Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 62
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC and
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-CV-01075-ADA
`
`v.
`
`VMware, Inc.,
`
`Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT VMWARE, INC.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`EX2008
`VMware v. IV
`IPR2020-00470
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 62
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,686 (the “’686 patent”) ................... 2
`A. “modif[y/ied] [a] resource allocation” / “modify[ing] [the] computer resources allocated
`to a virtual server” (’686 patent claims 5-7) ........................................................................ 2
`B. “resource unavailable messages resulting from denied requests to modify a resource
`allocation” (’686 patent claims 5-7) .................................................................................... 7
`C. “determination that a virtual server is overloaded” (’686 patent claims 5-7) ...................... 8
`D. “virtual server” (’686 patent claims 5-7) ........................................................................... 10
`E. “determining that a second physical host can accommodate the requested modified
`resource allocation” (’686 patent claims 5-7) .................................................................... 10
`F. “a component configured to receive an indication that a first physical host is overloaded,
`wherein the indication is based on a determination that a virtual server is overloaded and
`wherein the determination that a virtual server is overloaded is based on one or more
`resource unavailable messages resulting from denied requests to modify a resource
`allocation” (’686 patent claim 7) ....................................................................................... 12
`G. “a component configured to determine that a second physical host can accommodate the
`requested modified resource allocation” (’686 patent claim 7) ......................................... 13
`H. “a component configured to generate a physical host transfer signal that indicates a second
`physical host and to transfer the virtual server from the first physical host to the second
`physical host if the first physical host is overloaded” (’686 patent claim 7) ..................... 14
`III. DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE42,726 (the “’726 patent”) ............. 15
`A. Terms that overlap with disputed claim terms in the ’686 patent ...................................... 15
`B. “resource denials” (’726 patent claims 1, 4-5 and 8) ......................................................... 15
`C. “quality of service guarantee” (’726 patent claims 1 and 4) .............................................. 16
`D. “a virtual server resource monitor [communicatively coupled to the first physical host
`and] configured to monitor resource denials and to send a virtual server overloaded signal
`in response to the resource denials” (’726 patent claims 1 and 5) // “program code for
`creating a virtual server resource monitor communicatively coupled to the first physical
`host and configured to monitor resource denials and, in response to the resource denials,
`to send a virtual server overloaded signal” (’726 patent claim 4) ..................................... 18
`E. “a virtual server resource modifier [communicatively coupled to the first physical host
`and] configured to receive the virtual server overloaded signal and, in response to the
`virtual server overloaded signal, to modify a resource allocation for the virtual server and
`to send a virtual server resource modification signal” (’726 patent claims 1 and 5);
`“program code for creating a virtual server resource modifier communicatively coupled to
`the first physical host and configured to receive the virtual server overloaded signal and,
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 3 of 62
`
`in response to the virtual server overloaded signal, to modify a resource allocation for the
`virtual server and to send a virtual server resource modification signal” (claim 4) .......... 19
`F. “a load balanc[ing/er] [module] [communicatively coupled to the plurality of physical
`hosts and] configured to receive the virtual server resource modification signal and to
`determine whether the first physical host is overloaded and, in response to a determination
`that the first physical host is overloaded, to send a physical host transfer signal that
`indicates a second physical host” (’726 patent claims 1 and 5) // “program code for
`creating a load balancing module communicatively coupled to the plurality of physical
`hosts and configured to receive the virtual server resource modification signal and to
`determine whether the first physical host is overloaded and, in response to a determination
`that the first physical host is overloaded, to send a physical host transfer signal that
`indicates a second physical host” (’726 patent claim 4) .................................................... 21
`G. “a dynamic virtual server mover [communicatively coupled to the plurality of physical
`hosts and] configured to receive the physical host transfer signal and, in response to the
`physical host transfer signal, to transfer the virtual server from the first physical host to
`the second physical host” (’726 patent claims 1 and 5) // “program code for creating a
`dynamic virtual server mover communicatively coupled to the plurality of physical hosts
`and configured to receive the physical host transfer signal and, in response to the physical
`host transfer signal, to transfer the virtual server from the first physical host to the second
`physical host” (’726 patent claim 4) .................................................................................. 22
`H. “the dynamic virtual server mover is further configured to direct the first physical host to
`store, in the file system, a set of system files for the virtual server and to direct the second
`physical host to access, from the file system, the set of system files for the virtual server,
`thereby transferring the virtual server from the first physical host to the second physical
`host” (’726 patent claims 3 and 7) ..................................................................................... 24
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. 7,949,752 (the “’752 patent”) ............. 24
`A. “exhausted” (’752 patent claims 1, 9 and 24) .................................................................... 24
`1. Prosecution History Summary ....................................................................................... 26
`2. Argument ........................................................................................................................ 27
`B. “consumed” (recited in ’752 patent claims 1, 9 and 24) .................................................... 29
`C. “service” (’752 patent claims 1, 3, 9 and 24) ..................................................................... 32
`D. Means-Plus-Function Terms .............................................................................................. 32
`V. DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE43,051 (the “’051 patent”) ................ 34
`A. “virtual server” (’051 patent claims 1, 3 and 6) ................................................................. 34
`B. “physical interface[s]” (’051 patent claims 1 and 3) ......................................................... 38
`C. physical interfaces and tunnel identifiers in the storing / receiving / determining / sending
`terms (’051 patent claims 1 and 3) ..................................................................................... 40
`VI. DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,818 (the “’818 patent”) ................ 42
`A. “hierarchical token bucket resource allocation” (recited in ’818 patent claims 1, 17, 30, 32
`and 42) ............................................................................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 4 of 62
`
`B. “token” (’818 patent claims 1, 17, 30, 32-33, 37-42) ........................................................ 44
`C. “enforc[e/ing]”, “receiv[e/ing]”, “classify[ing]”, “compar[e/ing]”, “forward[ing]”, and
`“buffer[ing]” (’818 patent claims 1, 17, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 42) .................................. 44
`D. “maintaining a connection over a network fabric” (’818 patent claims 1, 17, 30, 32 and
`42) ...................................................................................................................................... 46
`E. “virtual storage network interface layer of an application server” / “virtual network
`interface layer of an application server”/ “virtual interface layer of an application server”
`(’818 patent claims 1, 17, 30, 32 and 42)........................................................................... 48
`F. “one or more input/output virtualization modules comprising computer-readable
`instructions operative to cause the one or more processors to” performs functions terms
`(’818 patent claim 17) ........................................................................................................ 49
`VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 5 of 62
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Alarm.com, Inc. v. SecureNet Techs., LLC,
`No. CV 15-807-RGA, 2019 WL 3996883 (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2019)........................................12
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`No. 110CV910LMBJFA, 2018 WL 1699429 (E.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2018) ...................................12
`
`Ariba Inc. v. Emptoris, Inc.,
`No. 9:07-cv-90 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2008) ................................................................................33
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................13, 50
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................11
`
`Desper Prods. Inc. v. QSound Labs. Inc.,
`157 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir 1998).................................................................................................29
`
`Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc.,
`149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................4
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,
`569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................27, 28
`
`Glob. Equity Mgmt. (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Expedia, Inc.,
`2016 WL 7416132 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2016) ...................................................................18, 19
`
`Grecia v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc.,
`780 Fed. Appx. 912 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2019) ........................................................................50
`
`Hakim v. Cannon Avent Group PLC,
`479 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................29
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd.,
`365 F.Supp.3d 200 (D.Mass. 2019) .........................................................................................31
`
`MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................3
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................7, 8
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 6 of 62
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Circ. 2004) ........................................................................................45, 48
`
`MTD Prod. Inc. v. Iancu,
`933 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..............................................................................12, 18, 21, 23
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Pause Tech., LLC v. TiVo, Inc.,
`419 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................7, 8
`
`Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 9:09-cv-111, 2011 WL 11757163 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2011) ...............................18, 33, 34
`
`Reedhycalog UK, Ltd. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Inc.,
`2008 WL 2152268 (E.D. Tex. May 21, 2008) .............................................................47, 48, 49
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc.,
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................27, 45
`
`SkinMedica, Inv. v. Histogen, Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................45
`
`US Foam Inc. v. On Site Gas Systems, Inc.,
`735 F. Supp. 2d 535 (E.D. Tex. 2010) .....................................................................................44
`
`Uship Intellectual Properties, LLC v. United States,
`714 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................28
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................2, 21, 49, 50
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ..............................................................................................................................33
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ................................................................................................................ passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 7 of 62
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`Full Name
`Abbreviation
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PTO
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`POSITA
`Snoeren Decl. Declaration of Alex Snoeren, Ph.D. Regarding Claim Construction
`’686 patent U.S. Patent No. RE 44,686
`’726 patent U.S. Patent No. RE 42,726
`’937 patent U.S. Patent No. 6,985,937
`’937 FH
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,985,937
`’752 patent U.S. Patent No. 7,949,752
`’051 patent U.S. Patent No. RE 43,051
`’818 patent U.S. Patent No. RE 44,818
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 8 of 62
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Exhibit Title
`Ex. 1
`Parties’ Agreed Constructions to Claim Terms
`Ex. 2 Declaration of Alex Snoeren, Ph.D. Regarding Claim Construction
`Ex. 3
`’937 Patent File History, Applicant Arguments dated November 17, 2003
`Ex. 4 U.S. Patent No. 5,933,603 to Vahalia et al.
`Ex. 5
`’937 Patent File History, Non-Final Office Action dated May 10, 2004
`Ex. 6 USPTO Patent Search of claim term “dynamic virtual server mover”
`Ex. 7 Terms in the ’726 patent that overlap with disputed claim terms in the ’686 patent
`Ex. 8 The parties’ proposals for the terms in the ’051 involving multiple recitations of “physical
`interface(s)” and “tunnel identifier(s)”
`’752 Patent File History, Response to Office Action dated March 16, 2009
`Ex. 9
`’752 Patent File History, Office Action dated May 5, 2009
`Ex. 10
`’752 Patent File History, Office Action dated October 30, 2009
`Ex. 11
`’752 Patent File History, Response to Office Action dated November 13, 2009
`Ex. 12
`’752 Patent File History, Office Action dated March 16, 2010
`Ex. 13
`’752 Patent File History, Response to Office Action dated August 20, 2010
`Ex. 14
`’752 Patent File History, Response to Office Action dated August 5, 2009
`Ex. 15
`’752 Patent File History, Final Office Action dated November 8, 2010
`Ex. 16
`’752 Patent File History, Response to Final Office Action dated January 4, 2011
`Ex. 17
`Ex. 18 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, Intellectual Ventures v.
`HCC Ins. Holdings, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-660 (E.D. Tex. August 26, 2016) (“’752 Patent
`Magistrate Report”)
`Ex. 19 Charles Aulds, Linux Apache Web Server Administration, 39 (2001) (“Aulds”)
`Ex. 20 Barry Nusbaum, WebSphere Application Servers: Standard and Advanced Features 45
`(1999)
`Ex. 21 Ludmila Cherkasova, FLEX: Design and Management Strategy for Scalable Web Hosting
`Service, 14–15 (Oct. 1999)
`Ex. 22 October 14, 2003 Amendment & Remarks, U.S. Patent Appl. No. 09/526,980
`Ex. 23 Physical Interface, The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (6th
`ed., 1996)
`Ex. 24 RE43,051 (U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/858,091) Patent File History, May 17, 2010 Office
`Action
`Ex. 25 U.S. Patent No. 6,286,047 (“Ramanathan”)
`Ex. 26 U.S. Patent No. 6,247,057 (“Barrera”)
`Ex. 27 Webster definition of consume
`Ex. 28
`’752 Patent List of Disputed Claim Terms
`Ex. 29 BEN LAURIE AND PETER LAURIE, APACHE: THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE 163, 177, 242–43, 295
`(1999)
`Ex. 30 Virtual Server, MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (5th ed. 2002)
`Ex. 31
`’789 Patent (Orig. Patent) prosecution history, 2009.08.25 Resp. to Office Action at 12
`Ex. 32 Competing Parties’ Proposals for the ’818 Patent
`Ex. 33 Grotto Networking, available at https://www.grotto-networking.com/BBQoS.html
`Ex. 34 http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Traffic-Control-HOWTO/index.html
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 9 of 62
`
`Exhibit Title
`Ex. 35 https://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.classful.html#AEN1071
`Ex. 36 Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO, located at
`http://www.oamk.fi/~jukkao/lartc.pdf
`Ex. 37 Traffic Control HOWTO, Version 1.0.2, Martin A. Brown, located at
`https://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/html_single/Traffic-Control-HOWTO/
`Ex. 38 Traffic Control using tcng and HTB HOWTO, Version 1.0.1, Martin A. Brown, April
`2006, located at http://linux-ip.net/articles/Traffic-Control-tcng-HTB-HOWTO.html
`Ex. 39 Bavier, et al., Operating System Support for Planetary-Scale Network Services,
`Proceedings of the First Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation
`(March 2004), located at
`https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/nsdi04/tech/full_papers/bavier/bavier.pdf
`Ex. 40 Benita, Kernel Korner - Analysis of the HTB Queuing Discipline Software, available at
`https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7562 as of January 26, 2005 and printed in the Linux
`Journal, March 2005.
`Ex. 41 U.S. Patent 7,161,904 titled: “System and method for hierarchical metering in a virtual
`router based network switch” to Hussein et al.
`Ex. 42 Bavier et al, Container-based Operating SystemVirtualization: AScalable,High-
`performance Alternative to Hypervisors, Conference Paper in ACM SIGOPS Operating
`Systems Review, January 2007, located at
`http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1018.1012&rep=rep1&type=pdf
`Ex. 43 Valenzuela, J.L., et al., “A Hierarchical Token Bucket Algorithm to Enhance QoS in IEEE
`802.11: Proposal, Implementation and Evaluation, IEEE, vol. 4, Sep. 2004 (“Valenzuela
`Article”)
`Ex. 44 Email from J. Deblois to M. Rueckheim dated March 3, 2020
`Ex. 45 Webster’s New Work Telecom Dictionary, Definition of Layer
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 10 of 62
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case is immensely complicated. IV is asserting more than 40 claims, involving diverse
`
`technology from four separate patent families, that were developed by three companies acting
`
`independently. Indeed, the total number of words in the asserted claims exceeds 3,700, and
`
`hundreds of VMware products and features are accused of infringement. This is an unmanageable
`
`number of claims and issues for a jury to comprehend in a trial. Despite the significant number of
`
`issues, the parties have worked together to agree to constructions for certain terms (see Ex. 1) and
`
`have grouped the remaining disputes into the approximately 30 categories discussed herein. These
`
`remaining categories can primarily be summarized into five main groups.
`
`First, for many technical terms, such as “hierarchical token bucket resource allocation” and
`
`“physical interface,” VMware has proposed constructions consistent with the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the terms and consistent with the intrinsic record disclosure, while IV has simply
`
`proposed they be construed as “plain and ordinary meaning” or argued that the terms are “not
`
`amenable to construction.” For these terms, IV has confirmed during the meet and confer process
`
`that it does not intend to offer alternative proposed constructions or interpretations. Thus, under
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) the Court
`
`should adopt VMware’s proposed constructions.
`
`Second, for certain terms, like “modify a resource allocation” and “exhausted,” the
`
`respective patent applicants significantly narrowed the claim scope during prosecution in response
`
`to PTO rejections. For example, the for term “exhausted”—the applicant actually argued that the
`
`prior art’s art disclosure of the disclaimed scope (reusable resources) was “the exact opposite” of
`
`the amended claim language. VMware’s proposals hold the applicants to their clear disclaimers
`
`consistent with the law. IV asks the Court to ignore these clear disclaimers in favor of an
`
`improperly broad reading of the claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 11 of 62
`
`
`
` Third, many terms involve Section 112 ¶ 6 means-plus-function considerations. For some
`
`of these terms, reciting classic means-for language, the parties agree that Section 112 ¶ 6 applies,
`
`but have disputes as to the specific structures. For some terms, there is no supporting structure
`
`counseling in favor of indefiniteness. For the others, VMware’s proposed structures are properly
`
`limited to the specific portions of the specification that disclose the structures—while IV
`
`improperly proposes that the Court construe the structures with respect to ambiguous black-box
`
`type terminology. For others of these terms, the parties disagree whether Section 112 ¶ 6 applies.
`
`VMware’s proposals for these terms recognize that the terms’ usage of nonce terminology, like a
`
`“component,” “module,” or “program code” for performing a function, requires application of
`
`Section 112 ¶ 6 under Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015). IV’s
`
`proposal, in contrast, would leave these terms broad, despite the limited disclosure of
`
`corresponding structures in the specifications.
`
`Fourth, for several disputes, for example the “virtual server” term, IV seeks to improperly
`
`change the meaning of technical terms to craft a better infringement read against VMware’s
`
`products. Finally, for the remaining disputes, such as the various interfaces/tunnels terms in the
`
`’051 patent, and the “enforc[e/ing]”, “receiv[e/ing]”, etc. terms in the ’818 patent, VMware’s
`
`proposals address significant antecedent basis problems, or seek to clarify the complex technical
`
`terminology which may be confusing for a jury. IV’s proposals reject these essential clarifications
`
`without explanation. VMware’s proposals should be adopted at least for the reasons set forth
`
`herein and in the declaration of its expert Dr. Alex Snoeren submitted herewith.
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,686 (the “’686 patent”)
`
`A.
`“modif[y/ied] [a] resource allocation” / “modify[ing] [the] computer resources
`allocated to a virtual server” (’686 patent claims 5-7)
`
`VMware Proposal
`
`IV Proposal
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 12 of 62
`
`
`
`
`
`“modif[y/ied] [a] quality of service guarantee”
`/ “modify[ing] [the] quality of service
`guarantee of a virtual server”
`
`See also construction of “quality of service
`guarantee”
`
`“modif[y/ied] set of functions and features of a
`physical host(s) used in implementing tasks for
`each virtual server” / “modify[ing] a set of the
`functions and features of a physical host(s)
`used in implementing tasks for each virtual
`server”
`
`VMware’s proposal is based on a clear and unmistakable disclaimer by the applicant during
`
`the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 6,985,937 (the “’937 patent”), from which the ’686 reissued.
`
`VMware’s approach to these terms is also consistent with the claims, the specification,1 and the
`
`applicant’s own statements regarding the purpose of the claimed invention. By contrast, IV’s
`
`proposal disregards the intrinsic record. Furthermore, rather than construe the phrase “modifying
`
`a resource allocation,” IV’s proposal reads “allocation” entirely out of the claim term and instead
`
`seeks to construe the phrase “modifying a resource.”
`
`During prosecution of the ’937 patent, the examiner issued a rejection based on U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,933,603 (“Vahalia”). Vahalia is generally directed to providing video-on-demand services
`
`by dynamically assigning resources to scheduled tasks. Ex. 4 (Vahalia, Abstract). In attempting
`
`to overcome the rejection, the applicant argued that “[a] resource allocation for a process is
`
`specified as a quality of service guarantee. Thus, increasing a quality of service guarantee for
`
`a process is equivalent to increasing a resource allocation for that process.” Ex. 3 at 19 (2003-
`
`11-17 Response) (emphasis added).2 The applicant further argued that Vahalia does not anticipate
`
`the claims because Vahalia does not disclose increasing a quality of service guarantee. Rather, the
`
`applicant argued that “[o]nce Vahalia has scheduled a task, there is no further determination of
`
`whether the resource that is handling the task is overloaded. In other words, in Vahalia, the quality
`
`
`1 The specifications of the ’686, ’726 (discussed in Section III), and ’937 patents are identical.
`2 See MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`(prosecution history of related patents its relevant to the claim construction analysis).
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 13 of 62
`
`
`
`of service of each resource is fixed ahead of time and is not altered once a task is scheduled to
`
`the resource.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`The PTO relied on the applicant’s disavowal regarding this issue, noting that:
`
`In the claim languages as found in claims 1, 13, 27, 31, 37, 39, and 44, Applicant
`appears to equate ‘the quality of [service] guarantee’ to ‘allocating a portion of
`resources’ and ‘increasing the quality of service guarantee’ to ‘increasing the
`resources allocated to an associated service.’ The slight departure of these
`phrases from its nominal meanings is being recognized here. Although the
`examiner has adopted Applicant’s lexicographer [sic] in the following prior art
`rejection, it is noted that care must be taken when comparing to its counterpart in
`the referenced passages (such difference was raised during a recent telephone
`interview with Applicant’s representative).
`
`Ex. 5 (2004-05-10 Office Action) (emphasis added). Thus, in both a response and in a telephonic
`
`interview with the examiner, the applicant represented that the terms “resource allocation” and
`
`“quality of service guarantee” are equivalent, and the terms “modifying a resource allocation” and
`
`“modifying a quality of service guarantee” are equivalent. The examiner unequivocally
`
`memorialized this understanding as set forth above, and the applicant did not dispute this
`
`interpretation over the subsequent lengthy file history prior to issuance.
`
`IV should be held to this understanding of the claim term. Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix,
`
`Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The public has a right to rely on such definitive statements
`
`made during prosecution. Notice is an important function of the patent prosecution process….”).
`
`The claims further support VMware’s proposal. For example, claim 1 of the related ’726
`
`patent (which is identical to issued claim 1 of the original ’937 patent), recites “in response to the
`
`virtual server overloaded signal, to modify a resource allocation for the virtual server” and “receive
`
`the virtual server resource modification signal and [] determine whether the first physical host is
`
`overloaded.” In other words, the claims contemplate that after a virtual server is determined to be
`
`overloaded, the resource allocation for the virtual server is modified. And after the “resource
`
`allocation” for the virtual server is already modified, the system may determine that the physical
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 14 of 62
`
`
`
`host is overloaded.3 Such a step only makes sense if modifying the resource allocation of the
`
`virtual server refers to modifying the quality of service guarantee of the virtual server, as
`
`contemplated by VMware’s proposal. Ex. 2 (Snoeren Decl.) ¶ 31. On the other hand, IV’s
`
`proposal which construes modifying a resource, such as memory or disk space, would involve
`
`modifying the physical host in some way. This does not make sense in context of the claims. Id.
`
`The specification further supports VMware’s proposal. The specification clearly and
`
`consistently specifies that a resource allocation refers to a quality of service guarantee, and
`
`modifying a resource allocation means modifying a quality of service guarantee. For example:
`
`A resource allocation for a virtual server is specified as a “quality of service
`guarantee” for that particular server. Each physical host stores quality of service
`guarantees for the virtual servers it hosts. As a physical host performs processes
`associated with a particular virtual server, the physical host accesses the stored
`quality of service information to enable the physical host to request the correct
`quality of service from the operating system kernel of the physical host.
`
`’686 patent, 4:49-56 (emphasis added). Table 1 of the specification, reproduced below, provides
`
`another example of the term “resource allocation” referring to a quality of service guarantee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 The parties agree that “the first physical host is overloaded” should be construed as “the first
`physical host will not support additional resource allocations at that time.”
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 54 Filed 03/06/20 Page 15 of 62
`
`
`
`’686 patent, 4:24-35. As shown in this table, each virtual server is configured with a “resource
`
`allocation” defined as a percentage of the resources of a physical host—an arrangement that the
`
`specification equates to a quality of service guarantee:
`
`In one embodiment, each individual virtual server 162 has a different quality of
`service guarantee. Different quality of service guarantees are implemented by
`allocating different amounts of the resources of each physical host machine 160
`to servicing each of the virtual servers 162. Physical host 160 resources may be
`allocated as percentages of the resources of a particular physical host 160, or as
`a particular number of units within a physical host 160 (for example, the operating
`system may be instructed to allocate X cycles per second to process A and Y cycles
`per second to process B). In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, physical host 160
`resources are allocated to individual virtual servers 162 as percentages of each
`physical host 160. Table 1 lists the resource allocations of each virtual server 162
`as shown in FIG. 1[.]
`
`’686 patent, 4:9-22 (emphasis added). The specification consistently describes the invention in
`
`terms of a quality of service guarantee. See, e.g., ’686 patent, 2:39-42 (“Thus it is desirable to
`
`provide a system and method for a virtual server capable of providing quality of service
`
`guarantees for a customer, which is also capable of adjusting the quality of service based upon
`
`changing customer demand.”) (emphasis added); id., 3:53-55 (“The term ‘virtual server’ as used
`
`herein refers to a virtual server c