`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 69
`Entered: April 13, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ACTIFIO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DELPHIX CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-000191
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 As explained below, we hereby consolidate the two trials for purposes of
`issuing this Final Written Decision.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`In these inter partes review trials, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314, Petitioner Actifio, Inc. (“Petitioner”) challenges the patentability of
`
`certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,150,808 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’808
`
`patent”), owned by Delphix Corp. (“Patent Owner”), as follows: claims 3,
`
`29, 31, 36, 53, 54, and 56 in Case IPR2015-00016 (“’016 IPR”); and claims
`
`2, 24–27, 35, 51, and 52 in Case IPR2015-00019 (“’019 IPR”). Based on a
`
`substantial overlap of arguments and evidence presented in the two cases, to
`
`administer the proceedings more efficiently, we exercise our authority under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(d) to consolidate the two proceedings for purposes of
`
`issuing one final written decision.
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`With respect to the grounds instituted in this trial, we have considered the
`
`papers submitted by the parties and the evidence cited therein. For the
`
`reasons discussed below, we determine Petitioner has shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 3, 24–26, 29, 31, 35, 36, 51, 53,
`
`54, and 56 of the ’808 patent are unpatentable, but has not shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 27 and 52 are unpatentable.
`
`A. Procedural History
`
`Based on Petitions (Paper 1 (“Pet.”) in the ’016 IPR; ’019 Paper 1
`
`(“’019 Pet.”) in the ’019 IPR) filed by Petitioner, we instituted inter partes
`
`reviews of claims 2, 3, 24–27, 29, 31, 35, 36, 51–54, and 56 based on the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`following grounds of unpatentability (Paper 11 (“Inst. Dec.”); ’019 Paper 11
`
`(“’019 Inst. Dec.”)):
`
`Claim(s) Challenged Statutory Basis
`
`Ground
`
`2, 3, 24–26, 29, 31,
`51, 53, 54, and 56
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Edwards,2 Patterson,3 and Sanders4
`
`36
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`2, 27, 35, 51, and 52 § 103(a)
`
`Edwards, Patterson, Sanders, and
`Singh5
`
`Edwards, Patterson, Sanders, and
`Fair6
`
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 23, “PO Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 32, “Pet.
`
`Reply”).7 Subsequently, Patent Owner moved to exclude (Paper 46, “PO
`
`Mot. to Exclude”) certain Exhibits; Petitioner opposed (Paper 53, “Pet.
`
`
`2 Edwards et al., FlexVol: Flexible, Efficient File Volume Virtualization in
`WAFL, PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL TECHNICAL USENIX CONFERENCE
`129–142 (June 22–27, 2008) (“Edwards”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`3 Patterson et al., SnapMirror®: File System Based Asynchronous Mirroring
`for Disaster Recovery, PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE ON FILE AND
`STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES, USENIX ASSOCIATION (January 28–30, 2002)
`(“Patterson”) (Ex. 1104).
`
`4 Jawahar Lal & Roger Sanders, DB2: Cloning a Database using NetApp
`FlexClone™ Technology, Network Appliance Inc., IBM Toronto Lab, TR-
`3460 (Apr. 30, 2006) (“Sanders”) (Ex. 1105).
`
`5 U.S. Patent No. 8,775,663 B1 (July 8, 2014) (“Singh”) (Ex. 1106).
`
`6 U.S. Patent No. 7,334,095 B1 (Feb. 19, 2008) (“Fair”) (Ex. 1206).
`
`7 Unless otherwise indicated, we refer to public (including redacted) Papers
`and Exhibits filed in IPR2015-00016.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`Exclude Opp.”); and Patent Owner replied (Paper 56, “PO Exclude Reply”).
`
`Patent Owner also filed Motions for Observation on certain cross-
`
`examination testimony of Dr. Erez Zadok (Paper 49, “Obs. Zadok”) and
`
`Louis Hernandez (Paper 47, “Obs. Hernandez”), to which Petitioner filed
`
`Responses (Paper 57 (“Obs. Resp. Zadok”) and Paper 55 (“Obs. Resp.
`
`Hernandez”), respectively). Patent Owner also filed a Paper identifying
`
`allegedly untimely evidence and evidence and arguments beyond the scope
`
`of Petitioner’s Reply. Paper 58 (“Exclude Pet. Reply Evid.”). The parties
`
`filed similar Papers and Exhibits in the ’019 IPR (to be designated, as
`
`indicated above, with the “’019” prefix: for example, “’019 Paper”).
`
`A combined oral hearing in these proceedings and related Cases
`
`IPR2015-00014, IPR2015-00034, IPR2015-00025, IPR2015-00026,
`
`IPR2015-00050, IPR2015-00052, and IPR2015-00128 was held on January
`
`14, 2016. A transcript of the hearing is included in the record as Paper 68
`
`(“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’808 patent is the subject of the following
`
`pending patent infringement case: Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc., No. 5:13-
`
`cv-04613-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 2. In related proceedings before the Board,
`
`we instituted inter partes reviews of various claims of the ’808 patent in
`
`Cases IPR2015-00014 and IPR2015-00034. Additionally, we instituted
`
`inter partes reviews of claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,161,077 B2 in Cases
`
`IPR2015-00025 and IPR2015-00026; claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,548,944
`
`B2 in Cases IPR2015-00050 and IPR2015-00052; claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`8,566,361 B2 in Cases IPR2015-00100 and IPR2015-00108; and claims of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,468,174 B1 in Case IPR2015-00128.8
`
`II. THE ’808 PATENT
`
`A. Described Invention
`
`
`
`The ’808 patent describes a system and method to create a virtual
`
`database, which involves obtaining multiple “point-in-time” (“PIT”) copies
`
`of the database to be virtualized. See Ex. 1101, Abstract. In one virtual
`
`database embodiment represented by Figure 2a, “production database system
`
`110 . . . is the source of the database being virtualized” to create virtual
`
`database 220 using virtual database files stored in database storage system
`
`100. Id. at col. 6, ll. 59–65. Figure 2a of the ’808 patent is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2a depicts production database system 110, virtual database DB1 220
`
`stored in database storage system 100, and virtual database system 130,
`
`
`8 Case IPR2015-00136 has been consolidated with IPR2015-00128.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`which accesses virtual database 220.
`
`To virtualize a production database, the system of the ’808 patent
`
`makes a first PIT copy of the production database and stores an entire set of
`
`database blocks representing the production database at that time in database
`
`storage system 100. See Ex. 1101, col. 18, ll. 27–36; Fig. 10. Subsequent
`
`PIT copies involve incremental changes and copy “only the blocks that
`
`changed since the last PIT copy and may copy much less data compared to
`
`the first PIT copy.” Id. at col. 18, ll. 38–41. A virtual database (VDB) is
`
`created by creating VDB file structures comprising VDB blocks that point to
`
`different PIT database blocks. See id. at col. 18, ll. 27–55. Each time an
`
`updated PIT copy is received at database storage system 100 reflecting
`
`changes in the production database, the system updates the appropriate VDB
`
`blocks in a VDB file which are “implemented as pointers to the actual
`
`database block that stores the [updated] data.” See id. at col. 18, ll. 44–55.
`
`Figure 10 from the ’808 patent is reproduced below.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 10 shows “VDB Files for Time T2” in database storage system 100.
`
`Figure 10 further shows that “VDB file structures 1050” includes blocks
`
`V11, V12, V13, and V14 which point to database blocks F11 . . . F34 that
`
`represent different PIT (i.e., at times T0, T1, and T2) copies of production
`
`database blocks F1, F2, F3, and F4 at production database system 110.
`
`Initially, all the production database blocks are copied to create “[t]he first
`
`PIT copy 1030 made at time T0,” as represented by database blocks F11,
`
`F12, F13, and F14 in database storage system 100. Id. at col. 18, ll. 35–38.
`
`Later, when the PIT copy made at time T2 is received and the VDB blocks
`
`are updated, block V13 points to the updated data at block F33, which
`
`represents a change existing at T2 to the data in block F3 in the production
`
`database (see id. at col. 18, ll. 53–55), whereas VDB block V11 still points
`
`to the data in block F11 “since the [production database] block F1 was never
`
`updated during copies made at time T1 and T2” (id. at col. 18, ll. 49–51).
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`The challenged claims depend from claim 1 or 50.9 Claim 1 is
`
`illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`
`A method for creating a virtual database system, the
`1.
`method comprising:
`
`receiving different point-in-time copies of a source
`database, the source database comprising a plurality of database
`blocks;
`
`storing on a storage system, database blocks for a
`plurality of different point-in-time copies of the source
`database, wherein at least some of the stored database blocks
`
`
`9 Petitioner challenges claims 1 and 50 in IPR2015-00014.
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`are associated with multiple point-in-time copies of the source
`database;
`
`creating a set of files for a virtual database, each file in
`the set of files is linked to the database blocks on the storage
`system associated with a point-in-time copy of the source
`database; and
`
`mounting the set of files associated with the virtual
`database on a database server allowing the database server to
`read from and write to the set of files.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`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); see also In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1277–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`
`regulation.”), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`
`S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016). In general, claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning in view of the specification, as would be understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re
`
`Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). A
`
`patentee may rebut that presumption by providing a definition for the term in
`
`the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A particular embodiment
`
`appearing in the written description generally is not incorporated into a
`
`claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re
`
`Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific
`
`embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining
`
`the claims to those embodiments.”).
`
`During trial, the parties disputed the claim construction of the terms
`
`“database block” and “virtual database,” which we address below. No other
`
`claim terms require express construction to resolve the issues raised in this
`
`inter partes review. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms that are in controversy
`
`need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy).
`
`The parties’ claim construction arguments advanced in Case IPR2015-
`
`00016 are essentially identical to their arguments presented in Case
`
`IPR2015-00019. Hence, although our discussion below focuses on the ’016
`
`IPR, our findings and conclusions apply equally to the ’016 IPR and the
`
`’019 IPR cases unless indicated otherwise.
`
`A. Database Block
`
`1. Whether a Database Block Requires Metadata
`
`The main claim construction dispute between the parties with respect
`
`to the term “database block” centers on whether a database block must
`
`necessarily include metadata. Patent Owner asserts the term “database
`
`block” should be interpreted to require metadata, i.e., as “a unit of data used
`
`by a database which comprises a specific number of bytes stored in the
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`storage, a portion of which stores metadata associated with the unit of data”
`
`(PO Resp. 16), whereas Petitioner argues the correct interpretation of the
`
`term is not so limited, i.e., “a unit of data used by a database” (Pet. 10). For
`
`the reasons discussed below, we conclude the disputed term is not limited as
`
`Patent Owner contends.
`
`a. Claim Language
`
`We begin our claim construction analysis by considering the language
`
`of the claims themselves. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, we note that the
`
`term “metadata” is not recited in any of the challenged claims. Nor do the
`
`claims expressly require inclusion of metadata in database blocks. The only
`
`claims of the ’808 patent that recite “metadata” are dependent claims 32 and
`
`33, which are not challenged in this case or any other related cases currently
`
`before the Board. These claims depend indirectly from claim 1 and
`
`expressly recite “metadata of database blocks.” Thus, had the patentee
`
`intended to limit “database blocks” recited in claim 1 or any other
`
`challenged claims to require metadata, it could have done so by explicitly
`
`modifying the disputed term with “metadata,” but did not.
`
`Therefore, to show the disputed term is limiting, Patent Owner must
`
`demonstrate “a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee
`
`intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`
`358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Aventis Pharma S.A. v.
`
`Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330–32 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“perfusion” not
`
`limited to having at least eight hours of stability because the patentee did not
`
`“clearly express an intent” to redefine the term in the specification or during
`
`10
`
`prosecution).
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`b. Written Description
`
`Turning to the written description, Patent Owner asserts that the
`
`following passage in the Summary section of the Specification defines the
`
`term “database block”:
`
`A database block is a unit of data used by a database and
`comprises a specific number of bytes stored in the storage. A
`database block can also be referred to as a page. A portion of
`the database block stores metadata associated with the database
`block.
`
`PO Resp. 16 (quoting Ex. 1101, col. 2, ll. 7–12). The first sentence in the
`
`cited passage above explicitly defines the term, by stating “[a] database
`
`block is a unit of data used by a database.”10 Ex. 1101, col. 2, ll. 7–9.
`
`Although the second next sentence states that a database block “stores
`
`metadata,” that sentence by itself is insufficient to limit the disputed term by
`
`requiring the unrecited “metadata” feature because it does not state
`
`unambiguously that all “database blocks” must include metadata. See
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906 (construing a claim term broadly because
`
`“[n]o statement in the written description [ ] constitute[d] a limitation on the
`
`scope of the invention”) (quoting Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive
`
`Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Further, the cited
`
`passage does not exclude the possibility of some database blocks not having
`
`any metadata. See id. at 908 (passages in the Summary of the Invention
`
`
`10 The first sentence also states a database block comprises “a specific
`number of bytes stored in the storage.” For the reasons discussed in Section
`III.A.4 below, we find this addition is not part of the explicit definition but,
`rather, represents embodiments within the defined term.
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`section of a patent did not limit the scope of the invention because the
`
`passages, “although focusing on the use of the invention in conjunction with
`
`pressure jackets, do not disclaim the use of the invention in the absence of a
`
`pressure jacket”). Nonetheless, if the rest of the Specification, e.g., the
`
`Detailed Description section, clearly and consistently describes the claimed
`
`invention as requiring metadata in database blocks, such a limiting
`
`description together with the sentences cited above may support a limiting
`
`construction of the disputed term. Compare Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc. v.
`
`Geoquip, Inc., 637 F.3d 1324, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing C.R. Bard,
`
`Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 865–66 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (holding
`
`that a limiting description in the specification supports a limiting
`
`construction of a claim term when the limiting feature is referenced
`
`“throughout the specification,” and “other statements and illustrations in the
`
`patent are consistent with the limiting description”), with MEMS Tech.
`
`Berhad v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 447 F. App’x 142, 151 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(nonprecedential) (distinguishing C.R. Bard and finding the statements in the
`
`abstract and summary sections to be non-limiting because, in C.R. Bard, the
`
`specification universally describes a limiting feature of the invention
`
`whereas in MEMS, “the general language in the abstract and summary
`
`sections does not represent the full scope of the embodiments in the
`
`specification”). In this case, as discussed below, our review of the
`
`Specification, including the portions identified by Patent Owner, does not
`
`reveal a limiting description sufficient to support a limiting construction.
`
`Patent Owner asserts, citing certain portions of the Specification and
`
`the Declaration of Prashant Shenoy, Ph.D. (Ex. 2111, “Shenoy Decl.”), that
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`if a database block does not include metadata, the system disclosed in the
`
`’808 patent would not work as described. PO Resp. 16–18. For example,
`
`Patent Owner argues that a database block must include metadata because
`
`the disclosed system analyzes the metadata of each block to store only the
`
`incremental changes made to the production database (id. (citing Ex. 1101,
`
`col. 13, ll. 34–46, 46–51)), which is “one of the main functions” of the
`
`claimed system (id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1101, col. 6, ll. 34–46, 43–46, col. 7,
`
`ll. 49–57; Ex. 2111 ¶¶ 76, 79–80)) essential to achieving “a main purpose”
`
`of the invention—“to efficiently provide virtual database . . . without
`
`proliferating redundant copies of database data” (id. (citing Ex. 2111 ¶¶ 63–
`
`67)). Patent Owner also asserts that metadata is required in each database
`
`block in order to map the block to a database file and a location within that
`
`file. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1101, col. 14, ll. 27–31; Ex. 2111 ¶¶ 76, 81).
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because the argued
`
`advantages or purposes are not recited features of the claims. Moreover, a
`
`claim is not required to encompass all of the advantages or purposes of the
`
`invention. See Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540
`
`F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“An invention may possess a number of
`
`advantages or purposes, and there is no requirement that every claim
`
`directed to that invention be limited to encompass all of them.”) (citations
`
`omitted).
`
`Furthermore, the disclosure in the passages cited by Patent Owner
`
`above is not limiting because the passages describe a particular embodiment
`
`of making a point-in-time copy of the production database by streaming data
`
`to the database storage system, where the data stream is formatted to include
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`metadata in each transmitted database block. As noted by Petitioner (Pet.
`
`Reply 8), the ’808 patent discloses an alternative embodiment where the
`
`transfer of production database data is achieved by “using a file sharing
`
`system similar to the file sharing system 120” (Ex. 1101, col. 7, ll. 57–64),
`
`such as a network file system (NFS) (id. at col. 10, ll. 35–37). As discussed
`
`below, there is no disclosure in the written description that requires metadata
`
`in each database block used in the file sharing embodiment.
`
`In “the streaming embodiment,” which is depicted in Figures 4 and 5
`
`and described in column 12, line 14 to column 14, line 67 of the ’808 patent
`
`(see id. at col. 3, ll. 28–37 (describing Figures 4 and 5 as “an embodiment of
`
`the invention”)), the production database system, upon receiving a request
`
`for data from the point-in-time copy manager of the database storage system
`
`(id. at col. 12, ll. 19–23), packages the production database data “into a
`
`format that can be processed by the point-in-time copy manager” (id. at
`
`col. 12, ll. 58–62) and builds the appropriately formatted data into a data
`
`stream that is sent to the point-in-time copy manager. Id. at col. 12, l. 62–
`
`col. 13, l. 3. Upon receiving the data stream, the point-in-time copy
`
`manager processes the data stream to identify database blocks contained in
`
`it. Id. at col. 13, ll. 27–33. In the data stream, “[e]ach database block
`
`includes metadata” (id. at col. 13, ll. 33–34), which is used, for example, to
`
`“identify database block boundaries in the stream of data” (id. at col. 14,
`
`ll. 22–25). When saving a retrieved database block into a transferred or
`
`copied database file on the database storage system, the point-in-time copy
`
`manager “analyzes the database block metadata to map [] the database block
`
`to [the] database file and a location within the file.” Id. at col. 14, ll. 29–31.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`We find nothing in this disclosure regarding the streaming
`
`embodiment that limits the claimed invention as Patent Owner contends.
`
`For example, it may be necessary to include metadata in each database block
`
`transmitted on a data stream in order to identify and unpack database blocks
`
`from a continuous stream of data that has no apparent structure or
`
`boundaries. But this does not show that the same approach is necessary in a
`
`file sharing embodiment where the database files to be copied have defined
`
`boundaries and known structures, and the database blocks stored in the files
`
`can be accessed directly. See, e.g., id. at col. 13, ll. 10–12 (“the production
`
`system library [] includes code to analyze the structures of the files of the
`
`database stored in the data store and also includes code to process metadata
`
`associated with database blocks stored in the data store”) (emphasis
`
`added);11 col. 6, ll. 11–17 (“FIG. 1 illustrates one embodiment for how
`
`information may be copied from a production database to a database storage
`
`system . . . using a file sharing system. . . . In some embodiments
`
`information may be copied from storage level snapshots of production
`
`databases.”) (emphases added). Further, the fact that the streaming
`
`embodiment uses metadata to map the database blocks unpacked from a data
`
`stream to a copied database file for storage does not require database blocks
`
`used in the file sharing embodiment to have metadata because, when file
`
`sharing is used, the database file on the production system can be accessed
`
`and copied directly by “mounting the production DB data store” on the
`
`database storage system (id. at col. 7, ll. 57–64) without packing and
`
`
`11 The phrase “metadata associated with database blocks” implies any
`metadata need not be in the database blocks.
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`unpacking the database blocks of the database file into and out of data
`
`streams.
`
`Furthermore, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, analyzing the
`
`metadata of each database block in the data stream is not necessary to
`
`achieve incremental updates because the passages cited by Patent Owner
`
`describe only one of the two embodiments disclosed in the ’808 patent for
`
`achieving the incremental copy function. In the embodiment relied upon by
`
`Patent Owner, the data stream may include unnecessary database blocks,
`
`such as the blocks that did not change since the last point-in-time copy was
`
`transmitted, which are eliminated after the data stream is received at the
`
`database storage system by analyzing metadata for each database block. Id.
`
`at col. 13, ll. 43–64. In an alternative embodiment, which is not addressed
`
`by Patent Owner, the unchanged blocks are eliminated at the production
`
`system and never sent to the database storage system. Id. at col. 13, l. 64–
`
`col. 14, l. 3 (“In other [sic] embodiment, some or all of the unnecessary
`
`blocks may be eliminated while the data stream is built by the production
`
`system library []. In this embodiment, the data stream . . . is reduced in size
`
`resulting in efficient communication between [the production system and the
`
`database storage system].”) (emphases added). Patent Owner does not
`
`explain why metadata must be included in each database block to achieve
`
`the incremental update function in this embodiment. Hence, packing
`
`metadata within database blocks may be involved in some streaming
`
`embodiments, but nothing in the Specification indicates it is required for the
`
`incremental update function. Therefore, there is nothing in the Specification
`
`that indicates that copying database files by streaming data is the essence of
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`the claimed invention rather than a preferred embodiment, which may not be
`
`read into the claims “absent clear disclaimer in the specification.” In re Am.
`
`Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`c. Other Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Considering “the context of the surrounding words” to the term
`
`“database block” in the claims, which “must be considered in determining
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning” of the disputed term, ACTV, Inc. v.
`
`Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003), independent claims
`
`1, 50, and 57 recite receiving point-in-time copies of a source database and
`
`storing database blocks associated with the received point-in-time copies on
`
`a storage system. But the claims do not say anything about a particular
`
`method of transferring point-in-time copies, whether by streaming or by file
`
`sharing. Hence, the claims cannot be limited to either embodiment, and,
`
`therefore, the streaming embodiment cited by Patent Owner does not limit
`
`the claims.
`
`In addition, consideration of differences among the claims of the ’808
`
`patent supports the conclusion that the passages Patent Owner cited are not
`
`limiting. Claim 29, which depends from claim 1, recites “receiving point-in-
`
`time copies” by “receiving data streams” which comprise “data from
`
`database blocks.” Claims 32, 33, and 34 each depend from claim 29 and
`
`additionally recite “identify[ing] database blocks” in the data streams,
`
`“analyzing the metadata of database blocks to determine the length of the
`
`database blocks” (claim 32), “analyzing the metadata of database blocks to
`
`determine whether the database block needs to be stored” (claim 33), and
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`“determining not to store the database blocks that . . . did not change since a
`
`previous retrieval of point-in-time copy” (claim 34). Hence, the subject
`
`matter specifically claimed in these dependent claims correspond to the
`
`written description in the Specification relating to the streaming embodiment
`
`discussed above. See Shenoy Decl. (Ex. 2111) ¶ 80; PO Resp. 17 (citing
`
`Shenoy Decl. ¶ 80).
`
`Claim 1, from which these claims depend, is presumed to be broader
`
`and not limited by the additional limitations relating to streaming recited in
`
`these dependent claims. “[I]n a situation where dependent claims have no
`
`meaningful difference other than an added limitation, the independent claim
`
`is not restricted by the added limitation in the dependent claim.” Trustees of
`
`Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314–15; Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483
`
`F.3d 800, 806 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Therefore, claim 1 cannot be read, absent
`
`other evidence, to be limited to the streaming embodiment, and, accordingly,
`
`the passages cited by Patent Owner relating to the streaming embodiment do
`
`not limit claim 1 to require a “database block” to have “metadata.” See
`
`Columbia Univ., 811 F.3d at 1370 (holding that, in the absence of rebutting
`
`evidence, a disputed term recited in claim 1 cannot be read to be limited to
`
`use only the type of data recited in dependent claims because the dependent
`
`claims are presumed to be narrower than the independent claims on which
`
`they depend); see also Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358,
`
`1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (construing claim 1 to read on both single-sided
`
`and double-sided discs when the plain language of the claim is broad and a
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`dependent claim added a requirement specifically reciting the number of
`
`disc sides).
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is deficient in another aspect—namely, its
`
`failure to address database blocks outside the context of data streams. The
`
`database blocks transmitted in a data stream described in the passages cited
`
`by Patent Owner are in transit between the production system and the
`
`database storage system. But, as discussed above, the challenged
`
`independent claims recite, in addition to receiving point-in-time copies of a
`
`database, storing database blocks on a storage system. Patent Owner does
`
`not cite, nor do we discern, anything in the Detailed Description section of
`
`the Specification that requires metadata in database blocks that are stored in
`
`storage—that is, database blocks stored in the production database system
`
`before being packaged and formatted into the data stream or stored in the
`
`database storage system after being unpacked from the received data stream.
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, the written description in fact
`
`suggests metadata need not be included in stored database blocks. For
`
`example, the ’808 patent describes storing database blocks unpacked from
`
`data stream as follows: “The file in which the database block is saved
`
`comprises a file header including metadata associated with the file and a
`
`sequence of database blocks.” Ex. 1101, col. 14, ll. 44–47. This passage
`
`suggests that the metadata can be stored in the file header separately from
`
`the series of database blocks stored in the body of the file. In sum, we find
`
`no disclosure in the Detailed Description section of the Specification that
`
`clearly and consistently describes the claimed invention as requiring
`
`metadata in all database blocks.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00016 & IPR2015-00019
`Patent 8,150,808 B2
`
`
`
`Therefore, in view of the entire disclosure of the ’808 patent and the
`
`plain language of the claims, we find, notwithstanding the statement in the
`
`Summary section relied upon by Patent Owner—“[a] portion of the database
`
`block stores metadata associated with the database block”—the intrinsic
`
`record does not justify limiting the term “database block” by reading in the
`
`“metadata” limitation not found in the claims. See Liebel-Flarsheim, 358
`
`F.3d at 908; MEMS, 447 F. App’x at 151.
`
`d. Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Patent Owner also argues additional evidence supports a limiting
`
`