`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-01319
`U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794 B2
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER'S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`d) 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 2 
`A. 
`"cache memory" .................................................................................... 2 
`1. 
`Petitioner's argument in the Reply is inconsistent
`with the Petition .......................................................................... 3 
`Petitioner's argument is wrong on the merits .............................. 8 
`a) 
`The language of the claims themselves ............................ 8 
`b) 
`The intrinsic evidence ....................................................... 9 
`c) 
`The plain and ordinary meaning requires
`no lexicography or disavowal ......................................... 13 
`Extrinsic evidence does not support
`Petitioner's construction .................................................. 14 
`PO's argument is not ambiguous .................................... 15 
`e) 
`Limitation 17[c] ................................................................................... 15 
`B. 
`III.  GROUND 1 – INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 AND 9 ................................... 19 
`A. 
`Status of Claims 1 and 9 under §112 .................................................. 19 
`B.  Medin Fails to Disclose a Cache Memory with Mass
`Storage (limitation [b]) ........................................................................ 19 
`The Reply changes position on the use of Seltzer to teach
`limitation [b] ........................................................................................ 20 
`The Reply does not establish that Medin and Seltzer can
`be combined ........................................................................................ 22 
`IV.  GROUND 1 – DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3-8, 11-16 ...................................... 23 
`V.  GROUND 2 – INDEPENDENT CLAIM 17 ................................................ 23 
`A. 
`Petitioner fails to prove Medin teaches limitation [b] ......................... 23 
`B. 
`Petitioner fails to prove Markatos teaches limitation [c] .................... 23 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 26 
`VII.  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.24(D) .......................... 27 
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`Cases 
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co.,
`811 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 9, 10
`Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC,
`771 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 13
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 1
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 1, 8, 21
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 9
`
`
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. §102 ......................................................................................................... 19
`35 U.S.C. §103 ........................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. §112 ......................................................................................................... 19
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794 to Malcolm (the "'794 Patent")
`1001
`Prosecution File History for the '794 Patent ("File Hist.")
`1002
`Declaration of Henry H. Houh ("Houh Decl.")
`1003
`U.S. Patent No. 6,370,571 to Medin ("Medin")
`1004
`1005 Margo Seltzer, An Implementation of a Log-Structured File System
`for UNIX, Proceedings of the 1993 Winter USENIX (Jan. 25-29,
`1993) ("Seltzer")
`Evangelos P. Markatos, Main memory caching of Web document,
`Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 28, issues 7-11,
`pp. 893-905 (May 1996) ("Markatos")
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,438 to Yates et al. ("Yates")
`S. Ghandeharizadeh, D. Ierardi, D. H. Kim, and R. Zimmermann,
`Placement of Data in Multi-Zone Disk Drives, Second International
`Baltic Workshop on Databases and Information Systems, Tallinn,
`Estonia, 12-14 June 1996 ("Ghandeharizadeh")
`Excerpts from IBM Dictionary of Computing (McGraw-Hill,
`10th Ed. 1993) ("IBM Dictionary")
`Alan Jay Smith, Cache memories, ACM Computing Surveys,
`Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 473-530, September 1982 ("Smith")
`U.S. Patent No. 6,065,058 to Hailpern et al. ("Hailpern")
`A. Luotonen and K. Altis, World-Wide Web Proxies, Computer
`Networks and ISDN Systems, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 147-154
`(November 1994) ("Luotonen")
`D. Neal, The Harvest Object Cache in New Zealand, Computer
`Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 28, pp. 1415-1430 (May 1996)
`("Neal")
`Anawat Chankhunthod, Peter B. Danzig, Chuck Neerdaels, Michael
`F. Schwartz, and Kurt J. Worrell, A Hierarchical Internet Object
`Cache, Proceedings of USENIX 1996 Annual Technical Conference,
`pp. 153-164 (January 1996) ("Chankhunthod")
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`T. Johnson and D. Shasha, 2Q: A Low Overhead High Performance
`Buffer Management Replacement Algorithm, Proceedings of the
`20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases,
`(VLDB '94), Santiago de Chile, Chile (September 12-15, 1994)
`("Johnson")
`Robert Van Renesse, Andrew S. Tanenbaum, and Annita Wilschut,
`The Design of a High-Performance File Server, Proceedings of the
`9th International Conference on Distributed Computer Systems,
`Newport Beach, CA, pp. 22-27 (June 1989) ("Bullet")
`1017 Marshall K. McKusick, William N. Joy, Samuel J. Leffler, and
`Robert S. Fabry, A Fast File System for UNIX, ACM Transactions on
`Computer Systems, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 181-197 (August 1984)
`("McKusick")
`1018 Mendel Rosenblum and John K. Ousterhout, The Design and
`Implementation of a Log-Structured File System, ACM Transactions
`on Computer Systems, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 26-52 (February 1992)
`("Rosenblum")
`James O. Dyal, Michael K. Draughn, Performance Aspects of Disk
`Space Management, Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Winter
`Simulation, Vol. 1, pp. 69-77 (January 1981) ("Dyal")
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,659 to Seilhamer et al. ("Seilhamer")
`U.S. Patent No. 5,864,852 to Luotonen ("Luotonen '852")
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,780 to Chase et al. ("Chase")
`U.S. Patent No. 5,255,211 to Redmond et al. ("Redmond")
`Excerpts from Peter Dyson, Dictionary of Networking (SYBEX,
`2nd Ed. 1995) ("Dictionary of Networking")
`Excerpts from Computer Dictionary (Microsoft Press, 3rd Ed. 1997)
`("Microsoft Dictionary")
`Silvano Maffeis, Design and Implementation of a Configurable
`Mixed-Media File System, ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems
`Review (Oct. 1994) ("Maffeis")
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1019
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`1027
`
`1028
`1029
`1030
`
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`
`D. Raggett, A review of the HTML + document format, Computer
`Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 35-145, November
`1994 ("Raggett")
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,165 to Shuff et al. ("Shuff")
`U.S. Patent No. 5,819,251 to Kremer et al. ("Kremer")
`Excerpt from Brad Hansen, The Dictionary of Multimedia Terms &
`Acronyms (Franklin, Beedle & Associates, 1997) ("Multimedia
`Dictionary")
`U.S. Patent No. 5,852,717 to Bhide et al. ("Bhide")
`Declaration of Margo Seltzer ("Seltzer Decl.")
`Declaration of Shahram Ghandeharizadeh ("Ghandeharizadeh Decl.")
`Declaration of Gordon Macpherson ("Macpherson Decl.")
`Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D. ("Hall-Ellis Decl.")
`Transcript of Board Conference Call on Nov. 22, 2021
`Order, SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-115
`(E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2020)
`1038 Memorandum Order, Arbor Global Strategies LLC v. Samsung Elecs.
`Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:19-cv-333 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2021)
`Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re: Netflix, Inc., Case No. 22-110
`(Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2021)
`Calendar of Judge Rodney Gilstrap for April 18, 2022
`LexMachina, Federal District Court Patent Case Summary (2017-
`2022) for Judge Rodney Gilstrap
`Second Amended Docket Control Order, CA, Inc., et al. v. Netflix,
`Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-80 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 23, 2021)
`1600 PTAB & Beyond, "How reliable are trial dates relied on by the
`PTAB in the Fintiv analysis?", Andrew T. Dufresne, et al., Oct. 29,
`2021 (https://www.1600ptab.com/2021/10/how-reliable-are-trial-
`dates-relied-on-by-the-ptab-in-the-fintiv-analysis/)
`
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`vii
`
`

`

`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`1054
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`The New York Times, Texas Coronavirus Map and Case Count,
`January 9, 2022 (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/texas-
`covid-cases.html)
`Defendant's Stipulation Regarding Invalidity Contentions, CA, Inc.,
`et al. v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-80 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2022)
`Declaration of Jonathan DeFosse in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission
`Excerpt from Brad Hansen, The Dictionary of Multimedia Terms &
`Acronyms (Franklin, Beedle & Associates, 1997) ("Multimedia
`Dictionary II")
`Excerpt from A Dictionary of Computing (4th Ed., Oxford University
`Press, 1997) ("Dictionary of Computing")
`Excerpt from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
`Terms (5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, 1994) ("McGraw-Hill")
`Excerpt from Newton's Telecom Dictionary (11th Ed., Flatiron
`Publishing, 1996) ("Newton's")
`Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794 in CA, Inc.,
`et al. v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-80 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 23, 2021)
`("CA Infringement Contentions")
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Karthikeyan Sundaresan
`(July 8, 2022) ("Sundaresan Dep.")
`Reply Declaration of Henry H. Houh ("Houh Reply Decl.")
`U.S. Patent No. 6,038,601 to Lambert, et al. ("Lambert")
`November 10, 2021 Docket Report from CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix,
`Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex.)
`November 10, 2021 Docket Report from Netflix, Inc., v. CA, Inc. et
`al., No. 3:21-cv-03649 (N.D. Cal.)
`Amended Docket Control Order, CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2021), ECF No. 107
`Invalidity Contentions, CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-
`00080 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2021), with Exhibits 794-7a, 794-7b,
`794-7c, 794-9, and 794-12
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2008
`
`Joint Claim-Construction Chart, CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2021), ECF No. 118
`Defendant Netflix, Inc.'s Responsive Claim Construction Brief,
`CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30,
`2021), ECF No. 112
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/048,986
`(the "'986 Application")
`Excerpts from Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 14th ed., Telecom
`Books (Oct. 1998) ("Newton's 1998")
`Excerpts from Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 11th ed., Flatiron
`Publishing, Inc. (July 1996) ("Newton's 1996")
`Excerpts from Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 12th ed., Flatiron
`Publishing, Inc. (Feb. 1997) ("Newton's 1997")
`January 15, 2022 Docket Report from In re: Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 22-110 (Fed. Cir.)
`January 15, 2022 Docket Report from CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex.)
`2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order, CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2021), ECF No. 164
`Order Denying Motion to Stay, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
`T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00577 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2018),
`ECF No. 255
`Order Denying Defendants' Re-Urged Motion to Stay Pending Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,665,500, Oyster Optics, LLC v.
`Infinera Corp., No. 2:19-cv-00257 (E.D. Tex. July 17, 2020), ECF
`No. 87
`2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung
`Display Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00152 (E.D. Tex. July 17, 2020),
`ECF No. 133
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`ix
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`April 20, 2020 Standing Order Regarding Pretrial Procedures in Civil
`Cases Assigned to Chief District Judge Rodney Gilstrap During the
`Present COVID-19 Pandemic, United States District Court for the
`Eastern District of Texas (https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/sites/
`default/files/judgeFiles/COVID19%20Standing%20Order.pdf)
`Declaration of Dr. Karthikeyan Sundaresan ("Sundaresan Decl.")
`Transcript of April 19, 2022 Deposition of Dr. Henry Houh ("Houh
`Dep.")
`Excerpt from Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 3rd ed.,
`Microsoft Press (1997)
`Electronic Message to Board re: Notification Regarding Mandamus
`Petition Outcome
`
`2017
`
`2018
`2019
`
`2020
`
`3001
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply ("Reply") (Paper 27) consists almost entirely of changed
`
`positions and disregard for the arguments in Patent Owner's Response ("POR")
`
`(Paper 24). This fails to sustain Petitioner's "burden from the onset to show with
`
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable." Harmonic Inc. v. Avid
`
`Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover,
`
`[i]t is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR
`proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial
`petition identify "with particularity" the "evidence that
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim." …
`Once the Board identifies new issues presented for the first
`time in reply, neither this court nor the Board must parse
`the reply brief to determine which, if any, parts of that
`brief are responsive and which are improper. As the Board
`noted, "it will not attempt to sort proper from improper
`portions of the reply."
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The Petition (Paper 2) fails to meet this requirement,
`
`as shown by the Reply's multiple changes in position. In this regard, the Reply fails
`
`to rebut POR, and taken together, the Petition and the Reply fail wholly to meet
`
`Petitioner's burden to prove any claim is unpatentable under §103.
`
`1
`
`

`

`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`The Petition identified a single claim construction issue regarding the term,
`
`"receiving a set of network objects in response to a first request to a server from a
`
`client," which the Reply does not mention. Pet., 25-26.
`
`The Reply, however, raises two new alleged issues of claim construction, to
`
`which Petitioner dedicates over two-thirds of the text in its Reply, arguing that
`
`"Patent Owner unmistakably raises arguments that rest on implicit claim
`
`construction positions." Reply, 8 (emphasis in original). That is incorrect. The
`
`arguments in POR are founded on the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms
`
`"cache memory" and "maintaining said network objects is performed independently
`
`of a file system for said mass storage." POR, 35-38 (discussing the former); id., 50-
`
`52 (discussing the latter).
`
`Instead of addressing POR, Petitioner impermissibly introduces new
`
`arguments in the Reply concerning both claim construction and the application of
`
`the references to the claims. These new arguments should have been introduced in
`
`the Petition. Accordingly, even if the Reply's arguments had merit, which they do
`
`not, the Board should reject those arguments as untimely.
`
`A.
`
`"cache memory"
`
`Claims 1 and 9 require, in pertinent part, "maintaining said network objects in
`
`a cache memory in a cache engine, . . . said cache memory including mass storage."
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`Id., 35 (emphasis added); see EX-1001, 17:8-11, 40-43. As POR explains, "[a]
`
`POSITA would recognize that, for several reasons, the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of this limitation requires the cache to have both (1) memory and (2) mass storage."
`
`POR, 35 (citing EX-2018, ¶59). POR further explained that all the record evidence
`
`supports this recognition, including (1) the '794 Patent itself (id., 35-36), (2) the use
`
`of the term "memory" in Petitioner's own references (id., 36), (3) the testimony of
`
`both experts (id., 37), (4) the common understanding in the art at the time of
`
`invention (id.), and, perhaps most importantly, (5) Petitioner's own arguments in the
`
`Petition (id., 37-38).
`
`In reply to this four-page explanation, Petitioner dedicates thirteen pages
`
`trying to explain why the term "cache memory" should not include memory, as a
`
`POSITA would understand that term, contradicting the plain language of the claims
`
`and the positions Petitioner argued in the Petition. Reply, 8-20.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner's argument in the Reply is inconsistent with the
`Petition
`
`Rather than arguing that the term "cache memory including mass storage"
`
`should be read in a particular way, the Petition applied the same plain and ordinary
`
`meaning as POR – a cache including both a memory (RAM) and mass storage. POR,
`
`37-38 (citing Pet., 39 (which alleged that "Medin also teaches that the cache servers
`
`have cache memory including mass storage because Medin teaches that servers
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`include both memory and disk storage")) (emphasis added). In direct contradiction
`
`of this position, the Reply now argues, "Petitioner did not interpret 'cache memory'
`
`to require volatile memory," but instead, "that Medin teaches maintaining objects in
`
`'cache memory' because Medin teaches maintaining objects in mass storage
`
`(nonvolatile memory)—i.e., on disk arrays and cache storage devices." Reply, 19-
`
`20 (citing Pet., 36, 37, 42-43). This is a wholly new position.
`
`Specifically, the Reply fails to identify anything on the cited pages of the
`
`Petition that supports this position. Id. The Reply appears to rely on an isolated
`
`introductory statement to the Petition's argument on "cache engine," that lacks even
`
`a citation to Medin (Pet., 36), another irrelevant statement in the Petition regarding
`
`Medin's alleged teaching of a cache engine (not the cache memory itself) (id., 37),
`
`and a generic quotation from Medin about storing content in a "cache." Id., 42-43.
`
`These citations to the Petition in support of Petitioner's new position are
`
`unpersuasive.
`
`Instead, what the Petition reveals is that Petitioner treated "memory" and
`
`"volatile memory" as synonymous right up until filing the Reply:
`
` Pet., 14 (using "memory" to refer to volatile memory twice);
`
` id., 28 ("Medin teaches that the servers may be UNIX-based computers
`
`that cache information using memory and mass storage.");
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
` id., 31 ("[T]he combination of Medin and Seltzer teaches specific
`
`techniques to optimize the writing and retrieval of objects using
`
`memory and mass storage. … As such, the combination of Medin and
`
`Seltzer teaches the elements that the patentee argued were missing
`
`from the prior art.") (emphasis added, citation omitted);
`
` id., 37-38 ("[T]he regional and local services are comprised of
`
`hardware
`
`(e.g., a processor, memory, mass
`
`storage) and
`
`software . . . .") (emphasis added);
`
` id., 39 ("Medin also teaches that the cache servers have cache memory
`
`including mass storage because Medin teaches that the servers include
`
`both memory and disk storage.") (emphasis added);
`
` id. ("FIG. 5 of Medin shows that the regional servers also include
`
`memory. … Medin similarly teaches that the local caching servers
`
`include a mass storage device—cache storage 616—as well as
`
`memory.") (emphasis added, internal citations omitted);
`
` id., 43 ("Seltzer teaches using 'staging buffers,' whereby data is first
`
`written (recorded) to buffer memory and read (retrieved) from buffer
`
`memory as part of the process for storing (maintaining) a file on
`
`disk.");
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
` id., 47 (analogizing "buffer memory" in Seltzer to "memory" in the
`
`'794 Patent); and
`
` id., 64 (arguing, "a POSITA also would have been aware that it was
`
`routine and conventional to maintain 'hot' network objects in memory
`
`independently from the mass storage of a caching server.") (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`See also POR, 37-38 (quoting Pet., 39).
`
`In fact, Petitioner's entire argument regarding Claim 17, and the Board's
`
`corresponding findings in the Institution Decision ("ID") (Paper 15), are premised
`
`on the interpretation of "cache memory" in the Challenged Claims to include both
`
`RAM and mass storage. For example, the Petition argued that "Markatos teaches
`
`caching web documents in the main memory of a web server independently of the
`
`file system for the mass storage of a web server." POR, 49 (citing Pet., 63).
`
`Moreover, the Board noted that the "cache memory" of Claim 17 includes both
`
`memory and mass storage. Specifically, the Board stated:
`
`Claim 17 recites that the cache memory includes mass
`storage and that the step of maintaining is performed
`independently of a file system for said mass storage, but
`the '794 patent recognizes a distinction between the
`cache's memory and mass storage. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`6
`
`

`

`2:62–67 (noting the distinction between storing objects in
`memory and mass storage), 2:8–13 (same).
`
`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`ID, 16.
`
`Petitioner attempts to argue away from its earlier position, claiming,
`
`Patent Owner cites parts of the Petition where Petitioner
`explained that the combination of Medin and Seltzer also
`teaches maintaining network objects in volatile memory
`before those objects are written contiguously to disk. …
`But Petitioner never argued that the claims require such
`use of volatile memory. Rather, Petitioner was advancing
`an additional reason why the combination of Medin and
`Seltzer renders the Challenged Claims obvious.
`
`Reply, 20 (citation omitted). Notably, however, Petitioner identifies nothing in the
`
`Petition that supports this argument, simply asserting for the first time:
`
`the cache memory may optionally include other types of
`memory (such as volatile memory). Where the cache
`memory also includes volatile memory, maintaining
`network objects
`in
`the volatile memory satisfies
`"maintaining said network objects in cache memory."
`
`Id. This quotation is perhaps the best example of Petitioner's change of position.
`
`The Reply identifies nothing whatsoever in the Petition for this alternative or
`
`"optional" argument about volatile memory, because none exists.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`Thus, the Petition did not interpret the term "cache memory including mass
`
`storage" any differently than the plain and ordinary meaning espoused by POR.
`
`Contrary to Petitioner's original position, however, POR established that Medin does
`
`not teach or suggest that Medin's disclosed memory (RAM, about which there is no
`
`dispute) is part of the disclosed cache. POR, 39-42. Thus, as POR correctly
`
`observed, "Petitioner is left in the awkward position of agreeing that the 'cache
`
`memory' of Claims 1 and 9 requires memory but failing to prove that Medin actually
`
`provides any disclosure that might satisfy this requirement." Id., 42. Faced with this
`
`awkward position, Petitioner now attempts, for the first time in the Reply, to construe
`
`"cache memory including mass storage" differently. Petitioner's new position
`
`should be rejected. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821
`
`F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner's argument is wrong on the merits
`
`Even assuming Petitioner's new claim construction position were cognizable,
`
`which it is not, that position is wrong on the merits.
`
`a)
`
`The language of the claims themselves
`
`The Reply argues that "Patent Owner largely ignores the language of the
`
`claims themselves." Reply, 10. This is ironic, given that the novel position in the
`
`Reply boils down to arguing that the term "memory" should be excised from the
`
`term "cache memory including mass storage." POR's reading of the plain and
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`ordinary meaning gives meaning to every word in the phrase, while the Reply
`
`attempts to give the term "memory" no meaning whatsoever. The Federal Circuit
`
`has held, "such a result is disfavored." Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical
`
`Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA,
`
`Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("A claim construction that gives meaning
`
`to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.")).
`
`b)
`
`The intrinsic evidence
`
`POR explained that both experts, and Petitioner itself, agreed that the
`
`description of the '794 Patent exclusively teaches a cache having both volatile
`
`memory and mass storage, and that this cache discloses the recited "cache memory."
`
`POR, 35-37. Petitioner now claims that POR "seeks to import limitations into the
`
`claims from embodiments." Reply, 15. This is not true, and it is a disingenuous
`
`argument, given that the Petition itself argues repeatedly for interpretation of the
`
`claims in light of the specification.
`
`For instance, the Petition argues, "A POSITA would have further understood
`
`that the receiving step is performed at the cache engine based on the specification
`
`description of the '794 patent. For example, the '794 patent states that the cache
`
`engine receives network objects in response to client requests to servers." Pet., 27
`
`(emphasis added, citations omitted). While the meaning of "receiving" is not
`
`material in this proceeding, the Petition's argument, that the specification requires
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`adding "at the cache engine" to the receiving step, does exactly what the Reply
`
`unjustifiably accuses POR of doing: attempting to narrow the claims using the
`
`specification.
`
`Rather than importing limitations from the specification, as Petitioner
`
`attempts to do throughout the Petition, POR, like the ID, looks to the description of
`
`the '794 Patent to interpret the existing limitation (i.e., "cache memory including
`
`mass storage" must have both memory and mass storage). POR, 35-37; ID, 16
`
`(quoted supra §II.A.1). This is not controversial. In fact, Petitioner itself
`
`characterized the teachings of the '794 Patent as, "the cache engine can maintain
`
`frequently accessed network objects in faster volatile memory (such as RAM), thus
`
`using the memory as a cache for the mass storage," acknowledging that the
`
`'794 Patent equates volatile memory with "memory" and that the cache includes both
`
`the volatile memory and the mass storage. Pet., 9 (citations omitted). As the Federal
`
`Circuit repeatedly reiterates,
`
`[t]he claims "must be read in view of the specification, of
`which they are a part." … Indeed, we have said that the
`specification "is always highly relevant to the claim
`construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the
`single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term."
`
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (citations omitted). Rather than importing limitations from the specification,
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`POR demonstrates that this single best guide to the meaning of "cache memory
`
`including mass storage" universally supports Patent Owner's ("PO") understanding
`
`of that term. POR, 35-37.
`
`Moreover, the Reply's argument that "maintaining network objects in volatile
`
`memory is an optional feature of certain embodiments of the '794 patent," is a plain
`
`mischaracterization of the '794 Patent, finding no support in the '794 Patent or the
`
`Petition. Reply, 15. Instead, as POR establishes (and the Reply fails to rebut),
`
` "the '794 Patent uses the term 'cache memory' to refer to a cache with
`
`volatile memory, such as RAM"; and
`
` "Dr. Sundaresan has also testified that every embodiment disclosed by
`
`the '794 Patent features a cache with both memory (e.g., RAM) and
`
`mass storage (e.g., disk drives), and Dr. Houh could not identify any
`
`embodiment that does not."
`
`POR, 36, 37.
`
`Petitioner cites nothing to support the proposition that a cache including both
`
`volatile memory and mass storage is an "optional" feature of the '794 Patent. Reply,
`
`15. Moreover, the Reply's argument that "in other embodiments, 'memory 103' is
`
`used for different purposes, such as to store software and other types of data,"
`
`misreads the '794 Patent. Id., 16. The embodiments are all consistent: in every
`
`embodiment, the memory 103 is main memory, which includes program data, but it
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`also serves as an important part of the cache 102, along with the mass storage 104.
`
`POR, 6-9.
`
`The file history is no more helpful to Petitioner. The Reply makes much of a
`
`statement in an amendment about the scope of the term "memory." Reply, 14-15
`
`(quoting EX-1002, 482). What the Reply neglects to mention is that the paragraph
`
`preceding the quoted paragraph from EX-1002 discusses the addition of nineteen
`
`"Beauregard-style claims reciting memories that store instructions," before adding
`
`boilerplate language about both the memories and the instructions in the preambles
`
`of the newly-added claims, which recited "[a] memory storing information including
`
`instructions." EX-1002, 477, 481-82 (emphasis added). This comment is immaterial
`
`to the inventor's understanding of the term "memory" at time of filing, especially in
`
`the context of the disclosed cache. Petitioner cites no authority indicating that this
`
`novel concept of "reverse prosecution history estoppel" can be used to broaden,
`
`using the prosecution history, the plain and ordinary meaning of a limitation not even
`
`addressed in the cited portion of the file history. No court would accept that
`
`argument from a patent owner asserting infringement, and this Board should not
`
`accept it from Petitioner.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning requires no
`lexicography or disavowal
`
`c)
`
`The Reply spends significant time discussing the issues of lexicography and
`
`disavowal. Reply, 12-14. These arguments are misplaced. The case, Azure
`
`Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cited by Petitioner, is
`
`illustrative. Reply, 12. In that case, "the parties [did] not meaningfully dispute the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning" of the term, but the District Court departed from
`
`that meaning anyway. Azure v. CSR, 771 F.3d, 1348 (2014). The Federal Circuit
`
`vacated, holding, "[d]eparture from the ordinary and customary meaning is
`
`permissible only when the patentee has acted as his own lexicographer or disavowed
`
`claim scope in the specification or during the prosecution history." Id. (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`In this case, neither disavowal or lexicography is an issue, because the
`
`evidence, demonstrated by POR and recapitulated above, indicates that POR applied
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "cache memory including mass storage."
`
`This is not to say that the intrinsic evidence fails to support this meaning, because it
`
`certainly does. Supra §II.A.2.b; POR, 35-37. Nonetheless, the issues of
`
`lexicography and disavowal are red herrings, because it is Petitioner that now argues
`
`for departure from the ordinary meaning of the claim term.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`Extrinsic evidence does not support Petitioner's
`construction
`
`d)
`
`The Reply argues as if POR relied extensively on extrinsic evidence to support
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of "cache memory including mass storage." Reply,
`
`17-18. This is a strawman argument. Instead, POR merely explained that extrinsic
`
`evidence is consistent with the intrinsic evidence, the understanding of both experts,
`
`and even Petitioner's original understanding of the disputed term. POR, 37.
`
`Moreover, while Petitioner would prefer to use "the most general sense" in which
`
`memory can be described in the dictionary (Reply, 17-18), Dr. Sundaresan opined
`
`that "a POSITA at the time would mos