UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND HP INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00316
`Patent No. 9,098,526
`____________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND HP INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00316
`Patent No. 9,098,526
`____________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`April 7, 2021
`
`Microsoft Corp. and HP Inc. v.
`Synkloud Technologies, LLC
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent No. 9,098,526
`
`
`
`Grounds
`
`Institution Decision, 7
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`2
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`526 Patent Overview
`
`Prior Art Overview
`
`Patentability Issues
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`3
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`526 Patent Overview
`
`Prior Art Overview
`
`Patentability Issues
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`4
`
`
`
`526 Patent Overview
`
`Ex. 1001, Face.
`
`Ex. 1001, Face.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`5
`
`
`
`526 Patent Overview
`
`Ex. 1001, Face.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 3.
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`6
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`526 Patent Overview
`
`Prior Art Overview
`
`Patentability Issues
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`7
`
`
`
`WO 01/67233 A2 to McCown et al. (“McCown”)
`
`Ex. 1005, Face.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 7(cited in Pet., 18).
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 17)
`
`
`
`WO 01/67233 A2 to McCown et al. (“McCown”)
`
`Ex. 1005, 10:18-21.
`
`Ex. 1005, 7:8-16.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 17)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`9
`
`
`
`WO 01/67233 A2 to McCown et al. (“McCown”)
`
`Ex. 1005, 10:24-29.
`
`Ex. 1005, 8:5-10.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 17)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`10
`
`
`
`WO 01/67233 A2 to McCown et al. (“McCown”)
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Ex. 1005, 11:4-23.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 17)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`11
`
`
`
`WO 01/67233 A2 to McCown et al. (“McCown”)
`
`Ex. 1005, 12:23-29.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 7(cited in Pet., 18).
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 17)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`12
`
`
`
`WO 01/67233 A2 to McCown et al. (“McCown”)
`
`Ex. 1005, 12:23-29.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 7(cited in Pet., 18).
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 17)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0078102 A1 to Dutta (“Dutta”)
`
`Ex. 1006, Face.
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 3 (cited in Pet., 31).
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,266,555 B1 to Coates et al. (“Coates”)
`
`Ex. 1007, Face.
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig. 13B (cited in Pet., 66).
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig. 13A (cited in Pet., 65).
`
`15
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`526 Patent Overviews
`
`Prior Art Overview
`
`Patentability Issues
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`16
`
`
`
`The Obvious Combination – McCown/Dutta
`• Unrebutted Reasons to Combine
`– Analogous art
`– Arrangement of old elements; predictable results
`– Dutta’s techniques were well known in the prior art
`– Dutta’s caching technique would “provide the user with a faster
`and more convenient storage for the user site program
`application data.”
`– Dutta’s allocation technique would “ensure that the storage space
`provided to a user could be controlled by that of an administrator.”
`– Employing Dutta’s allocation technique would allow users to “seek
`financial benefits associated with charging different amounts to
`customers based on allocated memory.”
`
`Ex. 1005, Face.
`
`Ex. 1006, Face.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`17
`
`
`
`The Obvious Combination – McCown/Dutta/Coates
`
`• Unrebutted Reasons to Combine
`–Analogous art
`–Arrangement of old elements; predictable
`results
`–Coates’ file and folder manipulation techniques
`provide increased usability to McCown’s virtual
`storage system
`
`Ex. 1005, Face.
`
`Ex. 1006, Face.
`
`Ex. 1007, Face.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`18
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – utilizing download information
`Petitioners’ Proposed Construction
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`“using information in the cache storage of the
`“This claim limitation requires information
`wireless device to download a file from a
`needed to download a file from a remote server
`remote server.”
`to be (i) stored in a cache storage of a wireless
`device and (ii) utilized to download the file
`across a network into an assigned storage
`space for the user of the wireless device..”
`Reply, 3-5.
`
`Institution Decision, 10-11.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:21-26.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`19
`
`
`
`McCown with Dutta - utilizing download information
`
`Ex. 1005, 11:20-21 (cited in Pet., 51).
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3 (cited in Pet., 54).
`
`Ex. 1005, 11:4-11 (cited in Pet., 51)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`20
`
`
`
`McCown - cache storage
`
`Dr. Henry Houh
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1003, ⁋121 (cited in Pet., 28).
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 29).
`
`Ex. 1005, 8:5-10.
`
`21
`
`
`
`McCown - cache storage
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`22
`
`Pet., 29.
`
`
`
`Dutta - cache storage
`
`Dr. Henry Houh
`
`Ex. 1003, ⁋127 (cited in Pet., 30-31).
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 3 (cited in Pet., 31).
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`23
`
`
`
`McCown with Dutta - utilizing download information
`
`Dr. Henry Houh
`
`Ex. 1003, ⁋ 198 (cited in Pet., 50).
`
`Ex. 1005, 7:8-16 (cited in Pet., 50).
`
`Ex. 1003, ⁋ 199 (cited in Pet., 50).
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1005, 10:18-27 (cited in Pet., 50)
`
`24
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – predefined capacity
`
`Petitioners’ Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary
`
`Patent Owner’s Propose Construction
`“requires deciding or setting in advance by a
`storage server an amount of storage space
`exclusively to a user of a wireless device”
`
`Reply, 5-7
`
`Reply, 5-6
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 6
`
`25
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – predefined capacity
`
`Petitioners’ Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary
`
`Patent Owner’s Propose Construction
`“requires deciding or setting in advance by a
`storage server an amount of storage space
`exclusively to a user of a wireless device”
`
`Reply, 5-7
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`26
`
`Reply, 6-7
`
`
`
`McCown – predefined capacity
`
`Dr. Henry Houh
`
`Ex. 1005, 8:27-29 (cited in Pet., 38)
`
`Ex. 1005, 8:11-12 (cited in Pet., 34)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶153 (cited in Pet., 39)
`
`Reply, 18
`
`27
`
`
`
`McCown – predefined capacity
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`28
`
`Pet., 39-40
`
`
`
`Dutta – predefined capacity
`
`Pet., 40
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1006, [0038] (cited in Pet., 40)
`
`29
`
`
`
`Dutta – predefined capacity
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`30
`
`Pet., 41-42
`
`
`
`Dutta – predefined capacity
`
`Reply, 19
`
`Reply, 19
`
`Response, 33
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`31
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – Patent Owner’s Burden
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`32
`
`Reply, 21-22
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – No Presumed Nexus
`
`Scheduling Order, 8
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 22
`
`33
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – WRONG Nexus
`
`Reply, 22
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Response, 64-65
`
`34
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – Cited Devices Do Not Practice Claims
`
`Reply, 23
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2016, 6
`
`35
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – Any Success Attributable to Prior Art Cloud
`Storage Techniques
`
`Ex. 1005, Face (Pet., 15-16)
`
`Ex. 1005, Abstract (cited in Petition, 16)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`36
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – Licensing
`
`Reply, 24
`
`Reply, 24
`
`Reply, 25
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2029, 10
`
`37
`
`
`
`The Proper Level of Skill
`
`Dr. Henry Houh
`
`Ex. 1003, Face.
`
`Ex. 1003, ⁋47 (cited in Pet., 6).
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`38
`
`
`
`Printed Matter Doctrine
`
`Reply, 11
`
`Reply, 10
`
`Reply, 11
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`39
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Testimony is Not Credible
`“Finally, in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 96 S.Ct. 1532, 47
`L.Ed.2d 784 (1976), the Court derived from the precedents the
`conclusion that when a patent “simply arranges old elements with
`each performing the same function it had been known to
`perform” and yields no more than one would expect from such an
`arrangement, the combination is obvious.”
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(Reply, 2).
`
`Zaydoon Jawadi
`
`Ex. 2014, ⁋26 (cited in Reply, 2)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`40
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Testimony is Not Credible
`
`“Thus the focus in construing disputed terms in claim language is
`not the subjective intent of the parties to the patent contract when
`they used a particular term.”
`
`Markman v Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(Reply, 3).
`
`Zaydoon Jawadi
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2014, ⁋27 (cited in Reply, 3)
`
`41
`
`
`
`Beijing
`
`Boston
`
`Brussels
`
`Century City
`
`Chicago
`
`Dallas
`
`Geneva
`
`Hong Kong
`
`Houston
`
`London
`
`Los Angeles
`
`Munich
`
`New York
`
`Palo Alto
`
`San Francisco
`
`Shanghai
`
`Singapore
`
`Sydney
`
`Tokyo
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`sidley.com
`
`42
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`
`
`
`DemPetitioners’
`
`onstrative Exhibits
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pusuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on this 31st day of
`
`March, 2021, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`Petitioners’ Demonstrative Exhibits by electronic mail on the following counsel:
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Capitol IP Law Group, PLLC
`1918 18th St., Unit 4, NW
`Washington, DC 20009
`gonsalves@capitoliplaw.com
`
`Yeasun Yoon
`Capitol IP Law Group, PLLC
`1918 18th St, Unit 4, NW
`Washington, DC 20009
`yoon@capitoliplaw.com
`
`Dated: March 31, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
