`
`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 DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b) and the Order Setting Oral Argument 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.70 ("Order") (Paper 31 at 3), Patent Owner CA, Inc. ("Patent Owner")
`
`submits herewith Patent Owner's Demonstratives as required by the Order. Patent
`
`Owner also certifies that on November 3, 2022, Patent Owner served Patent Owner's
`
`Demonstratives on Petitioner Netflix, Inc., as required by the Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: November 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/Daniel S. Young/
`
`Daniel S. Young, Reg. No. 48,277
`
`ADSERO IP LLC D/B/A/
`
`SWANSON & BRATSCHUN LLC
`
`8210 Southpark Terrace
`
`Littleton, CO 80120
`
`(303) 268-0066 (telephone)
`
`(833) 793-0703 (facsimile)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chad E. King, Reg. No. 44,187
`KING IAM LLC
`10574 Lieter Place
`Lone Tree, CO 80124
`(303) 482-1528 (telephone)
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner CA, Inc.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of
`
`the foregoing PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVES was filed through the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) electronic filing system
`
`on November 8, 2022 with a confirmation copy served via electronic mail, on the
`
`following counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`Harper Batts
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`email: HBatts@sheppardmullin.com
`Jeffrey Liang
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`email: JLiang@sheppardmullin.com
`Chris Ponder
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`email: CPonder@sheppardmullin.com
`Jonathan DeFosse
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`email: JDeFosse@sheppardmullin.com
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`email: Legal-Netflix-Broadcom-IPRs@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`Dated: November 8, 2022
`
`By: /s/Daniel S. Young/
` Daniel S. Young
`
`Registration No. 48,277
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`(Petitioner)
`
`v.
`CA, Inc.,
`
`(Patent Owner)
`
`IPR2021-01319
`U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794
`
`Patent Owner's Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`’794 Patent
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001); POR-01319 at 1
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Abstract; POR-01319 at 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`’794 Patent
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001); POR-01319 at 1
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 6:30-35; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 23; POR-01319 at 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Prior Solutions
`
`’794 Patent
`
`'794 Patent describes prior
`solutions, including proxy
`servers, which suffer several
`inefficiencies
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:26-57; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 24; POR-01319 at 4
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Cache Engine Solution
`
`’794 Patent
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:58-62; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 24; POR-01319 at 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Cache Engine Solution
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`’794 Patent
`
`* * *
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 25; POR-01319 at 5
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 4:15-18, 4:33-39; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 25; POR-01319 at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Cache Engine Solution
`’794 Patent
`
`One important optimization
`is the use of a cache that
`includes both volatile memory
`(e.g., RAM) and mass
`storage (e.g., disk drives)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 1; POR-01319 at 6
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Cache Engine Solution
`’794 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 2; POR-01319 at 7
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Cache Engine Solution
`
`’794 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 4:9-14, 8:9-13, 9:66-10:3, 10:17-24 POR-01319 at 8
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Cache Engine Solution
`
`’794 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:58-62; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 29; POR-01319 at 9
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Cache Engine Solution
`
`’794 Patent
`
`'794 Patent teaches that the
`invention provide this “direct
`control” in two related ways
`
`’794 Patent
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:8-13, see also id., 9:66-10:3; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 30; POR-01319 at 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 9:58-65, see also id., 4:15; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 31; POR-01319 at 10-11
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Claim 1
`
`’794 Patent, Claim 1
`
`1a
`
`1b
`
`1c
`
`1d
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 17:5-17; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 32; POR-01319 at 11-12
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Claim 9
`’794 Patent, Claim 9
`
`9a
`
`9b
`
`9c
`
`9d
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 17:49-56; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 33; POR-01319 at 12-13
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Claim 17
`
`’794 Patent, Claim 17
`
`17a
`
`17b
`
`17c
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 18:10-18; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 34; POR-01319 at 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | IPR 2021-01319
`
`GROUND
`
`CLAIMS
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1, 3-9, 11-16
`
`17
`
`BASIS
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`Medin and Seltzer
`
`Medin and Markatos
`
`POR-01319 at 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Medin
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Medin
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 36; POR-01319 at 22
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 37; POR-01319 at 23
`
`Medin (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 1; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 36; POR-01319 at 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Medin
`
`Medin
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 37; POR-01319 at 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`Medin (Ex. 1004) at 3:51-4:30; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 37; POR-01319 at 23
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Medin
`
`Medin
`
`Medin (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 3, Fig.5; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 40; POR-01319 at 24-25
`
`Medin (Ex. 1004) at 5:60-64; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 40; POR-01319 at 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Medin
`
`Medin
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Houh
`
`Q. Okay. And if one of the regional computers 304 wanted to pull data
`from regional disk array 306, how would that computer go about
`finding where on regional disk array 306 that data is located?
`
`A.
`
`I mean, generally speaking, there are often indices and information
`built into the disks also recorded with the information of the data
`that's stored onto the disks that are -- that tell whoever is trying to
`access the data how to reconstruct the data. That information
`can be examined by software, and then an abstraction layer
`provided to the higher levels of software -- of user application
`software, for example, that allow the applications to access chunks
`of data on the disks.
`
`Q.
`
`So would that description that you just provided with respect to the
`indices be a type of like a file system, like kind of a map, that would
`show where the data is located within the disk array 306?
`
`A. A file system might be an example of something that could read all
`this information off
`the disk and provide the organizational
`methods for writing and how to organize the disk. That's one
`example of software that can be used for that purpose.
`
`Petitioner’s Expert agrees
`that regional disk array 306
`is disk storage not memory
`(RAM), as that term is used
`the ‘794 Patent
`
`Medin (Ex. 1004) at 8:37-42, Fig. 3;
`Ex. 2018 at ¶ 40; POR-01319 at 25-26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Testimony of Dr. Houh (Ex. 2019) at 38:23-41:1; POR-01319 at 26
`
`19
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Medin
`
`Medin
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Houh
`
`Q. And I think earlier, when we were talking about Figure 3 and we were
`talking about the regional server 302, you had talked about certain
`software being located on the server that helps dictate what data to put
`on regional disk array 306 and what data to pull off of it. Is that a fair
`summary of what we talked about earlier?
`
`A. Actually, I just want to go back to the previous question and just
`add one thing, which is, I think you described the file system -- or
`the software as a map. But the software isn't the map itself. The
`map itself is the data written on the disk. The file system is the
`thing that knows -- is one example of software that knows how to
`read that particular map and write that particular map using
`certain -- you know, certain organizational methods. So it knows
`how to write the map and read the map back. And so a particular
`file system software might -- different flavors might actually do it in
`different ways. So they're not the map, though, is my point; is that
`they know how to write maps and read maps to get to all the data,
`but they're not the. map themselves.
`
`Testimony of Dr. Houh (Ex. 2019) at 38:23-41:1; POR-01319 at 26
`
`Petitioner’s Expert agrees
`that regional disk array 306
`would have a file system
`
`Medin also describes the
`function of the regional
`server, as providing the
`regional computers access
`to the regional disk array
`
`Medin (Ex. 1004) at 8:37-42, Fig. 3;
`Ex. 2018 at ¶ 40; POR-01319 at 25-26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Medin
`
`Medin
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Houh
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`So when we were talking about, earlier, the regional server 302 in Figure
`3 of the Medin reference, and we were talking about that software on that
`server, would that -- would your understanding be that that software was
`stored in the memory module shown in Figure 5?
`
`I mean, that's -- that is entirely consistent with what Figure 5 would
`be and what a person of ordinary skill would understand, that
`computers, such as the regional computer, have memory modules in
`which various software modules can be running and are actually part
`of the memory.
`
`* * *
`
`Q. Okay. So within the regional data center 118, when Medin talks about,
`you know, storing information, that information is stored in regional disk
`array 306; is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`that's a consistent
`to Medin,
`think with respect
`I
`I mean,
`interpretation. But I think I did point somewhere earlier, with respect
`to the storing, that there is a teaching that it's storing content at the
`bottom of column 11 in Medin -- it stores content in the disk array.
`
`Medin (Ex. 1004) at Fig.5; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 40; POR-01319 at 24-25
`
`Petitioner’s expert agreed that memory module 501 stores software –
`information (web content) stored in regional disk array 306
`
`Testimony of Dr. Houh (Ex. 2019) at 41:25-42:11 and 47:2-12; POR-01319 at 26-27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Medin
`
`RDCs (Figures 3, 5) – The Parties' Experts Agree:
`
`1. The regional disk array (306), which is shared by the regional computers, provides
`mass storage and is not memory (RAM)
`
`2. A POSITA would understand that such a disk array typically would use a file system
`to organize the storage of files
`
`3. Medin fails to disclose caching web content in any location other than the
`regional disk array
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Ex. 2018 at ¶ 41; accord Ex. 2019, 30:10-38:22; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 41; accord Ex. 2019, 38:23-41:1;
`Ex. 2019, 41:25-42:11, 47:2-12; accord Ex. 2018 at ¶¶ 42-43; POR-01319 at 26-27
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Medin
`
`Thus, with respect to the RDCs, there is no factual dispute that:
`
`1. Medin fails to teach a cache that includes a memory and mass storage, and
`
`2. Medin fails to teach operating a cache having mass storage independently of a file
`system for the mass storage
`
`Ex. 2018 at ¶ 43; POR-01319 at 27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Medin
`Medin Further Discloses HEs 120 That Have a Caching Server 402
`
`Medin
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`Medin (Ex. 1004) at Fig.4; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 44; POR-01319 at 28
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Medin
`Each of Caching Computer 403 Has a Memory Module 601 and Cache Storage 616
`
`Medin
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`Medin (Ex. 1004) at Fig.6; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 45; POR-01319 at 29
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Medin
`Medin
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 46; POR-01319 at 30-31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`Medin (Ex. 1004) at Fig.4, 6; POR-01319 at 28-31
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Medin
`
`Thus, with respect to the HEs, there is no factual dispute that:
`
`1. Medin fails to teach that web data is cached anywhere but in mass storage (i.e., the
`disk array 306 of the regional server 302 (FIGS. 3 and 5) and the cache storage 616
`of the caching computer 403 (FIGS. 4 and 6)), and
`
`2. Medin fails to teach that the mass storage is implemented without a file system
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 47; POR-01319 at 30-31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Seltzer
`
`Seltzer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for dramatically improved
`LFS “offers the potential
`write performance,
`faster recovery time, and faster
`file creation and deletion than traditional UNIX
`file systems …”
`
`BUT
`
`that,
`however,
`admit,
`do
`authors
`Seltzer's
`“[u]nfortunately, an enhanced version of FFS (with read
`and write
`clustering) provides
`comparable
`and
`sometimes superior performance to our LFS” …
`As an additional advantage over FFS (an earlier
`“FastFile System”)
`
`“[h]owever, LFS can be extended to provide additional
`functionality such as embedded transactions and
`versioning, not easily implemented in traditional
`file systems.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Seltzer (Ex. 1005) at 8; POR-01319 at 31
`
`28
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Seltzer
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 49; POR-01319 at 31-32
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Markatos
`
`Markatos
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`Markatos (Ex. 2006) at 7; POR-01319 at 32
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Grounds | Overview of Markatos
`
`Specifically, Markatos describes
`its proposal as follows:
`
`Markatos
`
`In other words, to the extent Markatos'
`proposed system can find documents
`in main memory (i.e., RAM), it can avoid
`use of a file system.
`
`POR-01319 at 33
`
`Markatos (Ex. 2006) at 8; POR-01319 at 32-33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | Independent Claims 1 and 9
`
`’794 Patent, Claim 1 and 9
`
`The Petition fails to:
`
`1) Establish that Medin discloses limitation [b];
`
`2) Allege that Seltzer remedies Medin’s failure
`to disclose limitation [b]; and
`
`3) Establish that a POSITA would find it
`obvious to combine Medin and Seltzer
`to disclose limitation [d].
`
`1b
`
`1d
`
`9b
`
`9d
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’794 Patent at Claim 1 and 9; POR-01319 at 35-36
`
`32
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | Medin Fails to Disclose
`Limitation [b]
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`’794 Patent
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 59; POR-01319 at 35
`
`’794 Patent at 2:9-10; 3:30-31; POR-01319 at 35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | Medin Fails to Disclose
`Limitation [b]
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Houh
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 61; POR-01319 at 36
`
`Q. Okay. Are there any examples of where a cache engine -- any examples in the
`'794 Patent where the cache engine stores network objects only in memory?
`
`A.
`
`I mean, I can't recall, one way or the other, without, kind of, reviewing
`the spec for, kind of, this issue. But I think -- I don't recall anything that
`precludes what you just asked about. You know, I don't recall any
`language that says you can't do this, you can't do that, that kind
`of language which would preclude that interpretation or that use of
`the memory.
`
`Q. Okay. Are you aware of any examples or embodiments in the '794 Patent
`where a cache engine can only store network objects in mass storage?
`
`A.
`
`I mean, again, I don't have the spec memorized, everything it does and
`doesn't say. I mean, I think I'd like to -- I mean, if you want me to take
`the time to look for examples like that, I can do it. But I think it would
`take some time.
`
`Testimony of Dr. Houh (Ex. 2019) at 191:23-193:11; POR-01319 at 36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | Medin Fails to Disclose
`Limitation [b]
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Houh
`
`Q. Okay. So maybe just ask it a different way. Sitting here today, based on your
`current knowledge of the '794 Patent, you're not aware of any examples
`disclosed in the '794 Patent where a cache engine only -- stores network
`objects only in mass storage. Is that fair?
`
`A. Well, I don't have that memorized. I mean, nothing comes to mind with
`such limiting language. But I mean, the specification says what it says.
`And so I'll
`let the specification stand for itself as to what it says.
`It's only that I don't recall such limiting language. It might be there,
`but I think, you know, if you want me to take the time to review, we could
`do that.
`
`Testimony of Dr. Houh (Ex. 2019) at 191:23-193:11; POR-01319 at 36
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 61; POR-01319 at 36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | Medin Fails to Disclose
`Limitation [b]
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (Ex. 2020) at 320; POR-01319 at 37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | Medin Fails to Disclose
`Limitation [b]
`
`Petition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`Pet. at 39 (emphasis added); POR-01319 at 38
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | Medin Fails to Disclose
`Limitation [b]
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 64; POR-01319 at 39
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | Medin Fails to Disclose
`Limitation [b]
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Houh
`
`Q. So maybe I'll say it this way then: As you sit here today, you're not
`aware of any disclosure in Medin that talks about the content
`obtained from sources 114 is disclosed -- I’m sorry -- is stored in
`memory module 504, correct?
`
`A. Well, I don't see that it says in that section of this description of
`a preferred embodiment at the bottom of 11 where it is being
`stored in memory module 504. But that's just one embodiment.
`And Medin does describe that the invention is not intended to
`be limited by the preferred embodiments discussed within the
`specification. And I think there are a lot of things that could be
`consistent with what's described and claimed in Medin that are
`not actually disclosed.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 66; POR-01319 at 39-40
`
`Testimony of Dr. Houh (Ex. 2019) at 48:3-19; POR-01319 at 39-40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | Medin Fails to Disclose
`Limitation [b]
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Houh
`
`Q. Does the Medin reference talk about whether -- well, bad question.
`In the description of Medin, does caching module 622 store
`information from LANs 114 in any location other than cache
`storage 616?
`
`A. Well, I'm looking in column 11, where it's describing some of
`the interaction with the cache storage 616. And I don't see that
`it’s limiting that storage only to be in 616; it's just in this
`preferred embodiment,
`it's describing the use of cache
`storage 616.
`
`Testimony of Dr. Houh (Ex. 2019) at 63:7-17; POR-01319 at 41
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 67; POR-01319 at 41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | Medin Fails to Disclose
`Limitation [b]
`
`Petition
`
`Petitioner's own arguments
`foreclose the speculation that
`either the disk array 306 or the
`cache storage 616 possibly
`could be "memory"
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`Pet. at 39 (emphasis added); Ex. 2018 at ¶ 68; POR-01319 at 42
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner’s "Cache Memory" Claim Construction
`
`’794 Patent, Claim 1 and 9
`
`1b
`
`9b
`
`Patent Owner’s Response further
`explained that all the record evidence
`supports this recognition, including:
`
`1. The '794 Patent itself (POR at 35-36)
`
`2. The use of the term "memory" in
`Petitioner's own references (POR at 36)
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 17:8-11 (Claim 1), 17:40-43 (Claim 9); POSR at 2-3
`
`3. The testimony of both experts (POR at 37)
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 59; POR-01319 at 35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4. The common understanding in the art
`at the time of invention (POR at 37)
`
`5. Petitioner's own arguments in the
`Petition (POR at 37-38)
`
`POSR at 2-3
`
`42
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner’s "Cache Memory" Claim Construction
`Petitioner Changes Its Position on "Cache Memory"
`
`Petition
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. at 39; POSR at 2-3
`
`Reply at 19-20; POSR at 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner’s "Cache Memory" Claim Construction
`Petitioner Changes Its Position on "Cache Memory"
`
`Petition
`
`Petition does not in any way support Petitioner's change of position
`
`* * *
`
`Pet. at 31; POSR at 4-6
`
`Pet. at 14; POSR at 4-6
`
`Pet. at 37-38 ; POSR at 4-6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. at 28; POSR at 4-6
`
`Pet. at 39; POSR at 4-6
`
`44
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner’s "Cache Memory" Claim Construction
`Petitioner Changes Its Position on "Cache Memory"
`
`Petition
`
`Petition does not in any way support Petitioner's change of position
`
`Pet. at 39; POSR at 4-6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. at 43; POSR at 4-6
`
`Pet. at 47; POSR at 4-6
`
`Pet. at 64; POSR at 4-6
`
`45
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner’s "Cache Memory" Claim Construction
`The Board Recognized That “Cache Memory” Includes “Memory”
`
`Institution Decision
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`Institution Decision at 16; POSR at 6
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner’s "Cache Memory" Claim Construction
`Petitioner Attempts Argue Away From Its Earlier Position
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`Reply at 20; POSR at 7
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner’s "Cache Memory" Claim Construction
`Petitioner's New Argument Is Wrong on the Merits
`
`’ 794 Patent, Claim 1
`
`Petitioner's new argument would
`remove the term “memory” from
`the independent claims.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 17:5-17; POSR at 8-9
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner’s "Cache Memory" Claim Construction
`Petitioner's New Argument Is Wrong on the Merits
`
`Petition
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Pet. at 9; POSR at 9-10
`
`Reply at 15; POSR at 9-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner's Use of Seltzer to Limitation [b]
`
`Petitioner’s Argument That Seltzer Teaches Limitation [b] Is an Argument Raised for the First
`Time in Its Reply
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Petition at 43 discusses limitation [c]
`– not limitation [b]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 25
`
`50
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | Petitioner Does Not Argue that
`Seltzer Remedies Medin for [b]
`
`Petition
`
`No mention of Seltzer
`until limitation [c]
`
`Pet. at 1; POR-01319 at 42
`
`Pet. at 41, 43; POR-01319 at 42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner's Use of Seltzer to Limitation [b]
`
`Petitioner’s Argument That Seltzer Teaches Limitation [b] Is an Argument Raised for the First
`Time in Its Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`Sur-Reply at 20
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner's Use of Seltzer to Limitation [b]
`
`Petitioner’s Argument That Seltzer Teaches Limitation [b] Is an Argument Raised for the First
`Time in Its Reply
`
`Petition
`
`Petitioner never cites Seltzer as
`evidence against Claims 1 and 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. at 62-63
`
`53
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner's Use of Seltzer to Limitation [b]
`
`Petitioner’s Argument That Seltzer Teaches Limitation [b] Is Wrong on the Merits
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`Sur-Reply at 21-22
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | A POSITA Would Not Find it
`Obvious to Combine Medin with Seltzer for Limitation [d]
`
`’794 Patent, Claim 1
`
`’794 Patent, Claim 9
`
`1d
`
`1 2 3 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 17:5-17 (Claim 1), 17:49-56 (Claim 9)
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | Petitioner Does Not Argue that
`Seltzer Remedies Medin for [b]
`
`Markatos
`
`Markatos (Ex. 1006) at 18 (emphasis in original); see Ex. 2018 at ¶ 70; POR-01319 at 43-44
`
`Given this teaching from Petitioner’s own reference, a POSITA would find no reason to
`combine Seltzer's write buffers with Medin's mass storage cache to arrive at the claimed
`cache memory
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | A POSITA Would Not Find it
`Obvious to Combine Medin with Seltzer for [d]
`
`Petition
`
`The Petition solely relies on
`Seltzer to satisfy the
`requirements of limitation [d]
`
`No reference of Medin
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`Pet. at 44-48; POR-01319 at 44
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | A POSITA Would Not Find it
`Obvious to Combine Medin with Seltzer for [d]
`
`Petitioner's First Justification for Combination Fails
`
`Petition
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`Pet. at 27-28; POR-01319 at 44
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 71; POR-01319 at 44
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | A POSITA Would Not Find it
`Obvious to Combine Medin with Seltzer for [d]
`
`Petitioner’s Second Justification for Combination Fails
`
`Petition
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`’794 Pet. at 28; POR-01319 at 45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 73; POR-01319 at 45
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | A POSITA Would Not Find it
`Obvious to Combine Medin with Seltzer for [d]
`
`Markatos
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`Markatos (Ex. 1006) at 7-8, 18 (emphasis in original); see Ex. 2018 at ¶ 73; POR-01319 at 46
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 1 | A POSITA Would Not Find it
`Obvious to Combine Medin with Seltzer for [d]
`
`Petitioner's Expert's Testimony Amounts to Little More Than a Restatement of Petitioner's Own Argument
`
`Petition
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Houh
`
`Pet. at 30; POR-01319 at 47
`
`Declaration of Dr. Houh Ex. 1003 at ¶ 121; Ex. 2018 at 75; POR-01319 at 47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 2 | Independent Claim 17
`
`’794 Patent, Claim 17
`
`17a
`
`17b
`
`17c
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 18:10-18 (Claim17); Ex. 2018 at ¶ 34; POR-01319 at 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 2 | Medin Fails to
`Disclose Limitation [b]
`
`Medin Fails to Disclose Limitation [b] and Markatos Does Not Remedy This Failing
`
`Petition
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Pet. at 62-63; POR-01319 at 49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 78; POR-01319 at 49
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 2 | Markatos Fails to
`Disclose Limitation [c]
`
`’794 Patent, Claim 17
`
`17b
`
`17c
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`’794 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 18:13-18; Ex. 2018 at ¶ 80; POR-01319 at 49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 78; POR-01319 at 49
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 2 | Markatos Fails to
`Disclose Limitation [c]
`
`Contrast Two Readings of Petitioner's Argument:
`
`1. The combination of Medin and Markatos no longer maintains network
`objects in a cache that includes mass storage, because the main
`memory is the only cache; or
`
`2. The combination of Medin and Markatos maintains network objects in
`a cache that includes mass storage, but does not maintain the objects
`in the cache independently of the file system for the mass storage
`
`Petitioner Cannot have it both ways as in either case, the asserted combination of
`Medin and Markatos cannot satisfy both limitation [b] and [c]
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018 at ¶ 81; POR-01319 at 50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`65
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 2 | Markatos Fails to
`Disclose Limitation [c]
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Petitioner misinterprets Markatos
`as it does not disclose that the
`network objects are maintained
`only in main memory
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 85; POR-01319 at 52
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 2 | Markatos Fails to
`Disclose Limitation [c]
`
`Markatos
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`67
`
`Markatos (Ex. 1006, Figs. 12, 13 (annotated); Ex. 2018 at ¶ 85; POR-01319 at 53
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 2 | Markatos Fails to
`Disclose Limitation [c]
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Houh
`
`is
`the maximum hit rate that you get
`in Figure 12,
`Q. Okay. And then,
`somewhere between 60 and -- probably around 60 percent.
`Is that what
`Figure 12 is showing?
`
`A. Well, I mean, I think, you know, adaptive kind of goes all over the place,
`between 50 something and maybe 60 something, if that's what you're
`referring to, the adaptive bar. The different bars are color-coded or gray-
`shade coded.
`
`Q. Right. All I'm trying to say is that, in the best scenario, you get a hit rate of
`somewhere around 60 percent with a cache of 512 kilobits, right?
`
`A.
`
`For particular traces indicated and the specific sequence of requests in
`the trace for the simulation, that's the result
`
`Q. Okay. So then, with the larger cache shown in Figure 13, the best hit rate you
`get is somewhere around 90 percent; is that right?
`
`A. That's about -- that looks about right.
`
`Testimony of Dr. Houh (Ex. 2019) at 135:10-136:6; POR-01319 at 39-40
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 85; POR-01319 at 54
`
`Thus, the parties' experts agree that Markatos teaches that, in the best-case
`simulation, over 10% of the documents are not stored in the cache
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 2 | Markatos Fails to
`Disclose Limitation [c]
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Houh
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`Declaration of Dr. Houh Ex. 1003 at ¶ 86; POR-01319 at 54
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 2 | Markatos Fails to
`Disclose Limitation [c]
`
`Petition
`
`Markatos Expressly Teaches
`Caching Documents in Mass
`Storage Having a File System
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`Pet. at 63-64 (quoting Ex. 1006 at 8 (emphasis added)) (citing Ex. 1003 at ¶ 204); Ex. 2018 at ¶ 91;
`POR-01319 at 57
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Challenged Ground 2 | Markatos Fails to
`Disclose Limitation [c]
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Sundaresan
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sundaresan (Ex. 2018) at ¶ 92; POR-01319 at 58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`71
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner's Limitation 17[c] Claim Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`72
`
`POR-01319 at 58
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Petitioner's Limitation 17[c] Claim Construction
`Petitioner's New Argument Is Improper and Incorrect
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`Reply at 22-23
`
`Petitioner cites nothing in its Petition to
`support this new argument.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POSR at 16
`
`73
`
`
`
`’794 Patent | Markatos Does Not Teach Limitation 17[c]
`
`Petitioner's New Argument Is Improper and Incorrect
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`Reply at 31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sur-Reply at 24-25
`
`74
`
`
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`(Petitioner)
`
`v.
`CA, Inc.,
`
`(Patent Owner)
`
`IPR2021-01319
`U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794
`
`Patent Owner's Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`75
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
