discloses one log for storing
`uncommitted disk updates for non-persistent disks and a “different ‘new log’” to
`capture disk so that backup can be performed without actually suspending the
`virtual machines. Id. 34-35 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 7, l. 60 – col. 8, l. 3; col. 11, ll.
`31-44). Patent Owner fails to identify, however, the limitations in claims 11 and
`22 that require two different logs. Furthermore, Patent Owner does not dispute that
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`the redo log disclosed in VMware ESX provides a log of uncommitted updates.
`See PO Resp. 34. As Petitioner points out, claims 11 and 22 only require one log
`of uncommitted updates. Pet. Reply 12-13; see also claims 11 and 22 (“creating a
`new log of uncommitted updates for each virtual disk.”). Accordingly, we are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that VMware ESX does not disclose a
`“new log of uncommitted updates,” as recited in claims 11 and 22.
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 11 and 22 are anticipated by VMware
`ESX.
`
`C. Anticipation by VMware GSG of claims 1, 11, 12, and 22
`1. Overview of VMware GSG
`Like VMware ESX, VMware GSG provides a user guide related to the
`VMware software for implementing virtual machines. Ex. 1006, 1-1. VMware
`GSG is titled “Getting Started Guide – Vmware 2.0 for Linux” and describes how
`to install, configure, and manage VMware 2.0 on computer systems executing the
`Linux operating system. Ex. 1006, 1-1. Similar to VMware ESX described above,
`VMware GSG discloses the ability to suspend and store virtual machines.
`Ex. 1006, 2-5 (“Using Suspend and Instant Restore . . . [y]ou can save the current
`state of your virtual machine.”). Specifically, VMware GSG discloses that
`“[s]uspend to disk allows you to save the current state of a virtual machine across
`reboots of your host operating system” so that without having to wait for the
`virtual machine to boot “you can quickly pick up work right where you stopped,
`with all the applications and documents you were working on open and ready for
`use.” Ex. 1006, 3-25.
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`
`VMware GSG further discloses that the “state of a virtual machine can be
`saved to disk or memory.” Ex. 1006, 3-25. “If you suspend to memory, the saved
`state of the virtual machine is available as long as the virtual machine is powered
`on,” and “[i]f you suspend a virtual machine to disk, you may power off after
`suspending.” Ex. 1006, 3- 25.
`
`2. Analysis
`a. Claims 1 and 12
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1 and 12 of the ’086 patent are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by VMware GSG. Pet. 22-28. Patent
`Owner reasserts many of the arguments asserted against VMware ESX to counter
`the challenge of claims 1 and 12 based on VMware GSG. See PO Resp. 22-34.
`Specifically, Patent Owner argues that (1) VMware GSG does not disclose a
`“backup program,” (2) does not disclose capturing the “state of a virtual machine,”
`and (3) does not disclose capturing the state while the virtual machine is executing.
`Id. We find these arguments deficient for the same reasons discussed above with
`respect to these arguments against VMware ESX.
`In addition to the similar arguments raised against VMware ESX, Patent
`Owner argues that VMware GSG fails to anticipate claims 1 and 12 because
`VMware GSG fails to disclose “copy[ing] at least a portion of the state” to a
`separate destination. PO Resp. 42. Patent Owner argues that the portion of
`VMware GSG relied upon by Petitioner for copying to a separate destination
`merely teaches that a user can pre-specify where the redo log can be stored and
`fails to teach moving the log from one location to another. Id. Furthermore, Patent
`Owner argues that VMware GSG fails to disclose a “separate copy step” but
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`suggests that the claimed capture and copy steps both occur simultaneously. Id. at
`43.
`
`Petitioner counters that VMware GSG discloses that the virtual machine can
`be suspended to memory, which is a separate device from a disk that stores the
`redo logs. Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1006, 3-25 (“The state of a virtual machine
`can be saved to disk or memory.”)). Furthermore, Dr. Shenoy describes VMware
`GSG as disclosing that “[a]ll writes to an undoable disk issued by software running
`inside the virtual machines appear to be written to the disk, but are in fact stored in
`a temporary file (.REDO).” Ex. 1030 ¶ 33 (quoting Ex. 1006, 4-2)). Dr. Shenoy
`states that if the capturing and copying step were done simultaneously it would
`defeat the purpose of redirecting writes to the redo log as the data would already
`reside on the disk. Ex. 1030 ¶ 34. Thus, Dr. Shenoy opines that, in accordance
`with the disclosure in VMware GSG, writes intended for the disk are first stored in
`memory (RAM or processor register memory) and then copied into the redo log
`file. Id. at ¶¶ 34-35. We are persuaded by the cited disclosure, and the supporting
`testimony from Dr. Shenoy, that VMware GSG discloses the claimed step of
`“copy[ing] at least a portion of the state” to a separate destination.
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 12 are anticipated by VMware
`GSG.
`
`b. Claims 11 and 22
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s challenge of anticipation of claims 11
`and 22 by VMware GSG fails because VMware GSG does not disclose a “new log
`of uncommitted updates” and does not disclose creating a “memory area to capture
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`writes to memory,” as required by claims 11 and 22. PO Resp. 38-39. Patent
`Owner’s arguments are similar to those advanced against the challenge of claims 1
`and 12 based on VMware ESX. See PO Resp. 38-40. We find these arguments
`deficient for the same reasons discussed above with respect to these arguments
`against VMware ESX.
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 11 and 22 are anticipated by VMware
`GSG.
`
`D. Anticipation by Suzaki of claims 1 and 12
`1. Overview of Suzaki
`Suzaki is titled “Checkpoint for Network Transferable Computer,” and it
`describes a system that enables the transfer of the running OS image (Snapshot) to
`another machine through the use of a virtual machine. Ex. 1008, 1. Suzaki
`discloses that the prior art systems had to stop the virtual machine to get the
`snapshot because the snapshot was taken in hibernation, but the “new version
`enables the taking of the snapshot without stopping the virtual machine.” Ex.
`1008, 1. Suzaki discloses that “‘Network transferable computer’ [1] is a system
`that makes it possible to continue working at home without physically bringing a
`computer from your office.” Ex. 1008, 2. Figure 1 of Suzaki is reproduced below:
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent 77,093,086 BB1
`
`
`IPR2013-00150
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SSuzaki Figuure 1
`
`
`napshot” oof “your offfice comp
`
`As seenn in Figure
`
`discloses ttaking a “s
`uter
`1, Suzaki
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and recrreating whhat you werre doing onn it on youur home commputer bassed on the
`“[i]t is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`executaable image..” Ex. 10008, 2. For eexample, SSuzaki disccloses that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`possiblee to pause a QuickTimme movie on an X WWindow maachine andd continue tto
`
`
`
`
`
`play it oon another machine.”” Ex. 10088, 2. Figurre 3 of Suz
`
`
`aki is reprooduced bellow:
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Suzaaki Figure
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`Figure 3 of Suzuki illustrates an example of a movie playback process. Suzaki
`discloses that its system makes it “possible to pause a QuickTime movie played by
`XAnim on a desktop computer, transfer the execution image via network or a PC
`card to a notebook computer, and resume the movie (FIG. 3).” Ex. 1008, 5.
`Additionally, Suzaki discloses that the “[c]heckpoint function makes it
`possible to save current state information without stopping the execution of the
`process.” Ex. 1008, 5. Furthermore, Suzaki discloses that the “‘[n]etwork
`transferable computer’ not only transfers a disk image but can also recreate the
`same OS environment on another computer.” Ex. 1008, 3.
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1 and 12 of the ’086 patent are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Suzaki. Pet. 29-33. Patent Owner
`argues against Petitioner’s challenge based on Suzaki on multiple grounds.
`First, Patent Owner contends that Suzaki does not disclose a backup
`program. PO Resp. 45. In particular, Patent Owner argues that Suzaki does not
`use a VM kernel, let alone a separate backup program that interfaces with such a
`kernel in order to capture the state of a virtual machine. Id. As discussed above,
`claims 1 and 12 do not require a backup program. Additionally, as applied to the
`claimed limitation of capture a state of the virtual machine, Suzaki discloses a
`“checkpoint function” that makes it possible to take a snapshot of the state
`information without stopping the virtual computer. Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1007,
`5).
`
`Patent Owner further argues that Suzaki does not disclose capturing “the
`state of [a] virtual machine.” PO Resp. 46. In particular, Patent Owner contends
`that the state must correspond to a particular “point in time in the executing of the
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086 B1
`
`virtual [] machine,” such that the virtual machine, including all its processes, can
`be resumed from a single point in time. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 7-17).
`Patent Owner argues that Suzaki fails to disclose capturing the claimed “at a point
`in time” because Suzaki discloses recording information about each application
`indi

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