`
`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. IPR2022-00322
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,656,419 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 21 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 May 24, 2023, Patent Owner served Patent Owner's
`
`Demonstratives on Petitioner Netflix, Inc., as required by the Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: May 30, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/Daniel S. Young/
`
`Daniel S. Young, Reg. No. 48,277
`
`QUARLES & BRADY LLP
`
`8210 Southpark Terrace
`
`Littleton, CO 80120
`
`(303) 268-0066 (telephone)
`
`(833) 793-0703 (facsimile)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chad E. King, Reg. No. 44,187
`KING IAM LLC
`PO BOX 630917
`Lone Tree, CO 80124
`(303) 482-1528 (telephone)
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner CA, Inc. ("CA")
`
`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 May 30, 2023 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
`Chris Ponder
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`email: CPonder@sheppardmullin.com
`Jeffrey Liang
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`email: JLiang@sheppardmullin.com
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`email: Legal-Netflix-Broadcom-IPRs@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`Dated: May 30, 2023
`
`
`
`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)
`
`IPR2022 – 00322
`U.S. Patent No. 8,656,419
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`’419 Patent
`
`’419 Patent
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1; POR at 1
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 1; POR at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claim 1 | Flat, Distributed Computing System
`The claimed flat, distributed computing system involves one or more processors performing
`the following operations:
`
`1.
`
`telling a plurality of nodes to perform an operation;
`
`2.
`
`instructing the plurality of nodes how to perform the operation using computer code;
`
`3.
`
`telling the plurality of nodes what to do with a result of the operation; and
`
`4. wherein the processor does not know which one of the plurality of nodes will
`perform the operation.
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:12-27; POR at 4-9; Sur-reply at 1-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Claim 1 | Flat, Distributed Computing System
`Petitioner Treats Independent Claims 12 and 18 in the Same Manner as Claim 1
`
`’419 Patent
`
`[1b]
`
`[1c]
`
`[1d]
`
`[1e]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1;
`POR at 9; Pet. at 21
`
`4
`
`
`
`’419 Patent | Flat, Distributed Computing System
`
`’419 Patent
`
`Each node in the system has an
`evaluator, which sends and receives
`instructions, locates and transmits
`code, and performs operations.
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:8-12, 7:12-27; POR at 4-5
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 1; POR at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`’419 Patent | Flat, Distributed Computing System
`Advantages:
`
`1. Operation may be called without knowing the node that will perform the operation
`
`2. Nodes may share knowledge for performing an operation
`
`3. Application may run with increased efficiency
`
`4. Code may be updated in real-time without having to deploy and install compiled code
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:27–39; Declaration of Dr. Rosenblum (Ex. 2004) at ¶ 31; POR at 8; Sur-reply 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`’419 Patent | Challenged Grounds
`
`GROUNDS
`
`CLAIMS
`
`STATUTORY BASIS
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`1-4, 6-10, 12,
`13, 15, 16, 18
`
`5, 11, 14, 17,
`19, 20
`
`5, 11, 14, 17,
`19, 20
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Verbeke
`(EX-1004)
`
`Verbeke and Jalan
`(EX-1005)
`
`Verbeke, Jalan and Neiman
`(EX-1006)
`
`Pet. at 12; POR at 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Verbeke | Hierarchical Communication System
`
`Verbeke
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Rosenblum
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at 1; POR at 14
`
`Declaration of Dr. Rosenblum (Ex. 2004) at ¶ 39; POR at 16; Sur-reply at 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Verbeke | Hierarchical Communication System
`Verbeke
`
`Task B
`
`• Figure 6 Illustrates Verbeke’s Overall System
`
`•
`
`Job submitter communicates only with the
`task dispatcher peer group
`
`• Each of the workers communicates only
`with the task dispatcher
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 1; POR at 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 6 (annotated); Ex. 2004 at ¶ 4; POR at 19
`
`9
`
`
`
`Verbeke | Job Submitter
`
`Verbeke
`
`1700
`
`1702
`
`1704
`
`1706
`
`The job submitter communicates
`only with the task dispatcher
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 1; POR at 21
`
`Job Submitter
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 16 (annotated); POR at 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Verbeke | Job Submitter Functionality
`
`Verbeke
`
`The job submitter communicates
`only with the task dispatcher
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 1; POR at 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 11
`(annotated); POR at 21
`
`11
`
`
`
`Verbeke | Worker Node
`
`Functions Performed
`by Worker Node
`
`Worker Node
`
`The worker communicates only
`with the task dispatcher
`
`POR at 22-23
`
`1600
`
`1602
`
`1606
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Figs. 10, 15 (annotated);
`Ex. 2005 at 171:17-24, 172:11-18; POR at 22-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Verbeke | Code Repository and Repository Manager
`Verbeke
`
`The code repository
`communicates only with the
`task dispatcher
`
`POR at 24-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 5 (annotated); Ex. 2004 at ¶ 48; POR at 24-25
`
`
`
`Verbeke | Task Dispatcher
`
`Verbeke
`
`Task dispatcher performs functionality in Figure 9
`
`• Task dispatcher determines whether code is
`in the repository and, if not, receives it from
`job submitter
`
`• Assigns task to workers
`
`• Polls repository for code
`
`• Receives result of task
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 9 (annotated); POR at 29-33
`
`14
`
`
`
`Verbeke
`
`1500
`
`1504
`
`1506
`
`1512
`
`1508
`
`1510
`
`1502
`
`1514
`
`1518
`
`1528
`
`1522
`
`1524
`
`1524
`
`1516
`
`1520
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 14 (annotated); POR at 29-33
`
`15
`
`Verbeke | Task Dispatcher
`
`• Task dispatcher performs functionality
`in Figure 14
`–
`Intermediates interaction of job submitter with the
`repository manager to receive job request and
`obtain code
`Interacts with job repository manager and the
`worker to identify available worker, obtain a task
`from the repository, and assign task to the worker
`– Provides the needed code to the worker
`– Receives/stores the results from the worker
`
`–
`
`•
`
`Job submitter does not interact with the
`worker or the repository manager
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Comparison of ’419 Patent and Verbeke
`
`’419 Patent - Claim 1
`
`Verbeke
`
`• First node tells plurality of nodes to perform
`an operation
`
`• No communication between job submitter
`(first node) and workers
`
`• First node instructs plurality of nodes how to
`perform the operation
`
`• First node tells the plurality of nodes what to
`do with the result
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`• Job submitter submits job to task dispatcher
`
`• Task dispatcher assigns a task to a single worker
`
`• Task dispatcher provides resources to the
`repository and/or worker
`
`• Task dispatcher receives and stores results
`
`• Task dispatcher indicates to job submitter when
`and where results can be obtained
`
`POR at 33-34
`
`16
`
`
`
`’419 Patent | The Claims Require Direct Communication
`
`’419 Patent
`
`[1b]
`
`[1c]
`
`[1d]
`
`[1e]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:12-27; POR at
`34-39; Pet. at 21
`
`
`
`’419 Patent | The Specification Describes Direct Communication
`
`’419 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 1; POR at 34-39
`
`
`
`’419 Patent | Petitioner Lacks Support For Its Indirect
`Communication Interpretation
`
`’419 Patent
`
`The Communication Network is
`Not an Intermediary
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 1; Sur-reply at 6; (Ex. 1031) at 89:21-90:6
`
`
`
`’419 Patent | Petitioner Lacks Support For Its Indirect
`Communication Interpretation
`The X,Y, Z Example is Consistent with Patent Owner’s Reading
`
`’419 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 4:46-59; Sur-reply at 7
`
`
`
`’419 Patent | Petitioner Lacks Support For Its Indirect
`Communication Interpretation
`Dr. Jagadish’s Anonymity Reasoning is Flawed
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Jagadish
`
`’419 Patent
`
`A.
`
`[L]ook, I don’t know what “an intermediary
`means, right?
`You’re calling a bulletin board “an intermediary.”
`The point is: If you’re going to talk to me and not
`know that you’re talking to me, there has to be
`some way for me to hide my identity so that
`you can talk to me and not know that you’re
`talking me.
`
`Testimony of Dr. Jagadish (Ex. 2005) at 141:13-25 (emphasis added); POR at 36-38
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 6:1-11; POR at 36-38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Verbeke Discloses Indirect Communication
`Verbeke
`
`Task B
`
`• The job submitter (first node) communicates
`to the task dispatcher.
`
`• The task dispatcher communicates to the
`worker nodes.
`
`POR at 43-44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 6 (annotated); POR at 43-44
`
`22
`
`
`
`Petition Fails Under An Indirect Communication Theory
`Verbeke does not disclose:
`
`1. Communicating the same, single operation to a plurality of nodes;
`
`2.
`
`Instructing the plurality of nodes how to perform the operation using computer code; or
`
`3. Telling the plurality of nodes what to do with a result.
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:16-27; POR at 39-67
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`’419 Patent | Claims - Single Operation / Plurality of Nodes
`The Challenged Claims Require that the First Node Communicates the
`Same Single Operation to the Plurality of Nodes
`’419 Patent
`
`[1b]
`
`[1c]
`
`[1d]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1, 7:12-27;
`POR at 39-40; Pet. at 21
`
`24
`
`
`
`’419 Patent | Claims Require Communicating A Single Operation
`
`’419 Patent File History
`
`Prosecution History Supports
`PO’s Reading
`
`POR at 10-11; Sur-reply at 12
`
`’419 Patent File History (Ex. 1002) at 161-162; POR at 10-11; Sur-reply at 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Attempts to Rewrite the Claims Fail
`
`1. The claim language does not support communicating portions of the same operation
`to different workers.
`
`2. The claims do not require the message to be the same but do require that the
`operation told to the plurality is the same.
`
`POR at 40-42; Sur-reply at 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Mapping of Verbeke’s Terminology
`
`’419 Patent
`application
`operation
`
`Verbeke
`job
`task
`
`POR at 43; Pet. at 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Verbeke Does Not Disclose The Claimed "Telling"
`
`’419 Patent
`
`Verbeke does not disclose a job
`submitter telling a plurality of
`nodes to perform an operation
`
`[1b]
`
`POR-00322 at 44-57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1, 7:12-27;
`POR at 44-57
`
`28
`
`
`
`Verbeke’s Task Dispatcher Communicates With A Single Worker
`For Each Task
`
`1. Job submitter submits a job to the task dispatcher
`
`2. The task dispatcher divides the request into a plurality of different instructions
`
`3. The task dispatcher sends each instruction to a different worker
`
`4. The task dispatcher bases its allocation on a polling methodology
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶¶ 0074-76, 0096, 0102; POR at 46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`Verbeke’s Task Dispatcher Communicates With A Single Worker
`For Each Task
`
`Verbeke
`
`Figure 5 Confirms PO’s
`Reading of Verbeke
`
`POR at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 5 (annotated); POR at 24-25; Sur-reply at 13-15
`
`
`
`Verbeke’s Figure 5 Shows Different Workers Performing
`Different Tasks
`
`Verbeke
`
`1.
`
`Job repository contains three
`task repositories
`
`2. Task dispatcher divides task
`repository into individual tasks:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Task 1: X-ray Generation in Aluminum
`Electrons 1-1200
`
`Task 2: X-ray Generation in Aluminum
`Electrons 201-1400
`
`Task 3: X-ray Generation in Aluminum
`Electrons 401-600
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶ 0074; (Ex. 1031) at 185:15-186:6; POR at 24-28; Sur-reply at 13-15
`
`
`
`Verbeke’s Figure 5 Shows Different Workers Performing
`Different Tasks
`
`Verbeke
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Rosenblum
`
`Q. So for this task that’s under 1104A do you believe the
`three different boxes would be spread across three
`different workers?
`A. Yes, I believe that. I believe the task dispatcher will
`tell Worker 1 execute this task on this data, Electrons
`1 to 1200, Worker 2 execute this task on Electrons
`201 to 1400, and Worker 3 execute this task on
`Electrons 401 to 600.
`
`Testimony of Dr. Rosenblum (Ex. 1031) at 187:6-13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 5 (annotated) at 6; POR at 24; Sur-reply at 13-15
`
`
`
`Verbeke’s Figure 5 Shows Different Workers Performing
`Different Tasks
`
`Verbeke
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Rosenblum
`
`Q.
`
`Is it your understanding that each one of those yellow
`boxes is a separate task?
`A. Yes. That's my understanding. It's the data for
`three separate tasks.
`
`Q. So you would expect that there is supposed to be
`three tasks performed using the three different
`datasets, correct?
`
`A. I would say what's going on here is there is a single
`task, X-ray generation in aluminum, and the data
`for that task has been divided into three different
`sets or subsets.
`
`Testimony of Dr. Rosenblum (Ex. 1031) at 185:15-186:6
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 5 (annotated) at 6; POR at 24; Sur-reply at 13-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`Verbeke | Use of the Same Code Is Irrelevant
`
`Verbeke
`
`Executing the x-ray code on
`different sets is a different task
`
`Sur-reply at 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶ 0073 at 25; Sur-reply at 16
`
`
`
`Verbeke Does Not Disclose The Claimed "Instructing"
`
`’419 Patent
`
`Verbeke does not disclose a job
`submitter instructing any node
`how to perform the operation
`using computer code
`
`POR at 58-61
`
`[1c]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1, 7:12-27;
`POR at 58-61; Pet. at 21
`
`35
`
`
`
`Verbeke Does Not Disclose The Claimed "Instructing"
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`Rosenblum Declaration (Ex. 2004) at ¶ 104; POR at 59-60
`
`
`
`The Plain Language Requires An Instruction
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-reply
`
`Sur-reply at 17; POR at 59-60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`The ’419 Patent Specification Is Consistent With The
`Claim Language
`
`’419 Patent
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 5:1-5; Sur-reply at 17
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Dr. Rosenblum
`
`Q. Looking at claim 1, do you agree that instructing the
`plurality of nodes how to perform the operation using
`computer code can be satisfied by this example of
`providing a reference to code rather than a copy of
`the code?
`A. Yes, I think that limitation is broad enough to
`encompass both giving the actual code or
`conveying a reference for where to find the code
`or how to identify the code even if the code were
`stored locally.
`
`Testimony of Dr. Rosenblum (Ex. 1031) at 148:9-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Alternative Example Does Not Change The
`Claim Language
`
`’419 Patent
`
`The claims require an instruction:
`
`"instruct the plurality of nodes how to perform
`the operation using computer code"
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:12–27;
`Sur-reply at 18
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 4:59-66; Sur-reply at 18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`
`
`Verbeke | Making Code Available Is Not An Instruction
`Verbeke
`
`No worker receives the
`instruction from the
`job submitter
`
`POR at 59-60
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶ 0075 at 26; POR at 59-60; Sur-reply at 18-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶ 0096 at 28; POR at 59-60; Sur-reply at 18-19
`
`
`
`Verbeke | The Plurality Does Not Receive The Instruction
`Task Dispatcher Obtains and Downloads Code to Worker if Necessary
`Verbeke
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 14 (annotated) at 29;
`POR at 60-61; Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 0101-0102
`
`41
`
`
`
`Verbeke Does Not Disclose The Claimed "Telling"
`
`’419 Patent
`
`Verbeke does not disclose
`telling the plurality of nodes
`what to do with a result
`
`POR at 60-61
`
`[1d]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1, 7:12-27;
`POR at 60-61
`
`42
`
`
`
`Verbeke Does Not Disclose The Claimed "Telling"
`
`Verbeke
`
`1500
`
`1504
`
`1506
`
`1512
`
`1508
`
`1510
`
`1502
`
`1514
`
`1518
`
`1528
`
`1522
`
`• Verbeke’s job submitter
`provides no indication what
`to do with the result
`
`• The worker returns the
`result to the task dispatcher
`without communicating
`with the repository
`
`POR at 61-67
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 9 (annotated);
`POR at 29-31, 61-67
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Fig. 14 (annotated);
`POR at 29-31, 61-67
`
`1524
`
`1524
`
`1516
`
`1520
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`Verbeke Does Not Disclose The Claimed "Telling"
`Functions Performed
`by Worker Node
`
`Worker Node
`
`1600
`
`1602
`
`1606
`
`Worker
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at Figs. 10, 15 (annotated);
`Ex. 2005 at 171:17-24, 172:11-18; POR at 61-63
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`Verbeke Does Not Disclose The Claimed "Telling"
`
`Verbeke
`
`Verbeke Contradicts
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`POR at 63-67; Sur-reply at 20-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶¶ 0076, 0079
`
`45
`
`
`
`Verbeke Does Not Disclose The Claimed "Telling"
`Verbeke
`
`* * *
`
`Verbeke Contradicts
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`POR at 63-67; Sur-reply at 20-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004)
`at ¶¶ 0096, 0082
`
`46
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unsupported Repository Arguments Are Without Merit
`Verbeke Does Not Disclose that the Job Submitter Creates the Repository
`Verbeke
`
`Verbeke
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶ 0096; POR at 64-65; Sur-reply at 20-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) Fig. 9 (annotated); POR at 62
`
`47
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unsupported Repository Arguments Are Without Merit
`
`Petition
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Jagadish
`
`Pet. at 44; POR at 63-64; Sur-reply at 22-23
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jagadish (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 143
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unsupported Repository Arguments Are Without Merit
`
`After receiving identification of a code to be run…
`
`• Verbeke’s job submitter
`does not create any job
`repository structure
`
`• The task dispatcher stores
`the result in the repository
`
`POR at 64-65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶ 0075; POR at 64-65
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unsupported Repository Arguments Are Without Merit
`
`Petition
`
`Verbeke
`
`Pet. at 44-45
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶ 0082; POR at 65-67
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert Disregards Alternatives
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Jagadish
`
`Verbeke
`
`Q. Okay. If you could describe for me why it is your
`opinion that these steps, 1526 and 1528 of Figure 9,
`describe what you've labeled? What to do with an –
`what to do with the result of an operation.
`A. Right. So what is happening here is, the result of
`the execution from the worker is being placed in
`the repository by the task dispatcher. And there
`are – if you look at the language, firstly, there
`are – it's -- these are all choices.
`
`Testimony of Dr. Jagadish (Ex. 2005) at 192:14-194:10; Sur-reply at 22-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶ 0082; POR at 65-67
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert Disregards Alternatives
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Dr. Jagadish
`
`Verbeke
`
`A. So I am reading this as saying there are choices, in
`terms of what one does with the results of an
`execution, and these -- these choices are made as a
`result of the instructions that were received about
`what choices to make from – either from the job
`submitter before it goes into the repository or from
`the retrieval mechanism used after the results of the
`repository, where it could be further forwarded
`somewhere or just left there or retrieved by the job
`submitter, as the case may be.
`
`Testimony of Dr. Jagadish (Ex. 2005) at 192:14-194:10; Sur-reply at 22-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶ 0082; POR at 65-67
`
`
`
`Telling The Plurality Of Nodes What To Do With The Result Was
`Not Obvious
`
`• Petitioner’s conclusory
`argument does not satisfy
`its burden
`
`• There is no reason to
`modify as Verbeke identifies
`satisfactory alternatives for
`returning results:
`
`– Default setting
`
`– By polling the task dispatcher
`
`POR at 65-67; Sur-reply at 23
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp
`
`“conclusory, threadbare arguments were not
`enough to establish motivation to combine”
`
`See Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp., 838 F.App’x 555, 557 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`
`
`Verbeke Does Not Invalidate Any Dependent Claims
`The flat, distributed computing system involves one or more processors performing
`the following operations:
`
`1. Challenged Dependent Claims are valid based at least on their dependency
`from Claims 1, 12, and 18
`
`2. Dependent Claims 7, 8, and 15 and Dependent Claims 9 and 16 are valid
`over Verbeke for additional reasons
`
`POR at 67-70
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 7, 8, and 15
`
`’419 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claims 7-8, 15; POR at 68-69
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 7, 8, and 15
`
`Verbeke
`
`Petitioner relies on Verbeke’s
`remove() and quit() methods
`for disclosing the removal of
`code from a worker
`
`Pet. at 55-56; POR at 68
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶ 0147; POR at 68
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 7, 8, and 15
`
`Verbeke
`
`• Verbeke does not disclose
`that any code is removed
`
`• Verbeke’s remove() method
`removes tasks from
`a repository
`
`Pet. at 55-56; POR at 68
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶ 0147; POR at 68-69
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 7, 8, and 15
`
`1. Petitioner’s new arguments fall far short of establishing obviousness
`
`2. Petitioner offers no rationale why it would have been obvious to remove code
`"upon completion of a process" or "upon expiration of a timer"
`
`3. Verbeke teaches the benefit of the code remaining on the worker node after
`completion of a task
`
`Declaration of Dr. Rosenblum (Ex. 2004) at ¶ 119; POR at 68-69; Sur-reply at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 9 and 16
`
`’419 Patent
`
`’419 Patent
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 9, 7:59-63; POR at 69-70
`
`’419 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 16, 8:47-51; POR at 69-70
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 9 and 16
`
`Verbeke
`
`Everything in Verbeke’s
`disclosure is directed to a
`single language, Java
`
`POR at 69-70
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Verbeke (Ex. 1004) at ¶ 0046
`
`60
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 9 and 16
`
`Petitioner offers no rationale why
`it would have been obvious to
`modify Verbeke to use a second
`programming language
`
`Given Verbeke’s singular focus
`on Java, it would not have been
`obvious to modify Verbeke
`
`Pet. at 56-67; POR at 69-70
`
`POR at 69-70
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`
`
`Grounds 2 and 3
`Claims Are Valid Over Verbeke
`
`1. Petitioner does not cite to Jalan or Neiman for any independent claim
`
`2. Dependent claims 5, 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are valid for the
`foregoing reasons
`
`POR at 70
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`(Petitioner)
`v.
`CA, INC.,
`(Patent Owner)
`
`IPR2022 – 00322
`U.S. Patent No. 8,656,419
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`
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
