Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 41
`Entered: April 30, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 7, 2021
`___________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
`SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 41
`Entered: April 30, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 7, 2021
`___________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
`SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOSEPH MICALLEF, ESQ.
`Sidley Austin, LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`GREGORY GONSALVES, Ph.D., ESQ.
`Capitol IP Law Group, PLLC
`1918 18th Street
`Unit 4, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20009
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, April
`7, 2021, commencing at 1:06 p.m., EDT, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon. This is t he hearing for
`IPR 2020- 00316 between Petitioner Microsoft and HP and Patent
`Owner Synkloud involving U.S. patent No. 9,098,526. I'm Judge
`Sally Medley and with me are Judges Jessica Kaiser and Scott
`Raevsky. At this time we'd like the parties to please introduce
`themselves beginning with Petitioner.
`MR. MICALLEF: Thank you, Your Honor. This is Joe
`Micallef from Sidley Austin representing Petitioners Microsoft
`and HP.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you, Mr. Micallef. And for
`Patent Owner.
`DR. GONSALVES: My name is Dr. Gregory Gonsalves
`representing the Patent Owner Synkloud.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And I just want to verify that
`both of you received a back-up audio line option in case you
`encounter technical difficulties.
`MR. MICALLEF: This is Joe Micallef, Your Honor. I
`have.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`DR. GONSALVES: I have also.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Great. And I just want to
`remind you to please mute when you're not speaking. All right.
`So I'd also like to remind the parties that this hearing is open to
`the public and we have an audio line that's been established for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`the public to listen. Each party has 30 minutes total time to
`present arguments. Petitioner, you'll proceed first and you may
`reserve some of your argument time to respond to arguments
`presented by Patent Owner. Thereafter Patent Owner, you may
`respond to Petitioner's presentation and reserve argument time
`for your surrebuttal. Petitioner, do you wish to reserve some of
`your time to respond?
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to
`reserve eight minutes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Eight minutes. Okay. And Dr.
`Gonsalves?
`DR. GONSALVES: Eight minutes for me also.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Easy enough. All right. Let me
`just start my timer and --
`DR. GONSALVES: Your Honor, before you start the time
`may I address please a preliminary matter?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes, you may.
`DR. GONSALVES: Okay. So Petitioners have been filing
`papers with the Board certifying that I have been served with
`them when in fact I have not been served. I have had to retrieve
`the documents from the Board's E2E database. The certificates
`of service that have been filed with the Board by the Petitioners
`are not accurate.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Mr. Micallef, would you like to
`respond to that?
`MR. MICALLEF: Well, Your Honor, this is the first I've
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`heard of this. Counsel should have brought it up to us the first
`time it happened and we certainly would have fixed it. We were
`not trying to hide anything from him so on public record I
`apologize but I don't know what happened.
`DR. GONSALVES: Okay. So just to respond to Mr.
`Micallef, I did send you an email about this and I didn't receive a
`response from you.
`MR. MICALLEF: I don't know what to say but I don't
`recall receiving that, but I certainly could have worked it out if
`perhaps he'd given me a call or something.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Dr. Gonsalves, what is the
`request you're seeking, the relief you're seeking?
`DR. GONSALVES: I think at a minimum the certificates of
`service should be corrected.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Going forward, Mr. Micallef,
`can you please assure that you will serve papers -- but you
`received all the papers, there's no due process issue here right,
`Dr. Gonsalves?
`DR. GONSALVES: I retrieved them from the E2E
`database.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. All right. So Mr. Micallef, if
`you would like to begin.
`MR. MICALLEF: Thank you, I would, Your Honor. Your
`Honor, I understand that the panel has our demonstratives and
`that we will not be displaying them near the Webex, that's what
`I've been led to believe. Is that accurate?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I'm sorry. Say again.
`MR. MICALLEF: My understanding was that our
`demonstratives would not be displayed during the Webex but that
`the panel has copies of them?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes, we have them.
`MR. MICALLEF: Okay. Great. Your Honor, this
`proceeding involves two grounds both based on obviousness and
`are listed on page 2 of our demonstratives, is that the basic
`claims and a number of dependent claims we contend are
`unpatentable over the obvious combination of McCown and
`Dutta. A number of dependent claims we contend are
`unpatentable over the obvious combination of McCown, Dutta
`and Coates. There's no issue here whether these references are
`prior art so that doesn't have to be decided.
`What I'd like to do is just do a brief overview of the '526
`patent just to sort of center the conversation and then a brief
`overview of these references that we're relying on and then I'd
`like to address just a few of the patentability issues raised by the
`parties' briefings. I would emphasize I don't intend to use them
`all though I'm happy to jump to any of them if any member of the
`panel wants me to.
`If I could direct your attention to slide 6 from Petitioner's
`demonstratives. What I have here is figure 3 from the '526
`patent and of course claim 1 from the '526 patent and I think I
`can use this figure 3 just to very briefly summarize the
`functionality recited in claim 1 and the basic claims of this
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`patent.
`As you can see in figure 3, the system that's the ticket there
`really has three basic components as a wireless device labeled 1,
`that's to the right of this figure, on the right of this figure.
`There's a down load web site labeled 15 at the top and there's a
`server labeled 3 on the left that includes or is associated with
`some manner of storage system labeled 10, and basically at a
`high level the functionality recited in this claim (audio
`interference) the components as A, B and C (indicernible.) T he
`system wireless device accesses the down load website via path
`A to identify certain files that the user of the wireless device
`would like downloaded into the server and thereby to the storage
`system where the user has a storage account.
`Download information, which is the phrase that's used in
`the claims, is then provided by the down load website to the
`wireless device via path A and the wireless device stores it in a
`cache. That download information is provided via path B to the
`server which then uses that download information to access the
`down load website via path C and obtain via download, the files
`selected based on that download information by the user of the
`wireless device and store them into the user's account in the
`storage system. So that's the basic functionality recited in these
`claims.
`If I could ask you to turn to slide 8 of our demonstratives.
`This is the basic figure, figure 1 of the McCown patent which is
`our base reference for both grounds. It's a very high level,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`similar to the figure 3 in the '526 patent, it's a very high level
`description of the system that's disclosed in McCown and you
`can see that it basically has three components and the same three
`components as the '526. At the bottom there is a user site 130
`connected to a client 120 which is analogous to the wireless
`device of the '526 patent. In fact McCown says that the user site
`130 can be an enhanced cellular telephone, for example.
`At the upper left labeled 110 there is a remote site that is
`analogous to the down load website of the '526 patent that
`includes a number of files that are available for download that
`are designated 112 on that figure and a list of those
`downloadable files labeled 116 and then to the right there is a
`storage site, remote storage site or facility labeled 140 that
`includes storage mechanisms that hold storage capacity for the
`client 120 and it's labeled 142 there.
`Now in McCown, McCown discloses -- if I could get you to
`turn to the next slide -- McCown discloses first, well it's a
`somewhat detailed method, but first it discloses that a method
`begins when the user site generates what McCown calls a file list
`request which is sent from the user site 130 to the remote site
`110 asking for the file list 116. McCown says that the file list
`provides information used externally to identify each file 112
`using by file name and by file location and it says well, with the
`internet that would be a URL and the list of those URLs is
`usually presented externally or typically is presented as
`externally as a web page of URLs.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`If you go to the next slide, slide 10. McCown discloses
`that that web page of URLs is then sent back to the user site. If
`you go to the browser of the user site, since it is a web page and
`as I point out on this blurb in the lower left hand corner of this
`slide, the browser McCown discloses it could be a commercially
`available software package such as Internet Explorer or Netscape
`Communicator.
`If we go to the next slide McCown then discloses that the
`URLs from that web page are used to generate what it calls a
`data request which is sent to the storage site 140. If you go to
`the next slide the storage site then uses that information, that
`data request, to generate what's called a download request which
`is sent across the internet to the remote site 110 and then if you
`go to the next slide, slide 13, in response the remote site sends
`the identified files for download to the storage site which then
`stores them in the client's storage facility or storage capacity
`there.
`So the two other references I would just touch on briefly on
`slide 14. The Dutta reference, we cited basically for two
`purposes. One, it discloses a browser cache and two, it discloses
`a remote storage account assigned to a user for which the user is
`allocated a certain amount of storage for the user to store things,
`to store files.
`Then on slide 15 we just have a couple of figures, the two
`figures from the Coates patent. I don't think I'm going to be
`talking much about that because the Patent Owner hasn't really
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`raised any issues as to that but Coates discloses a virtual file
`system and in particular with respect to these figures 13A and B
`that are on this slide. Coates discloses certain what you might
`call file and folder manipulation functionality that a user can use
`to manipulate the remotely stored files and folders.
`So with that, I'd like to turn to patentability issues and I'd
`like to really just touch on, because I know I have a limited
`amount of time, like to just touch on three -- what I think are the
`three main patentability issues. If I could get you to turn to slide
`19 and on this slide you can see that there are competing claim
`interpretations for the utilizing download information claim
`language which is in both independent claims of the patent and
`while there appears to be a dispute between the parties here, I
`would suggest to you that the dispute is minimal and probably
`not -- and not necessary to be resolved to resolve the issues here.
`Just a little bit of history. We proposed an interpretation of
`this language because we thought that read in isolation there was
`a latent ambiguity as to what the actual claim language required
`to be stored in the cache. You can see the claim language in the
`passage from the Institution decision in the lower left hand
`corner. The actual claim language is utilizing download
`information for the files stored in said cache storage and read in
`isolation the question is whether the information is stored in
`cache storage or the file is stored in cache storage and so we
`proposed a clarifying interpretation.
`The Patent Owner offered something different in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`preliminary response. The Institution decision tentatively
`accepted our interpretation and the Patent Owner response
`included this proposal that's on the screen here, and as we wrote
`in our reply brief I don't think what the Patent Owner has
`proposed here is any different from what the panel has already
`tentatively adopted in the Institution decision except for this
`word needed and so as far as needed goes, there are a couple of
`things that I think our analysis, our evidence still satisfies this
`interpretation because the information we're pointing to in the
`petition in McCown was a web page of URLs that are definitely
`needed to download the files that can all be stored. So that word
`is not I think relevant to the dispute between the parties which
`I'll go into in a minute.
`But also I just would suggest that there's been no showing
`that the intrinsic record supports that word and that word is
`somewhat narrow, it's sort of sharp edge word needed and I don't
`think it needs to be adopted here. I would urge you not to
`because it's just not needed. But as far as --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So I have a question on that.
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Does the Patent Owner argue this
`needed portion of the proposed construction with respect to the
`prior art, that that's missing?
`MR. MICALLEF: I don't think so. I was just about to go
`exactly address what the Patent Owner argues with respect to
`this particular claim element, but as I see it their not arguing
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`needed is something that if adopted would distinguish the prior
`art.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. MICALLEF: Just to summarize this issue to get right
`down to brass tacks. If I could get you to go back to slide 10
`and what I'd like to do is just briefly summarize what the petition
`argued for this claim element and then address what they argued.
`So as you can see in the lower left hand corner and as I
`mentioned, McCown says that there could be one of two
`browsers, Internet Explorer and Netscape Communicator (audio
`interference) supported by other evidence. Both of those
`browsers included a cache and so our first argument was that
`McCown inherently discloses a cache by disclosing that browser
`and McCown could be Internet Explorer, for example. We said
`to the extent one might argue otherwise it would have been
`obvious to include a cache in McCown's browser anyway for
`various reasons that are set forth in the petition and supported by
`a fair amount of evidence and we then said to the extent one
`might argue against that it would have been obvious to include
`the browser cache of Dutta in McCown and we provided various
`justifications for that.
`So for those three things I don't think the Patent Owner
`disagrees with us on any of them but it was the fourth point that
`we made in the petition that I think is the point of disagreement
`with the Patent Owner. The fourth point was we argued, and this
`is at pages 51 through 54 of the petition, that it would have been
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`obvious to store the web page of URLs 116 in McCown in the
`browser cache of McCown and McCown and Dutta and we
`provided a number of reasons why that would have been obvious
`such as it would make the URLs on that web page more readily
`accessible, it would remove the necessity of downloading the
`page of URLs a second time should a user seek to make an
`additional selection from it, it would provide using a faster
`method of remote storage. It was a common practice to do that
`for web pages and a browser cache, so that would have motivated
`a skilled artisan to do so and it would have been just the
`arrangement of old elements used in their old ways with only
`predictable results.
`Now most of those reasons I don't think the Patent Owner
`has disputed. What the Patent Owner has argued is as far as I
`can see, there are basically three arguments. The first argument
`they make is that we did not point to where in McCown and
`Dutta it actually says or discloses that the web page of URLs
`would be still in the cache and for this reason --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I have a question.
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Sorry to interrupt you. So is it your
`position in the petition that you're storing, you're proposing to
`store the web page or the URLs that are contained on the web
`page?
`MR. MICALLEF: It's the web page of URLs. If you look
`at page 51 of the petition it says web page of URLs. That's what
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`we define as the download information.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I'm looking. Where is that?
`MR. MICALLEF: It should be right underneath that title.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: On 51?
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Well, the reason I guess I'm a little
`confused is I'm looking at page 52 of the petition and it says a
`skilled artisan, this is in the probably the fourth line down on
`page 52, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to store
`those URLs in storage and it seems like the expert talks about
`storing the URLs, not the web page and maybe it's just --
`MR. MICALLEF: Well --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: -- and then I noticed in your reply you
`talk about storing the web page, not the URLs. So I just want to
`make sure I understand your position.
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes. It is the web page. I mean, I think
`we may have been using that as shorthand for each other. I mean
`it's just a web page of URLs and there's nothing else on there I
`think as McCown disclosed. But our position has always been
`it's the web page.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. MICALLEF: So I think I was saying that their first
`argument is that we haven't pointed out where in McCown and
`Dutta it actually says or discloses that th e web page of URLs
`would be stored in the cache and our response to that has been in
`reply is that we don't have that. On this particular element we're
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`arguing it would have been obvious to do it for a number of
`reasons. Obviously if McCown had actually said that we would
`have pointed that out to you but that's not really a response to
`our obviousness position.
`The second argument the Patent Owner has asserted is that
`McCown only disclosed, and this really only goes to the second
`motivation that we put in our petition, that is it would have been
`obvious to store that web page in the cache just in case some
`user later on would want to access that web page for a second
`time, for example, and select additional documents to be
`downloaded. Their response to that has been but McCown only
`discloses the user accessing the web page once. That's been their
`response and I think, again, I don't think that's responsive to our
`argument. It may be that McCown only discloses the user
`accessing the web page once but a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would still be motivated to modify McCown as we suggest
`because someone, a user might want to access that web page of
`downloadable files a second time. As we pointed out in the reply
`brief, people forget, people change their mind. The cache is
`there because it is known that people will access a web page
`multiple times and so to store it locally I'm always having to go
`back out of the internet and download it again so it's more
`efficient and a better user experience, et cetera.
`Now their final argument or set of arguments was not
`exactly clear but they seemed to argue that there was something
`special about the download information in the claim with the web
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`page in McCown and in other words, they seemed to argue that
`even if it would have been obvious to store a web page in the
`browser cache of McCown, that it wouldn't have been obvious to
`store this particular web page in the cache and I don't think they
`really flush that out and they don't have any explanation of that.
`But as we pointed out in the reply brief, there's nothing special
`about the web page of URLs in McCown except -- that
`distinguishes it from any other web page on the internet -- except
`its content. Except what the web page holds which are certain
`URLs for download but as we pointed out, if that's their
`argument that is a printed matter problem because they're relying
`on the content of that web page for patentability and that content
`doesn't get any patentable weight in Alice (phonetic). But that's
`the issue on the utilizing downloadable information (phonetic).
`Unless there are other questions, I'll move to the other --
`the second issue on patentability that I think I would like to
`address and that is if I can direct you to slide 26 of the
`demonstratives. This relates to the predefined capacity claim
`language. Again facially there appears to be a dispute as to
`claim interpretation but I would suggest to you there's not really
`a dispute here at all because the claim interpretation that they're
`proposing doesn't resolve their argument here at all so it's
`unnecessary to adopt it. We of course have proposed that no
`construction is necessary. They have come forward with this
`requiring that this phrase predefined capacity requires deciding
`or setting in advance by a storage server. I don't think the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`deciding or setting makes any difference and nor does the in
`advance because, as you'll see, their argument is really not about
`those words, it's about a particular timing for the defining of the
`capacity and neither the claim language, their interpretation of
`the specification actually goes to that.
`So let me just -- what I'd like to do is just again summarize
`the arguments in the petition and then address their arguments.
`So on slide 27 of our demonstratives our initial position was
`based on the testimony of Dr. Houh and some other prior art
`references, or at least one other, that we put in and our position
`is that when McCown discloses that the user has a preexisting
`storage account for which the user has been given authentication
`information, like a password for example, that a skilled artisan
`would understand that means there'd be some predefined capacity
`that the user has been assigned in that storage account.
`Alternatively, on the next slide you'll see to the extent that
`one might argue that it would have been obvious to include that
`in McCown for a number of reasons including, for example, that
`it would limit each user to a certain amount of capacity so you
`wouldn't get a storage hold (phonetic) like when a user trying to
`download everything on the internet into the system. (Audio
`interference) we said again (audio interference) you argue with
`those two points it would have been obvious (audio interference)
`Dutta's disclosure which is on this slide that the user is allocated
`a certain amount of online storage space and which the user may
`store various types of data and we suggest that that means it's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`allocated before the storage occurs so it's predefined capacity.
`Now their answer to this issue is, and again we presented in
`the petition various reasons why it would have been obvious to
`combine the two, their answer to this issue is on slide 31 of our
`demonstratives and they base it, for the most part, on the
`testimony of their expert, Mr. Jawadi, and you can see a quote
`from his paragraph 120 there where he says,
`"For example, the "certain amount" -- that's the language in
`Dutta -- "may be calculated by the storage server based on an
`algorithm after user registration is complete, rather than based
`on a predefined amount that was defined in advance or before
`registration is complete."
`And so what Patent Owner and its expert are implicitly
`doing is construing this claim language to be predefined before
`user registration. The claim language of course does not say that
`and they have not attempted to justify that added limitation. The
`claim, the patent doesn't say, intrinsic record doesn't say
`anything about user registration or about when the predefined
`capacity is actually defined. But it has to be rejected as a matter
`of law because it's just an attempt to implicitly construe this and
`as we pointed out --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And Mr. Micallef.
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: You have approximately six minutes
`left total time.
`MR. MICALLEF: Okay. Okay, six minutes of my total 30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`minutes or six minutes of --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Six minutes of your total 30 minutes.
`MR. MICALLEF: Okay. Then if I can just go now to
`touch on secondary considerations for a moment. First and
`foremost I would like to say the burden here is on the Patent
`Owner and in its Patent Owner response the Patent Owner did not
`argue presumption of nexus as we pointed out in our reply and he
`did argue it for the first time in surreply, and I would submit that
`argument should have been waived and it would be unfair to
`deem it not waived because we were not provided a chance to put
`in a paper on it or to depose their experts. They just never
`argued.
`Now secondly, I want to preserve some time but there are
`plenty of reasons why they have not been able to show any nexus
`here. They haven't shown, for example, that any of the devices
`they're relying on actually store the download information. They
`have no evidence of that whatsoever and they don't have
`anything linking any of their evidence to any novel aspect of the
`claims. With that, unless there are other questions, I would like
`to reserve the rest of my time. I'm sorry, Your Honor, I can't
`hear you.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. You have four and a
`half minutes left.
`MR. MICALLEF: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And Dr. Gonsalves, when you're ready.
`Dr. Gonsalves?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`
`DR. GONSALVES: Can you hear me now?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes, we can. Thank you. You may
`begin when you're ready.
`DR. GONSALVES: Okay. If you would please turn to
`slide No. 2, slide No. 2 lists the proposed grounds of rejection
`that were instituted by the Board and if you could turn to slide 3,
`please. Slides 3 and 4 show independent claims 1 and 11 from
`the '526 patent. Claim 11 is on slide 4, if you can turn to slide 5.
`Many of the limitations from these independent claims 1
`and 11 are wholly absent from the prior art. If you can turn to
`slide No. 6, please. Petitioner's obviousness arguments are based
`upon a fuller construction of the claims. The claim limitation "a
`storage space of a predefined capacity assigned exclusively to a
`user of a wireless device by a storage server" requires "deciding
`or setting in advance by a storage server an amount of storage
`space exclusively to a user of a wireless device." Patent Owner's
`construction is consistent with the language of the claim itself
`because claim 1 recites that the capacity assigned exclusively to
`a user of the wireless device is "predefined." This is at column
`5, lines 65 through 66, meaning that it is decided in advance.
`Claim 1 also recites that the assigning of a storage space of
`a predefined capacity is done by a storage server. That's also at
`column 5, lines 65 to 67. Patent Owner's construction --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: What in the claim language, excuse me
`Dr. Gonsalves, what in the claim language requires also that the
`storage space predefine the capacity? I agree with you that it
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`says a storage space of a predefined capacity assigned
`exclusively to a user of the wireless device by a storage server.
`So the assigning seems to be tied to the storage server but what
`is it in the claim language that ties the storage space of a
`predefined capacity that that has to be done by a storage server?
`DR. GONSALVES: Okay. So if you can look at column 5,
`line 65 and the limitation itself indicates that there's a storage
`space of a predefined capacity and then it says assigned
`exclusively to and then it mentions it's assigned to a user, and
`then it's indicating who it's assigned by and the latter part of that
`limitation says it's by a storage server. So the predefined
`capacity is assigned by the storage server according to the
`language of the claim itself.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Correct. But I think your position is
`also that the server is the one that's predefining the capacity;
`correct?
`DR. GONSALVES: Yes. Because the capacity is
`predefined and that is assigned by the storage server, and this
`construction is consistent with the specification of the '526
`patent which repeatedly states that the amount of storage space is
`defined in advance to a user of a wireless device. This is shown,
`for example, in column 2, lines 43 to 48 where it says each user
`of the wireless device can be exclusively assigned the access to a
`specific storage volume on a server unit. Also at column 2, lines
`40 to 43 it indicates that it is the storage server that defines the
`capacity of the storage space for each of the users of the wireless
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526 B1
`
`device.
`Now, as explained by Mr. Jawadi and this is at his
`declaration Exhibit 2014 and this is paragraphs 102 and 103, a
`POSITA would have understood the predefining capacity to mean
`defining which means deciding or setting in advance the amount
`of storage before the storage is allocated or assigned to the user.
`A POSITA would not have conflated two different terms.
`Predefining capacity which appears in the claim which means
`predefining an amount of storage before the storage is allocated,
`reserved or assigned and the actual allocation of the storage
`which happens later. The prefix pre in predefined means before.
`Now, Petitioner's expert did not respond t
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
