Filed: January 30, 2025
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2025-00561
`U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-16 AND 18 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,784,058
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2025-00561
`U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-16 AND 18 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,784,058
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`
`
`
`Shared Libraries Were Well Known ----------------------------------- 2
`
` Many Common Operating Systems Supported Shared
`Libraries Dynamically Linked to Applications --------------- 3
`
`
`
`Levine Disclosed Shared Libraries and Dynamic
`Linking ------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`
`
`Storing “Critical System Elements” (“CSEs”) in Shared
`Libraries Was Known ---------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ely Disclosed Networking in a Shared Library --------------- 6
`
`Thekkath Disclosed Networking in a Shared Library -------- 8
`
`Eggert Disclosed File Systems in a Shared Library --------- 10
`
`
`
`THE ’058 PATENT ------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`
` Overview ----------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`
`
`
`Prosecution History ----------------------------------------------------- 13
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED --------------------------------- 13
`
` Grounds ------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`
`
`
`The References Are Prior Art ------------------------------------------ 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ely is Prior Art --------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`Eggert is Prior Art ----------------------------------------------- 15
`
`Levine is Prior Art ----------------------------------------------- 16
`
`Thekkath is Prior Art -------------------------------------------- 16
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Asserted References Are Analogous Art ------------------------ 16
`
` LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL --------------------------------------------- 17
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION --------------------------------------------------- 17
`
` GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ------------------------------------- 19
`
` Ground 1: Ely and Levine ---------------------------------------------- 19
`
`
`
`Claim 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 22
`
`Processor -------------------------------------------------- 23
`
`Operating System with Kernel and OSCSEs --------- 23
`
`Shared Library with SLCSEs --------------------------- 25
`
`
`
`SLCSEs are Functional Replicas
`of OSCSEs ---------------------------------------- 26
`
`
`
`SLCSEs Form a Part of the Application ------- 27
`
`
`
`CSE Provided to First and Second Applications ----- 29
`
`
`
`
`
`First Instance of SLCSE Provided to
`First Application ---------------------------------- 29
`
`Unique Instance of Corresponding CSE
`Provided to Second Application ---------------- 32
`
`
`
`Two Instances of SLCSE Run Simultaneously ------ 33
`
`
`
`SLCSE Related to a Predetermined
`Function ------------------------------------------- 33
`
`
`
`Second Instance of SLCSE ---------------------- 33
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 2 ------------------------------------------------------------ 34
`
`Claim 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ 34
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 4 ------------------------------------------------------------ 35
`
`Claim 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ 35
`
`Claim 6 ------------------------------------------------------------ 37
`
`
`
`
`
`Kernel Provides Notification of an Event ------------- 37
`
`Event is Asynchronous and Outside of the
`Application ------------------------------------------------ 37
`
`Claim 9 ------------------------------------------------------------ 38
`
`Claim 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- 39
`
`Claim 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- 40
`
` Claim 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- 41
`
` Claim 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- 41
`
` Claim 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- 42
`
` Claim 16 ---------------------------------------------------------- 43
`
` Claim 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- 43
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Ely, Levine, and Thekkath -------------------------------- 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ 46
`
`Claim 6 ------------------------------------------------------------ 48
`
`
`
`
`
`Kernel Provides Notification of an Event ------------- 48
`
`Event is Asynchronous and Outside of the
`Application ------------------------------------------------ 48
`
`Claim 7 ------------------------------------------------------------ 49
`
`Claim 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ 49
`
`Claim 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- 50
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kernel Module Enables Data Exchange -------------- 51
`
`Data Exchange Uses Virtual Memory Mapping ----- 51
`
`
`
`Ground 3: Eggert and Levine ------------------------------------------ 52
`
`
`
`Claim 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preamble --------------------------------------------------- 54
`
`Processor -------------------------------------------------- 54
`
`Operating System with Kernel and OSCSEs --------- 55
`
`Shared Library with SLCSEs --------------------------- 55
`
`
`
`SLCSEs are Functional Replicas of
`OSCSEs -------------------------------------------- 56
`
`
`
`SLCSEs Form a Part of the Application ------- 57
`
`
`
`CSE Provided to First and Second Applications ----- 58
`
`
`
`
`
`First Instance of SLCSE Provided to First
`Application ---------------------------------------- 58
`
`Unique Instance of Corresponding CSE
`Provided to Second Application ---------------- 59
`
`
`
`Two Instances of SLCSE Run Simultaneously ------ 59
`
`
`
`SLCSE Related to a Predetermined
`Function ------------------------------------------- 59
`
`
`
`Second Instance of SLCSE ---------------------- 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 2 ------------------------------------------------------------ 60
`
`Claim 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ 61
`
`Claim 4 ------------------------------------------------------------ 61
`
`Claim 9 ------------------------------------------------------------ 62
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- 63
`
`Claim 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- 63
`
`Claim 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- 64
`
`Claim 16 ---------------------------------------------------------- 65
`
` Claim 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- 65
`
` NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF
`NONOBVIOUSNESS ---------------------------------------------------------- 65
`
` NO BASIS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §314(A) ------ 66
`
` NO BASIS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §325(D) ------ 67
`
` MANDATORY NOTICES ---------------------------------------------------- 68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) --------------------- 68
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ----------------------------- 69
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ----------------- 69
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ------------------------ 70
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103) -------------------------------- 70
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)) ----------------------- 71
`
`CONCLUSION ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ------------------------------------------------- 72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s):
`
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ..................................... 66
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................ 17
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 801 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................... 18, 19
`
`Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Amneal Pharms., LLC,
`895 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... 15
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLC,
`IPR2024-00175, 2024 WL 2054958 (PTAB May 8, 2024) ........................... 68
`
`Leapfrog Enters. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................... 65
`
`M & K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`985 F.3d 1380-83 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................. 15
`
`Mueller Systems, LLC v. Rein Tech, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00098, 2020 WL 2478514 (May 12, 2020) .................................... 68
`
`Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ........................................................................ 65
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 17
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2024-00907, 2024 WL 5079910 (PTAB Dec. 11, 2024) ......................... 68
`
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ....................................... 66
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 16
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................ 17
`
`Statutes and Rules:
`
`35 U.S.C. §102 ......................................................................................... 14, 15, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`35 U.S.C. §314 ............................................................................................... 66, 67
`
`35 U.S.C. §325 ............................................................................................... 67, 68
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8 .............................................................................................. 69, 70
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.10 .................................................................................................. 70
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.15 .................................................................................................. 70
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.103 ................................................................................................ 70
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104 ................................................................................................ 71
`
`Miscellaneous:
`
`Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in
`AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court
`Litigation (June 21, 2022) ............................................................................... 66
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 7,784,058
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058 (“the ’058 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`Declaration of Dr. Darrell Long
`
`1003
`
`David Ely et al., Alpine: A User-Level Infrastructure for Network
`Protocol Development, Proc. 3rd USENIX Symposium on Inter-
`net Technologies and Systems (USITS ’01) (2001) (“Ely”)
`
`1004
`
`Paul R. Eggert & D. Stott Parker, File Systems in User Space,
`Proc. USENIX Winter 1993 Conference (1993) (“Eggert”)
`
`1005
`
`John R. Levine, Linkers & Loaders (2000) (“Levine”)
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`Chandramohan A. Thekkath, et al., Implementing Network Proto-
`cols at User Level, 23 ACM SIGCOMM Computer Comm. Rev.,
`64-73 (1993) (“Thekkath”)
`
`David Ely et al., Alpine: A User-Level Infrastructure for Network
`Protocol Development, 3rd USENIX Symposium on Internet
`Technologies and Systems (USITS ’01) (“Ely Presentation”)
`
`1008
`
`Excerpts from the ’058 patent’s file history
`
`1009
`
`Arindam Banerji et al., Protected Shared Libraries – a New Ap-
`proach to Modularity and Sharing, Proc. USENIX Annual Tech-
`nical Conf. (USENIX 1997) 59-75 (“Banerji”)
`
`1010
`
`Excerpts of UNIX System V Release 3 Programmer’s Guide
`
`1011
`
`Excerpts of SunOS 4.1 Release Manual
`
`1012
`
`Excerpts of Solaris and SunOS System Interfaces Guide
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 1
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1013
`
`Excerpts of Sun Linker and Libraries Guide
`
`1014
`
`Linux Release Notes
`
`1015
`
`FreeBSD 3.3 Linker Information
`
`1016
`
`Excerpts of Windows API Guide Reference Volume 3 (1992)
`
`1017
`
`Scheduling order from VirtaMove, Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et
`al., No. 7:24-cv-30-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.) (the “Litigation”)
`
`1018
`
`Order cancelling Markman hearing in the Litigation
`
`1019
`
`Order granting transfer in the Litigation
`
`1020
`
`Arnold, J. Q., “Shared Libraries on UNIX System V”, Summer
`Conference Proceedings, Atlanta 1986, USENIX Association,
`1986.
`
`1021
`
`FreeBSD 3.0 Release Notes
`
`1022
`
`FreeBSD 3.3 Release Notes
`
`1023
`
`FreeBSD System Calls Manual – “select(2)”
`
`1024
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Darrell Long
`
`1025
`
`Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis
`
`1026
`
`Wayback Machine – USITS ’01 Home Page
`
`1027
`
`Amazon’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in the Litigation
`
`1028
`
`Wayback Machine – USITS ’01 Alpine Abstract
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 2
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1029
`
`Australian Unix User Group Newsletter, Vol. 8, No. 5 excerpts
`
`1030
`
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters
`
`1031
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Request
`
`1032
`
`Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 3
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`Petitioner Amazon.com, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Amazon”) requests inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058 (“the ’058 patent”), which
`
`VirtaMove, Corp. (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) purportedly owns.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’058 patent claims computing systems in which functionality provided
`
`within a computer’s operating system (“OS”) is replicated in another location on the
`
`same computer. The patent’s purported novelty lies in the location where the repli-
`
`cated functionality is stored: a “shared library.” Although such libraries were well
`
`known, the patent asserts that shared libraries in the prior art did not replicate func-
`
`tionality that was also present in an operating system on the same computer.
`
`Contrary to the patent’s assertion, replicating OS functionality in a shared li-
`
`brary was not new. Prior art disclosing this use of shared libraries was published at
`
`least a decade before the patent’s priority date. The prior art grounds presented in
`
`this Petition disclose replicating two types of OS functionality in shared libraries:
`
`(1) network functionality, and (2) file-system functionality. Both of these function-
`
`alities are also used as example embodiments in the ’058 patent.
`
`The ’058 patent’s Examiner never considered the prior art presented in this
`
`Petition. Because the prior art demonstrates that the ’058 patent contributed nothing
`
`new to the public store of knowledge, the patentee has no right to exclude the public
`
`from practicing the patent claims.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Shared Libraries Were Well Known.
`
`Shared libraries allow software applications to share common functionality
`
`without wasting memory. (Ex. 1002 ¶40.) Instead of each application having its
`
`own copy of computer code for common functionality, the applications (1) link to a
`
`shared library that contains that functionality and (2) use a single copy of the li-
`
`brary’s contents whenever possible, as explained below. (Ex. 1020, 395.)
`
`Different parts of a shared library may be shared in different ways. One part
`
`of a shared library contains executable code that every linked application can access.
`
`(Ex. 1009, 60-61; Ex. 1002 ¶41.) Because this code does not change from one ap-
`
`plication to another, every application shares the same code. (Id.) Sharing this code
`
`avoids duplication and saves space in the computer’s memory. (Ex. 1020, 395.) For
`
`example, if multiple applications need to connect to the Internet, all of the applica-
`
`tions can link to a single shared library that contains code for establishing such con-
`
`nections. (Ex. 1002 ¶41.) Similarly, the patent admits that it was “common practice”
`
`for all applications that access files on a computer to use shared code for doing so.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 3:32-37 (“All applications currently share code for common services,
`
`such services include operations such as … open a file, write to the file, read from
`
`the file, etc.”).)
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`Shared libraries also contain data that is accessed by the shared code. (Ex.
`
`1009, 60-61; Ex. 1010, 8-28; Ex. 1002 ¶42.) Each linked application gets its own
`
`copy of the data from the shared library. (Id.; Ex. 1013, 100.) Each application’s
`
`copy of the data is private—i.e., it is unique to that application and can be accessed
`
`only by code running in the context of that application. (Ex. 1005, 169-172.) For
`
`example, multiple applications may share the same library code for connecting to
`
`the Internet, but each application may need to access a different web site. (Ex. 1002
`
`¶42.) Although all applications share the same library code, each application uses
`
`its own private copy of the library data to keep track of the unique Internet address
`
`it is accessing. (Id.) Giving each application its own private copy of the data allows
`
`the applications to share code without interfering with other applications’ differing
`
`uses of the shared code. (Id.)
`
` Many Common Operating Systems Supported Shared
`Libraries Dynamically Linked to Applications.
`
`Popular operating systems such as UNIX included shared libraries by the
`
`1980s. (Ex. 1002 ¶43; Ex. 1010, 3-24 (“Beginning with Release 3.0, shared libraries
`
`are supported.”), Ch. 8 (explaining how to build and use shared libraries).) Shared
`
`libraries were quickly adopted by other operating systems in the late 1980s and early
`
`1990s. (Ex. 1002 ¶43; Ex. 1011, 25 (shared libraries supported in SunOS 4.0 and
`
`4.1 by 1990); Ex. 1012, 2; Ex. 1013, 3, 11-12; Ex. 1014; Ex. 1005, 4.) Thus, shared
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`libraries were widely used well before the ’058 patent’s earliest claimed priority date
`
`in 2003. (Ex. 1002 ¶43; Ex. 1009, 60 (“Most commercial operating systems support
`
`shared libraries in one form or another …”).) The patent admits this. (Ex. 1001,
`
`7:3-5 (“what is commonly done is to provide an application library in shared code
`
`space”).) PO also admitted this during prosecution. (Ex. 1008, 21 (“It is fully
`
`acknowledged that [prior art from 1995] describe[s] shared libraries”).)
`
`Shared libraries can be linked with applications using “static” linking, per-
`
`formed when an application is first compiled and installed, or “dynamic” linking,
`
`which delays the linking process until an application starts running. (Ex. 1005, 188;
`
`Ex. 1012, 2-3; Ex. 1010, G-7 (“Dynamic linking refers to the ability to resolve sym-
`
`bolic references at run time.”), G-18 (“Static linking refers to the requirement that
`
`symbolic references be resolved before run time.”); Ex. 1013, 4.) Dynamic linking
`
`was introduced to UNIX in the late 1980s and was quickly adopted by other popular
`
`operating systems such as SunOS, Solaris, and Windows. (Ex. 1012, 109; Ex. 1013,
`
`3; Ex. 1016, 1.) Thus, many operating systems supported dynamic linking of shared
`
`libraries well before the ’058 patent’s earliest claimed priority date. (Ex. 1002 ¶44.)
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`
`
`Levine Disclosed Shared Libraries and Dynamic
`Linking.
`
`A textbook called Linkers and Loaders, authored by John R. Levine and pub-
`
`lished in 2000 (“Levine”), explains that most operating systems included shared li-
`
`braries and dynamic linking by the time it published. (Ex. 1005, xi, 4, 187-88, 206
`
`(Linux and Unix used “ELF” format for shared libraries), 217-18 (Microsoft Win-
`
`dows used “DLL” format); Ex. 1002 ¶45.) Levine explains how shared libraries
`
`were commonly created and linked to applications using either static or dynamic
`
`linking. (Ex. 1005, xiii-xiv, Ch. 9 (shared libraries and static linking), Ch. 10 (dy-
`
`namic linking).)
`
`Levine explains that most applications “usually turn out to share a lot of com-
`
`mon code;” therefore, if “all the programs that use a library can share a single copy
`
`of it,” significantly less storage space is needed. (Ex. 1005, 4; Ex. 1002 ¶46.) Alt-
`
`hough different shared library formats may vary slightly, the process of linking them
`
`to applications is “nearly the same.” (Ex. 1005, 190; Ex. 1002 ¶46.) When an ap-
`
`plication program that is linked to shared libraries starts running, “startup code finds
`
`those [linked] libraries and maps them into the program’s address space before the
`
`program starts.” (Ex. 1005, 188; Ex. 1002 ¶46.) The program’s address space is the
`
`part of the computer’s memory that is allotted to that program. (Ex. 1002 ¶46.)
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`
`
`Storing “Critical System Elements” (“CSEs”) in Shared
`Libraries Was Known.
`
`The ’058 patent coins the phrase “Critical System Elements” to describe OS
`
`functionality replicated in the shared library. (Ex. 1001, 6:6-10.) Two examples of
`
`CSEs are “Network services including TCP/IP” and “File System services.” (Id.,
`
`6:11-28.) The prior art disclosed replicating both examples in shared libraries.
`
`
`
`Ely Disclosed Networking in a Shared Library.
`
` In 2001, David Ely and other researchers at the University of Washington
`
`published a paper titled “Alpine: A User-Level Infrastructure for Network Protocol
`
`Development.” (Ex. 1003 (“Ely”).) They presented their paper at the 3rd USENIX
`
`Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems. (Ex. 1007.) The paper explains
`
`that traditional networking stacks were difficult for developers to work with because
`
`they were part of a “kernel,” which is the core of an operating system. (Ex. 1003,
`
`171.) Any changes to a traditional networking stack required rebuilding the entire
`
`kernel. (Id.) To overcome this inconvenience, Ely presented the “Alpine” system,
`
`which copies the networking stack from an operating system’s kernel into a shared
`
`library that is dynamically linked with applications. (Id., 171, 177; Ex. 1002 ¶48.)
`
`Figures 1 and 2 of Ely show, respectively, a “traditional” stack where “all
`
`network processing is performed in the kernel” and Alpine’s library where “unmod-
`
`ified networking code is placed:”
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`Figure 1
`
`Figure 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1003, Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 1002 ¶49.)1 As these figures show, the traditional stack
`
`implements networking in kernel space. (Ex. 1003, Fig. 1.) But Alpine’s stack
`
`moves the networking to a library in user space. (Id., Fig. 2.) Kernel space is the
`
`part of the computer’s memory in which the kernel resides. (Ex. 1002 ¶49.) User
`
`space is the part of memory in which applications and shared libraries reside. (Id.)
`
`
`1 Figures in this Petition may be colored and annotated for ease of reference.
`
`Additionally, some figures in this Petition come from online copies of the references
`
`because figures in the online copies provide better clarity in some cases than the
`
`scanned paper copies. (See Ex. 1025 ¶33, n.18; ¶40, n.23 (describing online
`
`sources).) The content of the online copies and paper copies is the same.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`Alpine was implemented in a “dynamic library,” which was a well-known
`
`type of shared library widely used in popular operating systems. (Ex. 1003, 177;
`
`supra §I.A.1; Ex. 1002 ¶50.) Alpine’s library used “dynamic linking” to integrate
`
`with pre-existing applications. (Ex. 1003, 177.)
`
`Alpine was “fully implemented in the FreeBSD 3.3 operating system.” (Id.,
`
`178.) “However, very little of [Alpine’s] code [was] specific to this version of
`
`FreeBSD, and most of it [was] portable to any Unix environment.” (Id.) Thus, Ely
`
`explained that Alpine broadly “support[ed] a FreeBSD networking stack on top of a
`
`Unix operating system.” (Id., 171.)
`
`Presentation slides from the conference where Ely was first presented further
`
`confirm that Alpine was implemented as a shared library. The presentation shows
`
`that applications linked to Alpine using the command “LD_PRELOAD=libAl-
`
`pine.so.” (Ex. 1007, 8; id. at 3, 6-7; Ex. 1002 ¶52.) The “.so” extension of the
`
`libAlpine file shows that it was a shared library. (Ex. 1015, line 326 (“a ‘.so’ exten-
`
`sion indicates a shared library.”); Ex. 1002 ¶52.)
`
`
`
`Thekkath Disclosed Networking in a Shared Library.
`
`In 1993, Chandramohan Thekkath and other researchers published a confer-
`
`ence paper titled “Implementing Network Protocols at User Level.” (Ex. 1006
`
`(“Thekkath”).) Thekkath, like Ely, described research conducted at the University
`
`of Washington’s Department of Computer Science and Engineering. (Id.; Ex. 1003.)
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`Thekkath implemented networking protocols outside of the kernel to allow
`
`for “ease of prototyping, debugging, and maintenance.” (Ex. 1006, 64.) Thekkath’s
`
`system allowed for the “co-existence of multiple protocols” that could “exploit ap-
`
`plication-specific knowledge,” unlike the traditional networking stack, which was
`
`generalized for the entire OS. (Id.; Ex. 1002 ¶54.) Similar to Ely, Thekkath used a
`
`shared library to store its networking protocols outside the kernel. (Ex. 1006, 64,
`
`67, 68; Ex. 1002 ¶54.) This system, with the “protocol library” linked to an appli-
`
`cation, is shown in Figure 2:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1006, Fig. 2.) Because the “protocol library [] is linked into the application”
`
`and “[t]he library contains the code that implements the communication protocol,”
`
`applications can directly access several different networking protocols stored in the
`
`library. (Id., 67, 68; Ex. 1002 ¶54.)
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`Because the protocol library is in user space rather than the kernel, it does not
`
`have direct access to networking hardware. (Ex. 1002 ¶55.) Rather, the protocol
`
`library exchanges data with a “Network I/O Module” in the kernel. (Ex. 1006, 69.)
`
`This kernel module acts as an interface between the protocol library and networking
`
`devices. (Id.; Ex. 1002 ¶55.)
`
`
`
`Eggert Disclosed File Systems in a Shared Library.
`
`Also in 1993, Paul Eggert and another researcher published “File Systems in
`
`User Space” and presented it at the USENIX Winter Conference. (Ex. 1004.) This
`
`paper disclosed “two user-extensible file systems,” collectively called “IFS,” that
`
`extended a computer’s default file system with added capabilities. (Id., 229.) These
`
`file systems were implemented with libraries to which applications could dynami-
`
`cally link. (Id., 229, 235-237; Ex. 1002 ¶56.) When an application was dynamically
`
`linked to the IFS shared library, that library intercepted the application’s calls to the
`
`operating system, allowing the application to access files in new ways. (Ex. 1004,
`
`231-32; Ex. 1002 ¶56.)
`
` THE ’058 PATENT
`
` Overview
`
`The ’058 patent discloses shared libraries containing so-called “critical system
`
`elements” (CSEs), which replicate functionality from an OS kernel. (Ex. 1001, 1:58-
`
`64.) “The term replica used [in the patent] is meant to denote a CSE having similar
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`attributes to, but not necessarily and preferably not an exact copy of a CSE in the
`
`operating system[.]” (Id., 1:66-2:3.)
`
`Figure 1 shows a “conventional architecture where critical system elements
`
`execute in kernel mode”:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, Fig. 1; id., 6:62-63.)
`
`An “important distinction between [the ’058 patent] and [some] prior art sys-
`
`tems and architectures is the ability to allow a CSE to execute in the same context
`
`as an application.” (Id., 1:46-48.) CSEs “are replicated through the use of shared
`
`libraries” and “replicated CSEs are then able to run in the context of a software ap-
`
`plication” like any other shared library. (Id., 5:22-34.)
`
` “By way of example; a Linux based platform provides a TCP/IP [i.e., net-
`
`working protocol] stack in the Linux kernel. [The ’058 patent] provides a TCP/IP
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`stack in the form of a CSE that is a different implementation of a TCP/IP stack, from
`
`Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) by way of example. Applications on a Linux
`
`platform may use a BSD [TCP]/IP stack in the form of a CSE. The mechanism for
`
`attaching the BSD TCP/IP stack to an application is in the form of a shared library.”
`
`(Id., 5:41-49; see also Ex. 1002 ¶60 (providing background on TCP/IP).)
`
`Figure 4 of the patent shows “how critical system elements exist in the same
`
`context as an application.” (Ex. 1001, 5:11-12.) In this figure, “the CSE shared
`
`library, 47, provides an implementation of a critical system element.” (Id., 8:23-27.)
`
`(Id., Fig. 4.)
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The applicant admitted during prosecution that (1) shared libraries were
`
`known and (2) running CSEs outside of the kernel was known. (Ex. 1008, 21-22.)
`
`But the applicant argued that CSEs in shared libraries that replicate CSEs in the
`
`kernel were novel and non-obvious. (Id.) The applicant amended the claims to cap-
`
`ture these distinctions. (Id., 15 (2/18/2009 response at 2).) The amended claims
`
`required that CSEs in a shared library (“SLCSEs”) are “replicas” of CSEs in the OS
`
`kernel (“OSCSEs”). (Id.) The Examiner ultimately allowed the patent without con-
`
`sidering any of the references raised in this Petition. (See Ex. 1001 at 1 (References
`
`Cited).)
`
` STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
` Grounds
`
`The Board should cancel the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
`
`Ground Claims Challenged
`
`References
`
`1-6, 9-14, 16, 18
`
`Ely and Levine
`
`5-8, 15
`
`Ely, Levine, and Thekkath
`
`1-4, 9-12, 16, 18
`
`Eggert and Levine
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp.
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`
`
`
`The References Are Prior Art.
`
`The ’058 patent’s earliest claimed priority date is September 22, 2003. (Ex.
`
`1001.) Petitioner does not concede the claims are entitled to that priority date, and
`
`reserves its right to show they are not so entitled. Regardless, the references herein
`
`are prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 for the reasons set forth below.
`
`
`
`Ely is Prior Art.
`
`Ely (Ex. 1003) was publicly available as part of the published proceedings of
`
`the 3rd USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems (USITS ’01),
`
`which was held on March 26-28, 2001. (See Ex. 1025 ¶¶32-33.) Ely was catalogued
`
`and indexed at the University of Texas-Austin and University of California-Santa
`
`Cruz Libraries no later than May 22, 2001. (See id. ¶¶32-38, 52.) Accordingly, Ely
`
`was publicly available more than one year before the earliest claimed priority date
`
`of the ’058 patent and is prior art under at least §102(b).
`
`A slide presentation about Ely (Ex. 1007, “Ely Presentation”) was publicly
`
`available more than one year before the ’058 patent’s earliest claimed priority date
`
`because it was delivered at the 3rd USE
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
