throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 41
`Date: January 18, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
`DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C., and
`SLING TV L.L.C.,
`
`v.
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`A. Background and Procedural History
`
`DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C., and Sling TV
`
`L.L.C. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`(Paper 2 (“Pet.” or “Petition”)) challenging claim 13 of U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`6,725,456 B1 (Ex. 1001 (“’456 Patent”)). Sound View Innovations, LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”)). On the record before us, in our Decision to Institute, we
`
`determined Petitioner had established a reasonable likelihood that the relied
`
`upon references taught claim 13, the only challenged claim (Paper 13,
`
`“Dec.”). More specifically, based on our review of the record, we concluded
`
`that Petitioner was reasonably likely to prevail in demonstrating claim 13 is
`
`not patentable (id.). Thus, we instituted inter partes review of claim 13.
`
`Patent Owner then filed a response (Paper 22 (“PO Resp.”); Petitioner
`
`filed a reply to Patent Owner’s response (Paper 28 (“Pet. Reply”); and Patent
`
`Owner filed a sur-reply (Paper 35 (“PO Sur-reply”)).
`
`An Oral Hearing was held October 19, 2021, a transcript of which has
`
`been entered (Paper 40 (“Tr.”)).
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`
` Patent Owner states that Sound View Innovations, LLC and Sound
`
`View Innovation Holdings, LLC are the real-parties-in-interest (Paper 3, 1).
`
`Petitioner states DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C.,
`
`Sling TV L.L.C., Sling TV Holding L.L.C., DISH Network Corporation, and
`
`Cloudera, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest (Pet. xiii; Paper 6, 1).
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), both parties identify various
`
`matters related to the ’456 Patent:
`
`Ex parte reexamination Control No. 90/014,560 requested by
`
`Unified Patents, LLC (Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination Certificate confirming patentability of claim 13 and
`
`terminating the reexamination, October 1, 2021)
`
`(Pet. xiii; Paper 3, 1–2; Paper 24, 1; Paper 36, 1);
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. DISH Network LLC et al., No.
`
`1-19-cv-03707 (D. Colo.); and
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Sling TV LLC, No. 1-19-cv-
`
`03709 (D. Colo).
`
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner set forth the following former
`
`proceedings involve the ’456 Patent:
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Walmart Inc. et al., No. 1-19-
`
`cv-00660 (D. Del.) (terminated Aug. 21, 2020);
`
`Walmart Inc. et al. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2020-
`
`00818 (PTAB) (terminated Aug. 25, 2020, Paper 9);
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 1-
`
`19-cv00659 (D. Del.) (terminated Nov. 18, 2020, Dkt. No. 166);
`
`Cigna Corp. et al. v. Sound View Innovations, IPR2020-00924
`
`(PTAB) (Paper 11) (terminated Nov. 24, 2020); and
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Cigna Corp. et al., No. 1-19-
`
`cv-00964 (D. Del.) (terminated Nov. 18, 2020, Dkt. No. 166)
`
`(Pet. xiii; Paper 3, 1–2; Paper 24, 1–2).
`
`D. The ’456 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’456 Patent, titled “Methods and Apparatus for Ensuring Quality
`
`of Service in an Operating System,” issued April 20, 2004 (Ex. 1001, codes
`
`(45), (54)). The ’456 Patent describes “techniques for ensuring a desired
`
`quality of service (QoS) for an application running on an operating system”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 3:14–16, 4:25–26). In particular, the ’456 Patent describes
`
`techniques to allocate and reserve computing resources, e.g., central
`
`processing unit (CPU), memory, and disk or network bandwidth between
`
`competing requests for those resources, in order to guarantee access to those
`
`resources (see id. at 1:14–20, 4:61–62).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`The ’456 Patent further discloses that Figure 1 “illustrates the manner
`
`in which requests are tagged with a queue identifier” (id. at 4:3–4):
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, “every request arriving at a given one of the . . .
`
`schedulers must specify a queue, and the given scheduler apportions
`
`resources to each queue based on the queue’s share of that resource”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 5:1–4). “The particular request 10 includes the request
`
`information 12 along with an identifier 14 of the particular queue to which
`
`the request will be directed” (id. at 5:4–7, Fig. 1). Figure 1 illustrates four
`
`different queues: q1, q2, q3, and q4 (id. at 5:7–8, Fig. 1). “A scheduler 16
`
`submits the requests from the queues 15 to a resource 18 according to the
`
`queues’ shares of that resource” (id. at 5:8–10, Fig. 1).
`
`
`
`E. Challenged Claim
`
`Challenged claim 13 is independent and reproduced below.
`
`13. A method of ensuring a particular quality of service for an
`application in a computer system, the method comprising the
`steps of:
`
`utilizing an application programming interface of an
`operating system to establish one or more quality of service
`guarantees that correspond to a reference to an object; and
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`providing a particular quality of service to a request in
`accordance with the one or more quality of service guarantees
`that correspond to one or more object references used in the
`request;
`
`wherein the quality of service guarantees comprise
`resource reservations, each specifying a portion of a resource set
`aside for exclusive use by one or more processes;
`
`reservations are organized
`resource
`the
`wherein
`hierarchically such that each resource reservation r may have at
`most one parent and one or more siblings and children, and
`associated with r is a weight that specifies how r shares the
`resources of r’s parent with r’s siblings; and
`
`wherein associated with each resource reservation r is a
`minimum amount of resources that r receives from its parent p,
`such that the minimum amount of resources associated with p is
`at least equal to the sum of the minimum amount of resources
`associated with each of p’s children
`
`(Ex. 1001, 14:61–15:20).
`
`
`
`Reference
`
`F. References Relied Upon
`
`Durand, US 6,338,072 B1, issued Jan. 8, 2002 (hereinafter,
`“Durand”).
`
`Pawan Goyal et al., A Hierarchical CPU Scheduler for
`Multimedia Operating Systems, USENIX 2nd Symposium
`on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (1996)
`(hereinafter, “Goyal”).
`
`Jon C. R. Bennett and Hui Zhang, Hierarchical Packet Fair
`Queueing Algorithms, IEEE/ACM Transactions on
`Networking (Vol. 5, No. 5 1997) (hereinafter, “Bennett”).
`
`(Pet. 1).
`
`Exhibit
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration and the Reply Declaration of
`
`Dr. Kevin Negus (Exs. 1002, 1090).
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Mark T. Jones
`
`(Ex. 2004).
`
`G. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claim 13 is unpatentable on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`13
`13
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103
`103
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Durand, Bennett
`Goyal, Bennett
`
`(Pet. 1).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007)). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3)
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any secondary considerations, if
`
`in evidence (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).
`
`
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis (Al-Site Corp. v.
`
`VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950
`
`F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991))).
`
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`pertaining to the ’456 Patent at the relevant time would have been
`someone with at least a Bachelor of Science in at least one of
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer
`Science, or a related field, as well as three to four years of
`experience in implementing resource reservations for at least
`UNIX-based computing systems, or a Master’s degree in
`Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as two
`years of experience in implementing resource reservations for at
`least UNIX-based computing systems.
`
`(Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–31)).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion (see generally PO
`
`Resp.).
`
`The prior art itself demonstrates the level of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention (see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill
`
`level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level
`
`and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v.
`
`Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).
`
`We regard Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill as consistent
`
`with the prior art before us (see Okajima 261 F.3d 1355). Based on the
`
`present record, including the disclosure in the ’456 Patent, we apply
`
`Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine
`
`Petitioner’s asserted level of skill comports with the qualifications a person
`
`would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’456
`
`Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior
`
`art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)). As we
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`determine the four instances of “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation
`
`introduce ambiguity, we remove these terms from our definition.
`
`Accordingly, we determine an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a
`
`Bachelor of Science in one of Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, as well as three to four
`
`years of experience in implementing resource reservations for UNIX-based
`
`computing systems, or a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or an
`
`equivalent field, as well as two years of experience in implementing
`
`resource reservations for UNIX-based computing systems.
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`We construe claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). Under Phillips, claim terms are accorded
`
`“their ordinary and customary meaning” (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312).
`
`“[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that
`
`the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the
`
`time of the invention” (id. at 1313). “Importantly, the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the
`
`particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the
`
`entire patent, including the specification” (id.). An inventor may rebut that
`
`presumption by providing a definition of the term in the specification with
`
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). In the absence of such a definition, limitations
`
`are not to be read from the specification into the claims (In re Van Geuns,
`
`988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express
`
`interpretation of any terms of claim 13 (Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms that are in
`
`controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`
`the controversy); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context
`
`of an inter partes review)).
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Durand and Bennett
`
`Petitioner contends the combination of Durand and Bennett renders
`
`claim 13 obvious (Pet. 33–57).
`
`1. References
`
`a) Durand (Ex. 1006)
`
`Durand is a patent titled “Device and Process for Dynamically
`
`Controlling the Allocation of Resources in a Data Processing System”
`
`(Ex. 1006, code (54)). Durand describes a manner of “controlling the
`
`allocation of resources in a data processing system” by “modify[ing] the
`
`priority associated with the jobs in progress,” i.e., executed computer
`
`processes or programs (id. at 1:8–10, 1:65–2:1, 3:4–6). For example,
`
`“[m]ore or fewer resources should be allocated to [a process] as a function of
`
`[its] importance and as a function of the load on the system” (id. at 4:64–66).
`
`Durand uses “dimensions” to allocate resources and modify the
`
`priority of processes (see id. at 4:64–4:67). “A dimension is a set of
`
`currently executed processes which have the same importance” (id. at 4:67–
`
`5:3). For example, “processes [that] are started by the normal users directly
`
`in the background . . . belong to the dimension ‘MISC’” and “processes
`
`[that] are started by means of a script . . . belong to [another] dimension
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`‘BATCH’” (id. at 5:3–12). Further, “[w]hen [a] process has an ancestor
`
`whose command name and user are associated with a dimension, the process
`
`belongs to this dimension” (id. at 5:35–40).
`
`Dimensions have respective “relative weight[s]” which are “used to
`
`manage the priority of the processes comprising the dimension” (id. at 5:16–
`
`19). As such, the “priority of all the processes belonging to a dimension will
`
`vary accordingly” and “processes controlled by the dimensions will always
`
`have resources allocated as a function of their relative weight” (id. at 5:19–
`
`26, 5:40–42). In an exemplary system with dimensions MYDIM and
`
`BATCH, MYDIM can be assigned a relative weight of 2 and BATCH can
`
`be assigned a relative weight of 1 (id. at 6:21–27). Based on those
`
`respective relative weights, “[w]hen the system is heavily loaded,” and “the
`
`processes of the dimensions ‘MYDIM’ and ‘BATCH’ are using 90% of the
`
`central processing unit (CPU), the priority of the processes of the dimension
`
`‘MYDIM’ will be modified in one direction or another so that the
`
`percentage of CPU used by the dimension ‘MYDIM’ will be closer to 60%”
`
`(id. at 6:25–33).
`
`Additionally, Durand “allow[s] the pre-allocation and dynamic control
`
`of resources” via “an application program interface 34 [that] communicates
`
`with [local resource manager] demon 3” (id. at 3:65–4:2). The local
`
`resource manager “application program interface 34 is associated with a
`
`graphical user interface ‘LRM gui’ 32” (id. at 6:34–36). The LRM gui
`
`associated with the application program interface allows users “to define the
`
`name of [a] dimension” and “to define the relative weight” of the dimension
`
`(id. at 7:32–37, Fig. 2E).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`b) Bennett (Ex. 1008)
`
`Bennett is a paper titled “Hierarchical Packet Fair Queueing
`
`Algorithms” and authored by Jon C. R. Bennett and Hui Zhang (Ex. 1008,
`
`675). Bennett describes that “[f]uture integrated services networks will
`
`support multiple service classes that include real-time service, best-effort
`
`service, and others” (id.). For example, “where there are 11 agencies
`
`sharing the output link,” i.e., a computer network resource, an
`
`“administrative policy dictates that Agency A1 gets at least 50% of the link
`
`bandwidth whenever it has traffic” (id. at 675 (col. 1)). Addressing that
`
`goal, Bennett describes an “idealized Hierarchical Generalized Processor
`
`Sharing (H-GPS) model to simultaneously support guaranteed real-time,
`
`rate-adaptive best-effort, and controlled link-sharing services” (id.).
`
`
`
`2. Analysis of Independent Clam 13
`
`Our disposition of this ground turns on certain inconsistencies in
`
`Petitioner’s mapping of claim 13 to the prior art. We focus our analysis on
`
`the limitations of claim 13 for which we find these inconsistencies.
`
`Petitioner relies on Durand to teach “utilizing an application
`
`programming interface of an operating system to establish one or more
`
`quality of service guarantees that correspond to a reference to an object”
`
`(Pet. 36–41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 230–241; Ex. 1006, 2:54–64, 3:41–4:2,
`
`5:12–21, 6:34–48, 7:9–22, 7:25–37, 7:50–52, 7:61–64, Figs. 1, 2D–2E,
`
`2G)).
`
`Petitioner additionally relies on Durand to teach “providing a
`
`particular quality of service to a request in accordance with the one or more
`
`quality of service guarantees that correspond to one or more object
`
`references used in the request” (id. at 41–44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 244–256;
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`Ex. 1006, 5:57–5:62, 6:14–6:33, 7:65–8:5, Fig. 2H; Ex. 1009, 63, 93)).
`
`Petitioner further asserts, “Bennett discloses providing a particular QoS to
`
`traffic streams associated with a service share (a ‘weight’) where the traffic
`
`streams receive service ‘in proportion to their relative service shares’”
`
`(Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 258–259; Ex. 1008, 675)).
`
`Patent Owner points out the claim recites “‘[QoS] guarantees that
`
`correspond to a reference to an object’ are ‘establish[ed]’ [and] . . . a
`
`particular quality of service is ‘provide[ed]’ ‘to a request’ ‘in accordance’
`
`with the QoS guarantee(s)” (PO Resp. 25). Moreover, Patent Owner argues,
`
`the claim “requires that the ‘request’ be, not just any request, but, rather, one
`
`in which ‘one or more object references [is] used in the request” (id. at 27–
`
`28). Thus, Patent Owner contends, the claim “requires that a ‘particular
`
`quality of service’ be ‘provid[ed]’ ‘to a request’ . . . however, Petitioner fails
`
`to identify providing a ‘particular quality of service to a request’” (id.).
`
`Patent Owner focuses on the “plain meaning” of the claim limitations: “the
`
`plain meaning [of the limitation,] in accordance with the specification, is that
`
`a particular quality of service be ‘provid[ed]’ ‘to a request,’ not ‘in response
`
`to a request” (id. at 28 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 116–121)).
`
`According to Patent Owner, Petitioner is “essentially” reading the
`
`“providing” limitation “out of the claim” (id. at 28, 30). More specifically,
`
`Patent Owner argues, Petitioner is collapsing the “utilizing” and “providing”
`
`limitations “into a single limitation[,] rel[ying] on the exact same proof for
`
`both”: Durand’s relative weights by dimension (id. at 30 (citing Ex. 2004
`
`¶¶ 122–124; Pet. 44)). “Petitioner, however, never attempts to identify what
`
`the ‘request’ is or demonstrate that it is being ‘provide[d]’ a ‘particular
`
`quality of service’” (id. at 31).
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner fails to show that Durand’s
`
`relative weights (i.e., the alleged “quality of service guarantee”) correspond
`
`to either Durand’s file descriptors or process identifier (PID) value (i.e., the
`
`alleged “reference to an object”) in accordance with the recitation in
`
`claim 13 (PO Resp. 34–42; PO Sur-reply 7–8). Patent Owner disputes that a
`
`“file descriptor” is even disclosed by Durand and that Petitioner’s
`
`contentions relative to any such file descriptor are based on conclusory
`
`expert testimony (PO Resp. 36–38). Patent Owner also argues that PIDs are
`
`associated with a particular command (as shown in Durand’s Figure 2G) and
`
`not relative weights (as shown in Durand’s Figures 2E and 2H) (PO Resp.
`
`38–42 (reproducing Ex. 1006, Figs. 2E, 2G, 2H) (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 134–
`
`139)). Instead, Patent Owner argues that “Durand’s weights correspond to
`
`the dimension to which they apply” (PO Sur-reply 8 (reproducing Ex. 1006,
`
`Fig. 2H)).
`
`For the reasons explained below, we agree with Patent Owner.
`
`Petitioner contends,
`
`Durand discloses an LRM API in a UNIX system (“utilizing an
`application programming interface of an operating system”) that
`adjusts execution of priorities of jobs within dimensions based
`upon relative weights of the dimensions (thereby “establish[ing]
`one or more quality of service guarantees”) where the guarantees
`correspond to a relative weight for each dimension in a file
`identified by using a file descriptor and/or a process indirectly
`identified by a UNIX process identifier or PID field value
`(“correspond to a reference to an object”)
`
`(Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 237–241; Pet. 8–9)). Thus, Petitioner
`
`indicates Durand’s relative weight for each dimension in a file teaches the
`
`recited “object” and “a file descriptor and/or a process indirectly identified
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`by a UNIX process identifier or PID field value” teaches the recited
`
`“reference.”
`
`Petitioner also relies on Durand to teach “providing a particular
`
`quality of service to a request in accordance with the one or more quality of
`
`service guarantees that correspond to one or more object references used in
`
`the request,” as recited in claim 13 (Pet. 41–44). In particular, Petitioner
`
`asserts Durand’s two values: “Pdc” (“the current percentage of resources
`
`used by all the processes belonging to the dimension”) and “Pde” (“the
`
`percentage of resources which should be used by the dimension”) are “used
`
`to provide quality of service to requests” (Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 246;
`
`Ex. 1006, 5:57–62)). Petitioner further asserts, “Durand modifies the NICE
`
`parameter [– a parameter associated with processes that is ‘inversely
`
`proportional to the priority’ of each process –] by comparing the difference
`
`between the Pdc and Pde values with a predetermined threshold” (id. at 42
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶ 250; Ex. 1006, 6:14–21)).
`
`Petitioner points to Durand’s example as support for modifying of the
`
`NICE parameter:
`
`When the value “NICE” increases, the priority decreases. For
`example, in a system having a dimension “MYDIM,” the latter
`can be defined in the system with a relative weight of 2, a relative
`weight of 1 having been declared for the dimension “BATCH.”
`When the system is heavily loaded, the priorities of the processes
`belonging to the dimension “MYDIM” will be modified in the
`following way:
`
`If the processes of the dimensions “MYDIM’ and
`“BATCH are using 90% of the central processing unit (CPU),
`the priority of the processes of the dimension “MYDIM will be
`modified in one direction or another so that the percentage of
`CPU used by the dimension “MYDIM” will be closer to 60%
`
` (Ex. 1006, 6:20–33).
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`Next Petitioner asserts Durand “discloses an exemplary display
`
`illustrating ‘the management of the relative weights for each dimension’ that
`
`allows ‘the user to enter, in each box associated with each dimension, a new
`
`relative weight value and to display, in the box showing the current
`
`percentage, the modification of the current percentage” (id. at 42 (citing
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 253; Ex. 1006, 7:65–8:5, Fig. 2H)). Petitioner provides an
`
`annotated version of Durand’s Figure 2H, which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1006, Fig. 2H (annotated by Petitioner); Pet. 42; Pet. Reply 12).
`
`Figure 2H of Durand depicts a display window for managing relative
`
`weights by dimension (Ex. 1006, 7:65–8:2). In the display window of
`
`Figure 2H, “the user [may] enter, in each box associated with each
`
`dimension, a new relative weight value and to display, in the box showing
`
`the current percentage, the modification of the current percentage”
`
`(Ex. 1006, 8:2–5, Fig. 2H). Petitioner then contends that “Durand discloses
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`a user can request a quality of service by modifying the relative weights for
`
`each dimension, using the Pdc and Pde values to adjust the NICE parameter
`
`for processes within each dimension,” and further, that “Durand’s UNIX-
`
`based system guarantees access by allocating a particular percentage of
`
`resources, for example, the ‘percentage of CPU,’ for use by the dimensions”
`
`(Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 254; Ex. 1006, 7:65–8:5, Fig. 2H)). Without
`
`providing any supporting citations to Durand, Dr. Negus states that
`
`Durand discloses that a “user” can “enter” (or “request”)
`“values” for “relative weights for each dimension” such that by
`computing the parameters “𝑷𝒅𝒄” and “𝑷𝒅𝒆” and adjusting the
`NICE” parameter for “processes” within each “dimension”, then
`Durand’s UNIX-based system causes a particular “current
`percentage” of “resources” such as “percentage of CPU” to be
`“used by the dimension”, or hence discloses “providing a
`particular quality of service” (the particular “current
`percentage” of “resources” such as “percentage of CPU” to be
`“used by the dimensions”) to a “request in accordance with the
`one or more quality of service guarantees” (the overall set of
`“values” for “relative weights for each dimension”)
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶ 254).
`
`Thus, Petitioner contends the request is the modification of the
`
`relative weights for each dimension.
`
`
`
`Petitioner further asserts, “Durand discloses the values of the relative
`
`weights for each dimension are stored in a file, which necessarily also
`
`discloses the use of ‘a file descriptor as an argument to specify the file’”
`
`(Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 255; Pet. 36–41)). Thus, this storing of the
`
`relative weight occurs after a user modifies the relative weight for the
`
`dimension.
`
`Based on this disclosure, Petitioner asserts “Durand discloses
`
`adjusting the NICE parameter for processes within dimensions based upon
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`the user-defined relative weights of the dimensions” which teaches
`
`“providing a particular quality of service to a request in accordance with the
`
`one or more quality of service guarantees” (Pet. 44). Petitioner further
`
`asserts Durand discloses these “guarantees correspond to relative weights
`
`stored in files identified using respective file descriptors and/or processes
`
`indirectly identified via a UNIX process identifier or PID field value” and,
`
`thus, Durand teaches the quality of service guarantees “correspond to one or
`
`more object references used in the request” (id.).
`
`The request set forth by Petitioner, therefore, is Durand’s “user-
`
`defined relative weights of the dimensions” according to Petitioner’s
`
`assertion (Pet. 44). However, input to this “user-defined weight of the
`
`dimension” does not use what Petitioner identifies as the “one or more
`
`object references” –– “the file descriptor and/or a process indirectly
`
`identified by a UNIX process identifier or PID field value” (id.). Rather, the
`
`user chooses what Petitioner contends is the object by its reference, e.g.,
`
`“BATCH,” and then enters the desired relative weight (see Ex. 1006,
`
`Fig. 2H).
`
`Thus, Durand’s object reference (as identified by Petitioner) is not
`
`used in the request; rather, according to Petitioner’s mapping, the user
`
`selects the object and then inputs the request (user-defined relative weight)
`
`for that object.
`
`Further, the claim recites that a particular quality of service is
`
`provided to a request in accordance with the one or more quality of service
`
`guarantees (Ex. 1001, 15:1–4). The “one or more quality of service
`
`guarantees” is established “utilizing a resource reservation application
`
`programming interface” (id. at 14:64–67). We agree with Patent Owner’s
`
`contention that Petitioner essentially collapses these limitations into a single
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`limitation and relies on the same proof for both (PO Resp. 30). According to
`
`Petitioner’s mapping, entering the user-defined relative weight is setting a
`
`quality of service guarantee. But, as noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner maps
`
`Durand’s weights for each dimension to the recited “quality of service
`
`guarantee” (PO Sur-reply 8). Dr. Negus states, “Durand discloses . . . ‘one
`
`or more quality of service guarantees’ in the form of ‘adjusting the
`
`execution priorities of the jobs of each dimension as a function of the
`
`relative weights of the dimensions’ as an example of ‘conventional
`
`proportional share scheduling’ that the ’456 Patent describes as providing
`
`‘QoS guarantees’” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 230). Entering a user-defined relative
`
`weight does not teach “providing a quality of service to a request in
`
`accordance with the [ ] quality of service guarantees” established utilizing an
`
`application programming interface.
`
`As such, Petitioner has not shown Durand teaches “utilizing an
`
`application programming interface of an operating system to establish one or
`
`more quality of service guarantees that correspond to a reference to an
`
`object” and “providing a particular quality of service to a request in
`
`accordance with the one or more quality of service guarantees that
`
`correspond to one or more object references used in the request,” as recited
`
`in claim 13 (Ex. 1001, 14:64–15:4).
`
`Petitioner additionally asserts, “Bennett discloses a ‘hierarchical
`
`packet scheduling’ quality of service solution shared across service classes,
`
`where service is distributed to processes in proportion to relative service
`
`shares and based on a guaranteed service rate for each node in the service
`
`hierarchy” (Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 242–243; Ex. 1008, 675, 684,
`
`Fig. 3)). Petitioner further asserts, “Bennett discloses providing a particular
`
`QoS to traffic streams associated with a service share (a ‘weight’) where the
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`traffic streams receive service ‘in proportion to their relative service shares’”
`
`(id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 258–259; Ex. 1008, 675)).
`
`However, Petitioner has not set forth with specificity where Bennett
`
`teaches the request uses the one or more object references. Indeed,
`
`Petitioner has not explained how these two teachings of Bennett disclose the
`
`recited limitations with sufficient specificity or how one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would modify Durand with these teachings of Bennett to achieve the
`
`recited limitations.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that the combination of
`
`Durand and Bennet teaches the subject matter of claim 13. Therefore, based
`
`on the entire trial record, we determine Petitioner has not established by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 13 would
`
`have been obvious over Durand and Bennet under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness over Goyal and Bennett
`
`Petitioner contends the combination of Goyal and Bennett renders
`
`independent claim 13 obvious (Pet. 1).
`
`
`
`1. Reference - Goyal (Ex. 1007)
`
`Goyal is a paper titled “A Hierarchical CPU Scheduler for Multimedia
`
`Operating Systems” and authored by Pawan Goyal, Xingang Guo, and
`
`Harrick M. Vin (Ex. 1007). Goyal describes the need for “a multimedia
`
`computing environment” having “an operating system framework that: (1)
`
`enables different schedulers to be employed for different application classes,
`
`and (2) provides protection between the various classes of applications” (id.
`
`at Abstract). Goyal further describes that “[t]he requirements for supporting
`
`different scheduling algorithms for different applications as well as
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01041
`Patent 6,725,456 B1
`
`protecting application classes from one another leads naturally to the need
`
`for hierarchical partitioning of CPU bandwidth” hierarchical partitioning
`
`specified through a tree structure in which “[e]ach thread in the system
`
`belongs to exactly one leaf node [and e]ach leaf node represents an
`
`aggregation of threads” (Ex. 1007, 3, § 2).
`
`
`
`2. Analysis of Independent Claim 13
`
`Our disposition of this ground turns on an apparent gap in

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket