`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. AND SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR20254-00785
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`Issue Date: August 14, 2007
`
`Title: LOAD BALANCING AND SHARED DATA
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,257,582 B2
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Real party in interest under § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................... 2 
`
`Related matters under § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................................... 3 
`
`Lead and backup counsel under § 42.8(b)(3) ........................................ 3 
`
`Service information ............................................................................... 4 
`
`Fee Payment ..................................................................................................... 5 
`
`Priority Date ..................................................................................................... 6 
`
`Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................... 2 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`II. 
`III.  Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 5 
`IV.  Brief Overview of the ’582 Patent ................................................................... 5 
`V. 
`VI.  Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 6 
`VII.  Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) ................................................ 7 
`VIII.  Precise Relief Requested and Grounds Raised ................................................ 7 
`IX.  Brief Description of the Applied Prior Art References ................................... 9 
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`X. 
`A. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Chow (Ex.1003) .................................................................................... 9 
`
`Reiffin (Ex.1004) ................................................................................... 9 
`
`Kurowski (Ex.1005) ............................................................................ 10 
`
`The Challenged Claims are Unpatentable ..................................................... 10 
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-14 are obvious over Chow in
`view of Reiffin ..................................................................................... 10 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 12 
`2. 
`Claim 2: The method defined in claim
`1 wherein the automatic determination of
`file allocation and logical subdivision of
`i
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`records of said input file into said plurality
`of partitions in step (a) and the distribution
`of the description of all of said partitions in
`step (b) is carried out with at least one
`further processor in addition to the subtask
`processors. ................................................................................. 20 
`Claim 3: The method defined in claim 1,
`further comprising the step of merging said
`subtask outputs in step (e). ........................................................ 21 
`Claim 4: The method defined in claim
`1 wherein
`the output
`in step (e)
`is a
`succession of outputs from said subtasks in a
`one-to-one correspondence with said records
`of said input file. ....................................................................... 22 
`Claim 5: The method defined in claim
`1 wherein the output in step (e) is an
`accumulation of output records from said
`subtasks in an arbitrary order. ................................................... 23 
`Claim 6: The method defined in claim
`1 wherein said input file resides on a storage
`area network and is derived therefrom. .................................... 24 
`Claim 7: The method defined in claim
`1 wherein said input file resides on a
`network-attached storage and is derived
`therefrom. .................................................................................. 25 
`Claim 8: The method defined in claim
`1 wherein said computer-executable process
`is a sort process. ........................................................................ 26 
`Claim 9: The method defined in claim
`1 wherein said computer-executable process
`is a statistical analysis process. ................................................. 27 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`10.  Claim 10: The method defined in claim
`1 wherein said computer-executable process
`is a report-creating process. ...................................................... 28 
`11.  Claim 11: The method defined in claim
`1 wherein said computer-executable process
`includes a database query. ......................................................... 29 
`12.  Claim 12: The method defined in claim
`2 wherein said one processor is part of a
`mainframe
`computer
`and
`the
`other
`processors are processors of at least one
`other computer. ......................................................................... 30 
`13.  Claim 13: The method defined in claim
`1 wherein said plurality of processors are all
`parts of a single multiprocessor. ............................................... 32 
`14.  Claim 14: The method defined in claim
`1 wherein the automatic determination of
`file allocation and logical subdivision of
`records of said input file into said plurality
`of partitions in step (a) and the distribution
`of the descriptions of all of said partitions in
`step (b) is carried out with at least one
`processor, and said one processor and said
`plurality of processors are all parts of a
`single multiprocessor not including said one
`processor. .................................................................................. 33 
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-14 are obvious over Chow in
`view of Reiffin and further in view of Kurowski ................................ 34 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 37 
`2. 
`Claim 2: The method defined in claim
`1 wherein the automatic determination of
`file allocation and logical subdivision of
`records of said input file into said plurality
`of partitions in step (a) and the distribution
`of the description of all of said partitions in
`iii
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`step (b) is carried out with at least one
`further processor in addition to the subtask
`processors. ................................................................................. 43 
`Claims 3-14 ............................................................................... 44 
`
`3. 
`
`The Board Should Institute Inter Partes Review .......................................... 44 
`
`
`
`XI. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`XII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 48 
`
`The Fintiv factors either favor institution or are
`neutral .................................................................................................. 44 
`
`An analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) also favors
`institution ............................................................................................. 46 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) ...................................... 46, 47
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ..................................... 45, 47
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 7
`In re Nilssen,
`851 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 8
`Maplebear Inc. v. Consumeron, LLC,
`IPR2022-01357, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2023) ............................................. 47
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 6
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) ................................... 44, 45
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ........................................... 45
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 8, 9
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................... 9, 10
`35 U.S.C. §103 ....................................................................................................... 6, 7
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 45, 47
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R.§ 42.8 ...................................................................................................... 2, 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340-44 (Oct. 11, 2018) ....................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description of Document
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2 (the ’582 Patent) to Rothschild (filed
`February 27, 2003; issued August 14, 2007)
`File history for the ’582 Patent
`1002
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,304,866 (Chow) to Chow et al. filed on June 27, 1997;
`issued October 16, 2001
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,330,583 (Reiffin) to Reiffin filed on September 9,
`1994; issued December 11, 2001
`1005 U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0019844 (Kurowski) to Kurowski et
`al. filed January 12, 2001; published February 14, 2002
`1006 Complaint, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. American Airlines, Inc.,
`No. 4:24-cv-980-ALM (E.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2024)
`1007 Claim Chart for ’582 Patent, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v.
`American Airline, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-980-ALM (E.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2024)
`(Dkt. 1-14) (Hadoop)
`1008 Claim Chart for ’582 Patent, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v.
`American Airline, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-980-ALM (E.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2024)
`(Dkt. 1-15) (Spark)
`“Some Thoughts on Parallel Processing,” Lynn D. Yarbough,
`Communications of the ACM, Vol. 3, Issue 10, page 539, October 1,
`1960 (available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/367415.367426).
`“A Survey of Some Theoretical Aspects of Multiprocessing,” J. L. Baer,
`ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), Volume 5, Issue 1
`Pages 31 – 80, March 1, 1973 (available at:
`https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/356612.356615)
`“Parallel Sorting Algorithms for Tightly Coupled Multiprocessors,”
`Michael J. Quinn, Parallel Computing 6 (1988) 349-357.
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`Description of Document
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`“Removing Skew Effect in Join Operation on Parallel Processors,” Ron-
`Chung Hu, Richard R. Muntz, Computer Science Technical Report,
`University of California, Los Angeles, June 1989.
`“Parallel Architectures for Database Systems,” A.R. Hurson, L.L.
`Miller, S.H. Pakzad, M.H. Eich, B. Shirazi, Advances in Computers,
`Vol. 28, pages 107-151, 1989.
`“Parallel Algorithms for Merging and Sorting,” Narsingh Deo, Dilip
`SarKar, Information Sciences, Vol. 56, pages 151-161, 1991.
`“Parallel Algorithms for lcast Median of Squares Regression,” Chong-
`Wei Xu and Wei-Kei Shiue, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis,
`Vol. 16, pages 349-362, 1993.
`“On the Average Running Time of Odd-Even Merge Sort,” Christine
`Rub, Max Plank-Institute Fur Informtik, Research Report, April 1995.
`“Parallel Algorithms,” Guy E. Blelloch and Bruce M. Maggs, a chapter
`in “The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.” CRC Press,
`1997, ISBN: 0-8493-2909-4. Available at
`https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/1882723.1882748.
`“An Approach to Parallelizing Isotonic Regression,” Anthony J.
`Kearsley, Richard A. Tapia, Michael W.Trosset, Applied Mathematics
`and Parallel Computing, H. Fisher et. al. (eds.), Physica-Verlag
`Heidelberg (1996), pages 141-147.
`“Part 1: The Parallel Computing Environment, Alice E. Koniges, Morris
`A. Jette, and David C. Eder, in “Industrial Strength Parallel
`Computing,” Morgan Kaufmann, (2000). ISBN 9781558605404.
`Available at: http://wayback.cecm.sfu.ca/PSG/book/intro.html and at
`https://books.google.com/books?id=mWalawBciCQC&pg=PA1&source
`=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false.
`1020 GPFS: A Parallel File System, Jason Barkes, Marcelo R. Barrios,
`Francis Cougard, Paul G. Crumley, Didac Marin, Hari Reddy,
`Theerapong Thitayanun, IBM International Technical Support
`viii
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`

`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`Description of Document
`
`1021
`
`Organization, April 1998.
`“Analysis of First-Come-First-Serve Parallel Job Scheduling,” Uwe
`Schwiegelshohn and Ramin Yahyapour. Proceedings of the Annual
`ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (1998). Available at
`http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/314613.315031.
`1022 Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos regarding the invalidity of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`1023 CV for Dr. Michael Shamos
`1024 Claim Chart for ’582 Patent, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v.
`Southwest Airlines Co., No. 7:24-cv-277 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2024)
`(Dkt. 1-13) (Hadoop)
`1025 Claim Chart for ’582 Patent, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v.
`Southwest Airlines Co., No. 7:24-cv-277 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2024)
`(Dkt. 1-14) (Spark)
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`In November 2024, Intellectual Ventures I LLC (IV or Patent Owner)
`
`
`
`targeted multiple companies with accusations of infringing U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,257,582 B2 (the ’582 Patent) (Ex.1001).
`
`Petitioners American Airlines, Inc. (“American”) and Southwest Airlines
`
`Co. (“Southwest”) (collectively “Petitioners”) respectfully request that the Board
`
`now test the ’582 Patent through inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1-14 (the
`
`Challenged Claims), constituting all claims of the ’582 Patent. The ’582 Patent
`
`relates to well-known computer load balancing using multiple processors. Ex.1001
`
`(1:14-17). The Examiner rejected Applicant’s claims as obvious. See Ex.1002 at 38
`
`(rejecting claims as obvious “over Kitsuregawa et al. (U.S. Patent 5,603,028) in
`
`view of Pian (U.S. Patent 5,357,632)”). Applicant overcame the Examiner’s
`
`rejection only after arguing his claims were distinguishable from the prior art
`
`because, rather than implementing a “special control process that uses load
`
`information to distribute the load between processors that share the load,” “the load
`
`sharing process take[s] parts of the load on a first-come/first served basis.” Id. at
`
`53. That is the sole point of novelty identified by Applicant. Id. at 53-54. But,
`
`given the file history and Petitioners’ new reference combinations discussed below,
`
`the Board should now cancel the Challenged Claims.
`
`First, The Examiner did not consider any of Petitioners’ references, let alone
`
`whether any of those references teach the purported point of novelty. Petitioners’
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`
`references teach load sharing on a “first-come/first-served basis.” Thus, the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`Challenged Claims are obvious.
`
`Second, the facts strongly favor institution of this IPR. Every factor under
`
`the Board’s decision in Fintiv either favors institution or is neutral.
`
`At bottom, the Challenged Claims relate to a crowded technological field
`
`and were issued solely based on an alleged narrow point of novelty. The additional
`
`prior art herein demonstrates that the alleged point of novelty is not novel at all.
`
`Petitioners respectfully request the Board to institute IPR of the ’582 Patent and
`
`cancel the Challenged Claims.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real party in interest under § 42.8(b)(1)
`American is a real party in interest to this petition. American is a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of American Airlines Group, Inc., which is not a real party in
`
`interest to this petition. No unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or otherwise has
`
`an opportunity to control or direct this petition or American’s participation in any
`
`resulting IPR.
`
`Southwest is also a real party in interest to this petition. No unnamed entity
`
`is funding, controlling, or otherwise has an opportunity to control or direct this
`
`petition or Southwest’s participation in any resulting IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`
`B. Related matters under § 42.8(b)(2)
`To the best of Petitioners’ knowledge, the ’582 Patent is or has been
`
`involved in these matters:
`
`Name
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`et al. v. American Airlines,
`Inc.
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`et al. v. Southwest Airlines
`Co.
`
`No.
`4:24-cv-980
`
`Filed
`Court
`EDTX Nov. 2,
`2024
`
`Status
`Active
`
`7:24-cv-277
`
`WDTX Nov. 2,
`2024
`
`Active
`
`C.
`
`Lead and backup counsel under § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioners designate the following counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`John B. Campbell (Reg. No. 54,665)
`jcampbell@McKoolSmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (512) 692-8730
`Fax: (512) 692-8744
`
`
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Alan Block (Reg No. 35,450)
`ablock@mckoolsmith.com
`McKool Smith, P.C.
`300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Tel: (213) 694-1200
`Fax: (213) 694-1234
`
`Casey Shomaker (Reg. No. 77,998)
`cshomaker@mckoolsmith.com
`McKool Smith, P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1200
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: (214) 978-4218
`Fax: (214) 978-4044
`Keith D. Harden (Reg. No. 74,472)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`Backup Counsel
`kharden@munckwilson.com
`Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP
`2000 McKinney Ave., Ste. 1900
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (972) 628-3600
`Fax: (972) 628-3616
`S. Wallace Dunwoody (Texas Bar No.
`24040838 - admission pro hac vice to be
`requested)
`wdunwoody@munckwilson.com
`Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP
`2000 McKinney Ave., Ste. 1900
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (972) 628-3600
`Fax: (972) 628-3616
`
`Michael C. Wilson (Texas Bar No.
`21704590 - admission pro hac vice to be
`requested)
`mwilson@munckwilson.com
`Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP
`2000 McKinney Ave., Ste. 1900
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (972) 628-3600
`Fax: (972) 628-3616
`
`
`D.
`
`Service information
`USPTO records show the attorneys having power of attorney over the ’582
`
`Patent are Brundidge & Stanger, P.C. This petition is thus being served by Federal
`
`Express to the correspondence address for the ’582 Patent, BRUNDIDGE &
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`STANGER, P.C., 2318 Mill Road, Suite 1020, Alexandria, VA 22314. Petitioners
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`consent to electronic service at AA_Intellectual_Ventures@mckoolsmith.com.
`
`II.
`
`FEE PAYMENT
`The Office is allowed to charge the fees specified by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.103(a)
`
`and 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 50-5723.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners certify that the ’582 Patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the ’582
`
`Patent’s claims on the grounds identified in this petition. Petitioners filed this
`
`petition within one year of service of the original complaint against Petitioners.
`
`IV. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ’582 PATENT
`The ’582 Patent relates to well-known load balancing using multiple
`
`computer processors. Ex.1001 (1:14-17). In other words, the ’582 Patent deals with
`
`“a way to split the performance of a given task among a plurality of processing
`
`units which can all access, directly or indirectly, the input data and the devices on
`
`which the output data is to be stored.” Id. Further, “[t]he principal object of the
`
`present invention is to enable the decomposition of a certain type of linear
`
`processes that currently use a single computer, into equivalent parallel processes
`
`that can efficiently use any number of potentially heterogeneous computers, taking
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`the available capacity of each of these computers into account while optimizing
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`execution.” Id. (1:48-54).
`
`V.
`
`PRIORITY DATE
`For purposes of this IPR, Petitioners assume the earliest effective filing date
`
`of the ’582 Patent is March 13, 2002. On that date, Provisional Application No.
`
`60/363,853 (’853 provisional) was filed. The ’582 Patent claims priority to the
`
`’853 provisional. Ex.1001 (Cover). Thus, this petition applies pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103 in showing unpatentability. Petitioners’ prior art references qualify as prior
`
`art. See infra Section IX.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioners apply the Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
`
`claim construction standard. 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340-44 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`
`Petitioners do not believe explicit construction is needed to resolve this petition.
`
`Still, the district court case is in its early stages, having yet to commence claim
`
`construction. Petitioners reserve the right to revisit constructions proposed in
`
`district court and, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), request leave to
`
`submit the district court’s claim construction order so the Board may consider it.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`
`VII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSITA)
`Based on the relevant factors, In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1995), a POSITA “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, electrical engineering, or related field, and at least two years
`
`of experience in computer networking and parallel computing, or a person with a
`
`master’s degree in one of the foregoing and at least one year of experience in the
`
`aforementioned fields. Additional education could substitute for professional
`
`experience, and vice-versa. Ex.1022 ¶ 44.
`
`VIII. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`Petitioners request cancellation of claims 1-14 based on the following
`
`obviousness grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1-14
`
`1-14
`
`Basis for § 103 Challenge
`Obvious over Chow (Ex.1003) in view of Reiffin
`(Ex.1004)
`Obvious over Chow (Ex.1003) in view of Reiffin
`(Ex.1004) and further in view of Kurowski (Ex.1005)
`
`Petitioners also submit the Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos (Ex.1022), a
`
`qualified expert, in support of the obviousness grounds. See Ex.1022 ¶¶ 1-18;
`
`Ex.1023. Grounds 1 and 2 are not cumulative of the art of record, including the art
`
`of record considered by the Examiner. See infra Section XI(B). During
`
`prosecution, the Examiner found that the prior art failed to disclose claim 1’s
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`execution of unprocessed partitions on a first-come/first-served basis, which the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`Applicant cited as the ’582 Patent’s point of novelty. Id. Grounds 1 and 2 address
`
`this purported deficiency.
`
`Each of the asserted references is analogous art and is usable in an
`
`obviousness analysis. Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google, Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1000-01
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). A POSITA is presumed to have been aware of such analogous
`
`art. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski (Cited References) are in the same field of
`
`endeavor as the ’582 Patent, e.g., distributed computing systems and methods. E.g.,
`
`Ex.1001 (1:14-17) (“More specifically, [this invention] deals with a way to split
`
`the performance of a given task among a plurality of processing units which can all
`
`access, directly or indirectly, the input data and the devices on which the output
`
`data is to be stored.”); Ex.1003 (1:10-11) (“The present invention relates to
`
`multiprocessing computer database systems.”); Ex.1004 (1:7-14) (“This invention
`
`relates to computer networks, and more particularly, to a distributed parallel
`
`processing network system wherein a large compute-intensive task may be
`
`partitioned into subtasks which are then distributed among a plurality of personal
`
`computer or workstations for parallel execution of the subtasks in the background
`
`concurrently with the execution in the foreground of the respective local tasks of
`
`the individual workstations.”); Ex.1005 ([0003]) (“The present invention relates
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`generally to distributed computing, and more specifically to large-scale network-
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`distributed computing.”). Thus, the Cited References are analogous art. Unwired,
`
`841 F.3d at 1000.
`
`IX. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLIED PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES
`A. Chow (Ex.1003)
`Chow, titled “Aggregate Job Performance in a Multiprocessing System by
`
`Incremental and On-Demand Task Allocation Among Multiple Concurrently
`
`Operating Threads,” is U.S. Patent No. 6,304,866. Chow’s application was filed on
`
`June 27, 1997. Ex.1003 (Cover). Thus, Chow qualifies as pre-AIA prior art. 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b). Chow improves distributed multi-processing systems,
`
`particularly with respect to database operations. Ex.1003 (2:42-46); Ex.1022 ¶¶ 93-
`
`98 (describing Chow).
`
`B. Reiffin (Ex.1004)
`Reiffin, titled “Computer Network of Interactive Multitasking Computers for
`
`Parallel Processing of Network Subtasks Concurrently with Local Tasks,” is U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,330,583. Reiffin’s application was filed on September 9, 1994.
`
`Ex.1004. Thus, Reiffin qualifies as pre-AIA prior art. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b).
`
`Reiffin improves distributed multi-processing systems wherein a large compute-
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`intensive task may be partitioned into subtasks for parallel execution. Ex.1004
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`(1:7-14); Ex.1022 ¶¶ 99-102 (describing Reiffin).
`
`C. Kurowski (Ex.1005)
`Kurowski, titled “Method and System for Network-Distributed Computing,”
`
`is U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0019844. Kurowski’s application was filed on
`
`January 12, 2001, claiming priority to a provisional application filed July 6, 2000,
`
`and published on February 14, 2002. Ex.1005. Thus, Kurowski qualifies as pre-
`
`AIA prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Kurowski improves large-scale network-
`
`distributed computing systems. Ex.1005 ([0003]); Ex.1022 ¶¶ 103-105 (describing
`
`Kurowski).
`
`X.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A POSITA would understand Chow in view of Reiffin (Ground 1) and
`
`Chow in view of Kurowski (Ground 2) to disclose or suggest every limitation of
`
`claims 1-14 for the reasons below. Because a POSITA would have been motivated
`
`to make those combinations and had a reasonable expectation of success in doing
`
`so, both grounds render claims 1-14 obvious. Ex.1022 ¶¶ 133-136; 248-252.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-14 are obvious over Chow in view of Reiffin
`Every limitation of claims 1-14 is disclosed or suggested by Chow and
`
`Reiffin. Ex.1022 ¶¶ 133-136.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`Chow and Reiffin both share the ’582 Patent’s goal of decomposing linear
`
`
`
`computational processes that currently use a single computer into equivalent
`
`parallel processes that can use any number of heterogeneous computers. E.g.,
`
`Ex.1001 (1:48-54); Ex.1003 (2:42-46) (“The invention affords its users with a
`
`number of distinct advantages. Chiefly, the invention guides a multiprocessing
`
`system to perform an aggregate task as quickly as possible, with minimum
`
`workload skew among independently operating processing elements.”); Ex.1004
`
`(2:1-7) (“It is a further object of the invention to provide a system wherein a
`
`network of workstations or personal computers may operate in parallel to form a
`
`powerful multicomputer system for parallel processing of large time-consuming
`
`compute-intensive applications in a fraction of the time that it would take any of
`
`the individual computers to do the job alone.”). Ex.1022 ¶ 133.
`
`Chow is ready for improvement. Ex.1022 ¶ 134. Chow focuses on
`
`multiprocessing systems consisting of a single computer with multiple processors
`
`executing programs in parallel. Id. Reiffin expands this concept to multiple
`
`networked computers. Id. A POSITA would have recognized that benefit of
`
`combining Reiffin with Chow would be increased computational power and the
`
`ability to solve larger problems. Id.
`
`Combining Chow’s multi-processing system with Reiffin’s teachings of a
`
`distributed parallel processing network would have been the simple combination of
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`known elements to obtain a predictable result and thus obvious to a POSITA.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`Ex.1022 ¶ 135.
`
`It would have been routine to add the features of Reiffin to the system of
`
`Chow. Ex.1022 ¶ 136. A POSITA would have thus been motivated to combine
`
`Chow and Reiffin with a reasonable expectation of success. Id.
`
`Claims 1-14 are therefore obvious over Chow in view of Reiffin.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`a.
`[1pre] A method of effecting on a preexisting input file a
`computer-executable process comprised of a plurality of
`subtasks, the method comprising the steps of:
`Whether or not limiting, Chow discloses claim [1pre]. Ex.1022 ¶¶ 138-142.
`
`Chow discloses claim [1pre]’s method of effecting on a preexisting input file a
`
`computer-executable process comprised of a plurality of subtasks. Id. ¶ 139.
`
`For example, Chow claims a “method” of “independently operating each one of
`
`multiple task execution units to sequentially and independently self-allocate and
`
`execute sub-tasks of the aggregate task on-demand.” Ex.1003 (10:10-13); Ex.1022
`
`¶ 140. Chow further discloses this method, noting that “the method sequence 400 is
`
`used to perform an aggregate database processing task, by breaking the task down
`
`into smaller units, and executing the units with multiple concurrently operating
`
`task execution units.” Ex.1003 (5:1-5); Ex.1022 ¶ 140.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 B2
`
`Reiffin also discloses claim [1pre]. Ex.1022 ¶ 141. For example, Reiffin
`
`
`
`discloses that “a large compute-intensive task may be partitioned into subtasks
`
`which are then distributed among a plurality of personal computer or workstations
`
`for parallel execution of the subtasks.” Ex.1004 (1:9-12); Ex.1022 ¶ 141.
`
`For these reasons, the combination of Chow and Reiffin discloses every
`
`limitation comprising claim [1pre]’s method of effecting on a preexisting input
`
`file a computer-executable process comprised of a plurality of subtasks.
`
`Ex.1022 ¶ 142.
`
`Thus, Chow and Reiffin both disclose or suggest claim [1pre]. Ex.1022 ¶
`
`142.
`
`b.
`
`[1a] (a) automatically determining file allocation and
`logically subdividing records of said input file into a
`plurality of partitions;
`This is a conventional step in parallel processing. Ex.1022 ¶ 143.
`
`Chow discloses claim [1a]. Ex.1022 ¶ 144. For example, Chow discloses
`
`that “[t]ypically, workload is apportioned by somehow logically dividing the data
`
`to be processed. For example, a block of data might be divided evenly into a
`
`number of parts equal to the number of available threads, so that each thread can
`
`independently process a separate portion of the data. This is called “static” or “a
`
`priori” partitioning.” Ex.1003 (1:38-42); Ex