`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`DOCKER INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2025-00840
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`_____________________
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST ............................................................................ vi
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ vii
`MANDATORY NOTICES .................................................................................... viii
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest [37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)] .............................. viii
`B.
`Related Matters [37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)] .......................................... viii
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel [37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)] .......................... ix
`D.
`Service Information [37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)] ..................................... ix
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`REQUIREMENTS OF INTER PARTES REVIEW ........................................ 3
`A.
`Standing ................................................................................................. 3
`B.
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................ 3
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,618,736 (“Menage”) (EX1004) ..................... 4
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,395,324 (“Murphy”) (EX1005) ..................... 4
`3.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,089,300 (“Birse”) (EX1006) .......................... 4
`4.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,398,382 (“Rothman”) (EX1007) ................... 5
`C. How the Challenged Claims Are To Be Construed Under 37
`C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................. 5
`D. How the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Under 37 C.F.R.
`§42.104(b)(4) ......................................................................................... 5
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5) .......................... 6
`E.
`Payment of Fees .................................................................................... 6
`F.
`III. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`The ’844 Patent and Summary of the Alleged Invention ...................... 6
`A.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 8
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 9
`C.
`IV. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY .......................................................... 9
`A. Ground 1: Obviousness over Menage (Claims 1–13) ........................... 9
`1.
`Summary of Menage ................................................................... 9
`2.
`Detailed Analysis of Ground 1 ................................................. 17
`a.
`Independent Claim 1 ....................................................... 17
`b.
`Claim 2 ............................................................................ 28
`c.
`Claim 3 ............................................................................ 29
`d.
`Claim 4 ............................................................................ 30
`e.
`Claim 5 ............................................................................ 32
`f.
`Claim 6 ............................................................................ 33
`g.
`Independent Claim 7 ....................................................... 33
`h.
`Claim 8 ............................................................................ 35
`i.
`Claim 9 ............................................................................ 35
`j.
`Claim 10 .......................................................................... 36
`k.
`Claim 11 .......................................................................... 36
`l.
`Claim 12 .......................................................................... 37
`m. Claim 13 .......................................................................... 37
`B. Ground 2: Obviousness over Menage in view of Murphy
`(Claims 14–27) .................................................................................... 37
`1.
`Summary of Murphy ................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`3.
`
`2. Motivation to Combine Menage and Murphy and
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .......................................... 40
`Detailed Analysis of Ground 2 ................................................. 42
`a.
`Independent Claim 14 ..................................................... 42
`b.
`Claim 15 .......................................................................... 47
`c.
`Claim 16 .......................................................................... 47
`d.
`Claim 17 .......................................................................... 48
`e.
`Claim 18 .......................................................................... 48
`f.
`Independent Claim 19 ..................................................... 48
`g.
`Claim 20 .......................................................................... 50
`h.
`Claim 21 .......................................................................... 51
`i.
`Claim 22 .......................................................................... 51
`j.
`Independent Claim 23 ..................................................... 51
`k.
`Claim 24 .......................................................................... 54
`l.
`Claim 25 .......................................................................... 54
`m. Claim 26 .......................................................................... 55
`n.
`Claim 27 .......................................................................... 56
`C. Ground 3: Obviousness over Birse in view of Rothman
`(Claims 1–13) ..................................................................................... 56
`1.
`Summary of Birse ..................................................................... 56
`2.
`Summary of Rothman ............................................................... 56
`3. Motivation to Combine Birse and Rothman and
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .......................................... 57
`Detailed Analysis of Ground 3 ................................................. 58
`
`4.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`Independent Claim 1 ....................................................... 58
`a.
`Claim 2 ............................................................................ 69
`b.
`Claim 3 ............................................................................ 69
`c.
`Claim 4 ............................................................................ 69
`d.
`Claim 5 ............................................................................ 71
`e.
`Claim 6 ............................................................................ 72
`f.
`Independent Claim 7 ....................................................... 72
`g.
`Claim 8 ............................................................................ 73
`h.
`Claim 9 ............................................................................ 74
`i.
`Claim 10 .......................................................................... 74
`j.
`Claim 11 .......................................................................... 75
`k.
`Claim 12 .......................................................................... 75
`l.
`m. Claim 13 .......................................................................... 75
`D. Ground 4: Obviousness over Birse in view of Murphy
`(Claims 14–27) ................................................................................... 75
`1. Motivation to Combine Birse and Murphy and
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .......................................... 75
`Detailed Analysis of Ground 4 ................................................. 76
`a.
`Independent Claim 14 ..................................................... 76
`b.
`Claim 15 .......................................................................... 80
`c.
`Claim 16 .......................................................................... 80
`d.
`Claim 17 .......................................................................... 80
`e.
`Claim 18 .......................................................................... 80
`f.
`Independent Claim 19 ..................................................... 80
`
`2.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`Claim 20 .......................................................................... 81
`g.
`Claim 21 .......................................................................... 82
`h.
`Claim 22 .......................................................................... 82
`i.
`Independent Claim 23 ..................................................... 82
`j.
`Claim 24 .......................................................................... 83
`k.
`Claim 25 .......................................................................... 83
`l.
`m. Claim 26 .......................................................................... 84
`n.
`Claim 27 .......................................................................... 84
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 85
`V.
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 85
`APPENDIX: CHALLENGED CLAIM LISTING .................................................. 88
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`Declaration of Erez Zadok, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,618,736
`U.S. Patent No. 7,395,324
`U.S. Patent No. 7,089,300
`U.S. Patent No. 7,398,382
`File History for U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/395,816
`A. Silberschatz & P.B. Galvin, Operating System Concepts (4th
`ed. 1994)
`D.P. Bovet & M. Cesati, Understanding the Linux Kernel (1st ed.
`2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,313,646
`File History for U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/026,622
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3rd ed. 1997)
`Internet Small Computer Systems Interface (iSCSI), RFC 3720,
`IETF (April 2004), https://www.rfc-
`editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc3720.txt.pdf
`Dave Hitz et al., Network Appliance Inc., File System Design
`for an NFS File Server Appliance, USENIX 1994
`U.S. Patent No. 7,334,095
`Hugo Patterson et al., Network Appliance Inc., File System Based
`Asynchronous Mirroring for Disaster Recovery, USENIX 2002
`U.S. Patent No. 6,668,264
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Term
`Abbreviation
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/709,477
`’477 application
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/395,816
`’816 application
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/026,622
`’622 application
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844 (EX1001)
`’844 patent
`America Invents Act
`AIA
`U.S. Patent No. 7,089,300 (EX1006)
`Birse
`Challenged Claims Claims 1–27 of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`Fig.
`Figure
`IPR
`inter partes review
`Menage
`U.S. Patent No. 6,618,736 (EX1004)
`Murphy
`U.S. Patent No. 7,395,324 (EX1005)
`Patent Owner
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`Petitioner
`Docker Inc.
`POSITA
`person[s] of ordinary skill in the art
`Rothman
`U.S. Patent No. 7,398,382 (EX1007)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest [37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)]
`
`The real party-in-interest is Petitioner Docker Inc. No other entity is funding,
`
`controlling, or directing this Petition, or otherwise has had an opportunity to control
`
`or direct this Petition or Petitioner’s participation in any resulting inter partes review
`
`(IPR).
`
`B. Related Matters [37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)]
`
`The ’844 patent is presently the subject of litigation in an action for
`
`declaratory judgment brought by Assurant, Inc., seeking a declaration of
`
`noninfringement of the ’844 patent. Assurant, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`
`No. 1:24-cv-00344 (D. Del. filed Mar. 15, 2024). The ’844 patent is currently
`
`asserted in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 7:24-cv-00277
`
`(W.D. Tex. filed Nov. 2, 2024); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`
`4:24-cv-00980 (E.D. Tex. filed Nov. 2, 2024); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. The
`
`Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., No. 3:25-cv-00631 (N.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2025); and
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 3:25-cv-00632 (N.D. Tex.
`
`filed Mar. 15, 2025).
`
`Additionally, the ’844 patent is the subject of a petition for inter partes review
`
`filed by American Airlines, Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co. Am. Airlines, Inc. et al.
`
`v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00931 (filed Apr. 30, 2025).
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel [37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)]
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), Petitioner
`
`provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125)
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`1700 M St. NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Phone: (202) 955-8500
`Fax: (202) 467-0539
`Email: bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner
`Nathan Curtis (Reg. No. 70,471)
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: (214) 698-3423
`Fax: (214) 571-2961
`Email: ncurtis@gibsondunn.com
`
` A
`
` Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(b).
`
`D.
`
`Service Information [37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)]
`
`Service via hand delivery or postal mail may be made at the address of the
`
`lead and back-up counsel above. Petitioner hereby consents to electronic service,
`
`and service by electronic mail may be made at the following email address:
`
` GDC-DockerIPR@gibsondunn.com
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §311, Petitioner petitions for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,332,844 (EX1001) and seeks cancellation of claims 1–27 as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`The ’844 patent generally relates to a block-level “branching store file
`
`system,” which maintains different versions of a file system for different users
`
`(compute nodes) by storing (1) “a read-only base image (or ‘root’ image),” and
`
`(2) one or more “leaf” images that record the changes to the “root” image unique to
`
`a compute node. EX1001, 2:13–18. When a user requests a copy of the file system,
`
`a “filter” between the compute nodes and the file systems “merges the changes
`
`recorded on the leaf images with the root image and delivers the result to the
`
`appropriate compute node.” Id., 2:18–21. Thus, “[f]rom the point of view of the
`
`compute node, it is running its own unique and cohesive instance of the application
`
`environment.” Id., 2:22–24.
`
`The Challenged Claims are directed to this “root/leaf” system for storing
`
`blocks of data, in two categories: (1) the “caching” claims (1–13); and (2) the
`
`“indexing” claims (14–27). The “caching” claims relate to caching portions of the
`
`root image, whereas the “indexing” claims relate to indexing the root image by a
`
`compute node, and providing the resultant index to other compute nodes.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`During prosecution, each of the independent claims was amended to recite
`
`
`
`that the “leaf images” comprise “only additional data blocks not previously
`
`contained in said root image and changes made by respective compute nodes to the
`
`blocks of the root image.” EX1002, 166–71. The claims were allowed following
`
`the addition of this single allegedly novel feature. Id., 279–83.
`
`But, as explained in this Petition, this allegedly novel limitation—as well as
`
`the remaining claim limitations in the “caching” set of claims—would have been
`
`obvious over Menage as explained in Ground 1. Menage discloses the use of a set
`
`of shared storage units to store an initial file system (i.e., a “root image” in the
`
`terminology of the ’844 patent) for a plurality of virtual private servers, and a set of
`
`private storage units that store changes to the initial file system made by each virtual
`
`process (i.e., “leaf images”).
`
`Similarly, the “caching” claims would have been obvious in light of the
`
`combination of Birse and Rothman, which is presented in Ground 3. Birse discloses
`
`shared system volumes that contain an operating system (i.e., a “root image”) for a
`
`plurality of client computers and shadow volumes that store changes to the operating
`
`system (i.e., “leaf images”), and Rothman teaches caching techniques for boot
`
`images used for network booting.
`
`Moreover, Menage and Birse, each in combination with the Murphy reference
`
`(Grounds 2 and 4 herein), render obvious the “indexing” claims. Murphy describes
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`the indexing of an “image file” (i.e., a “root image”) and the ability to provide the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`indexing results to another client computer by storing an “index file” on a shared
`
`server.
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests the cancellation of the Challenged Claims.
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A.
`
`Standing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’844 patent is
`
`available for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an
`
`IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b), Petitioner requests that the Board institute
`
`IPR of claims 1–27 of the ’844 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`The ’844 patent issued from an application filed February 21, 2007, and is a
`
`continuation-in-part of an application filed on March 30, 2006, which is a
`
`continuation-in-part of an application filed on December 30, 2004. For purposes of
`
`this Petition only, Petitioner assumes that the Challenged Claims are entitled to an
`
`effective filing date of December 30, 2004.
`
`The precise relief requested by Petitioner is that claims 1–27 be canceled
`
`based on the grounds below:
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`Claims
`1–13
`14–27
`1–13
`14–27
`
`Basis for Rejection1
`Obviousness over Menage
`Obviousness over Menage in view of Murphy
`Obviousness over Birse in view of Rothman
`Obviousness over Birse in view of Murphy
`
`The above challenges are made in view of the following prior art references:
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,618,736 (“Menage”) (EX1004)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,618,736 (“Menage”), titled “Template-Based Creation and
`
`Archival of File Systems,” issued on September 9, 2003 from an application filed on
`
`March 9, 2001. Menage therefore qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(a) and (b). Menage was not considered during prosecution of the ’844 patent.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,395,324 (“Murphy”) (EX1005)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,395,324 (“Murphy”), titled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Maintaining a Computer System,” issued on July 1, 2008 from an application filed
`
`on June 28, 2000. Murphy therefore qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(e). Murphy was not considered during prosecution of the ’844 patent.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,089,300 (“Birse”) (EX1006)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,089,300 (“Birse”), titled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Administering the Operating System of a Net-Booted Environment,” issued on
`
`
` 1 All obviousness grounds include the knowledge of POSITA.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`August 8, 2006 from an application filed on October 18, 1999. Birse therefore
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e). Birse was not considered
`
`during prosecution of the ’844 patent.
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,398,382 (“Rothman”) (EX1007)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 7,398,382 (“Rothman”), titled “Method
`
`and Apparatus to Enhance Platform Boot Efficiency,” issued on July 8, 2008 from
`
`an application filed on December 29, 2004. Rothman therefore qualifies as prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e). Rothman was not considered during prosecution
`
`of the ’844 patent.
`
`C. How the Challenged Claims Are To Be Construed Under 37 C.F.R.
`§42.104(b)(3)
`
`A claim subject to IPR shall be construed using the same standard as in a civil
`
`action. 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b). The Board need only construe terms “to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy.” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`
`Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner submits that no
`
`construction of any of any claim term is necessary for the Board to resolve. The
`
`Challenged Claims would have been obvious under any reasonable construction.
`
`D. How the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Under 37 C.F.R.
`§42.104(b)(4)
`
`An explanation of how the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under the
`
`statutory grounds identified above, including the identification of where each
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications, is
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`provided below.
`
`E.
`
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5)
`
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon and the relevance
`
`of the evidence to the challenged claims, including an identification of specific
`
`portions of the evidence that support the challenge, are provided below. A list of
`
`exhibits is also included in this petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.63(e). The
`
`technical information and grounds for rejection explained in the Petition are further
`
`supported by the Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok (EX1003).
`
`F.
`
`Payment of Fees
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§42.103 and 42.15(a), the required fee is being
`
`submitted herewith. The Office is authorized to charge any fee deficiency, or credit
`
`overpayment, to Deposit Account 50-1408.
`
`III. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`A. The ’844 Patent and Summary of the Alleged Invention
`
`The ’844 patent describes a system for “root image caching and indexing for
`
`block-level distributed application management.” EX1001, Abstract. However, the
`
`’844 patent is primarily directed to describing a block-level “branching store file
`
`system” for use in providing an “application environment” (e.g., an operating
`
`system) to multiple “compute nodes” in a clustered computing environment.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`In a “branching store file system,” a “read-only base image (or ‘root’ image)
`
`
`
`of the application environment is created,” and “is accessible by all compute nodes
`
`in the cluster.” Id., 2:13–16. Further, “[c]hanges made by a compute node to the
`
`root image are stored in a ‘leaf’ image unique to that compute node.” Id., 2:17–18.
`
`A filter “merges the changes recorded on the leaf images with the root image and
`
`delivers the results to the appropriate compute node.” Id., 2:18–21. Thus, from the
`
`compute node’s point of view, “it is running its own unique and cohesive instance
`
`of the application environment.” Id., 2:22–24.
`
`Figure 2 shows an exemplary system “for root image caching and indexing in
`
`a block-level distributed application environment,” which depicts a “system 200”
`
`that “is implemented in a multi-computer system, such as an HPC cluster”:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`Id., 5:12–19, Fig. 2. “[C]ompute nodes 220a-n” are coupled to a “first storage unit
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`240” and a corresponding “second storage unit 250a-n through a corresponding
`
`union block device (UBD) 230a-n.” Id., 5:19–22. To the compute nodes, “it appears
`
`that they have access to their own version of a distributed application environment,”
`
`but “a separate and complete boot image is not created and stored for each compute
`
`node.” Id., 5:22–26.
`
`The “first storage unit 240” stores “blocks of a root image of an application
`
`environment,” which “contains data initially common to the compute nodes” and “is
`
`not changed by [the] compute nodes,” i.e., the compute nodes have read-only access
`
`to the “first storage unit.” Id., 5:27–32. “[S]econd storage units 250a-n” each store
`
`a “leaf image,” which “may contain blocks of new data, blocks of changed data, or
`
`other blocks of data unique to the individual compute nodes,” and a “block
`
`modification log.” Id., 5:33–45.
`
`The Challenged Claims are directed to methods and systems for distributing
`
`an application environment to a compute node using a “root-leaf” system, where
`
`blocks of a root image are stored on a first storage unit, and “leaf images” of the
`
`compute nodes are stored on second storage units. Id., 2:35–55.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’844 patent was filed with claims that broadly recited that the leaf images
`
`comprised “additional data blocks not previously contained in said root image and
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`changes made by respective compute nodes to the blocks of [said/the] root image,”
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`or similar language. EX1002, 25–30. After a series of rejections, the claims were
`
`allowed based on the requirement that the leaf images comprise/include “only
`
`additional data blocks not previously contained in said root image and changes made
`
`by respective compute nodes to the blocks of [said/the] root image.”
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A POSITA in the field on or around December 30, 2004 would have had a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or an equivalent
`
`degree, and at least two years’ worth of experience in the field of networked data
`
`storage, file systems, and operating systems. Additional education could substitute
`
`for experience, and vice versa. EX1003, ¶¶34–36.
`
`IV. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`A. Ground 1: Obviousness over Menage (Claims 1–13)
`1.
`
`Summary of Menage
`
`Menage relates to “file system creation and archival, particularly in the
`
`context of multiple virtual private servers running on a single physical host
`
`machine.” Menage explains that a “virtual private server is an example of a ‘virtual
`
`process,’ which is a set of processes isolated partially or totally from other processes
`
`of the system.” EX1004, 3:56–67.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`Menage recognizes that one “difficulty in implementing multiple virtual
`
`
`
`private servers within a single physical host involves providing each server with a
`
`separate file system,” and explains that “providing a separate physical device for
`
`storing the file system of each virtual private server would be expensive and
`
`inefficient.” Id., 7:30–44. Accordingly, “it would be desirable to store the file
`
`systems of multiple virtual private servers within the same physical device or
`
`comparatively small set of devices.” Id., 7:44–47. Thus, Menage indicates that
`
`“what is needed is a technique for creating separate file systems for a plurality of
`
`virtual private servers that does not require extensive copying or wasted storage
`
`space.” Id., 2:33–36.
`
`Menage solves these problems “by providing a set of shared storage units 302
`
`and a set of private storage units 304”:
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`
`
`Id., 8:8–10, Fig. 3. The “set of shared storage units 302 is used to store data that is
`
`common to the files systems 200 of multiple virtual processes 101,” (i.e., virtual
`
`private servers), “such as standard application programs, utilities, databases, etc.”
`
`Id., 8:10–14. Further, “[t]he set of shared storage units 302 forms an initial file
`
`system 200 for each virtual process 101.” Id., 8:14–15.
`
`
`
`Conversely, “[t]he set of private storage units 304 … are used to store changes
`
`to the initial file system 200 that occur subsequent to the creation of the file system
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`200.” Id., 8:16–18. While the “private storage units 304” are depicted in Figure 3
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`“as being located within the same storage device 204 as the shared storage units
`
`302,” they may also “be located within a separate storage device 204, either within
`
`the same physical server or within a remote server.” Id., 8:22–27.
`
`
`
`Menage also provides “a usage map 306” for each set of private storage units,
`
`which “includes a plurality of indicators 308 for indicating whether a corresponding
`
`private storage unit 304 ‘contains valid data,’” meaning “that the private storage unit
`
`304 stores data representing a change to the initial file system 200. Id., 8:28–34.
`
`Menage collectively refers to a set of private storage units 304 for a virtual process
`
`101 and a corresponding usage map 306 as a “template,” and notes that “at least one
`
`template 310 is preferably provided for each virtual process 101.” Id., 8:58–67.
`
`
`
`Figures 4–6 illustrate Menage’s system for creating and managing the file
`
`systems 200, which uses a “system call wrapper” to intercept system calls to write
`
`data to or read data from the shared storage unit. Regarding write requests, the
`
`“system call wrapper” intercepts a system call for “writing a data item to a shared
`
`storage unit 202”:
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`
`
`Id., 9:4–7, Fig. 4. Instead of writing the data item directly to the shared storage unit
`
`302, “a storage unit writing module 402 writes the data item to the corresponding
`
`private storage unit 304,” and “a usage map updating module 404 stores an
`
`indication 308 in the usage map 306 that the private storage unit 304 (to which the
`
`data item is written) contains valid data.” Id., 9:10–21.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`Regarding read requests, the “system call wrapper” intercepts a system call
`
`
`
`
`for “reading a data item from a shared storage unit 302,” as shown in Figure 5:
`
`
`
`Id., 9:29–32, Fig. 5. Instead of reading the data item directly from the shared storage
`
`unit 302, “a usage map checking module 502 checks for an indication 308 in the
`
`usage map 306 that the corresponding private storage unit 304 contains valid data,”
`
`and if it does, “a storage unit reading module 504 reads the data item from the private
`
`storage unit 304 rather than the shared storage unit 302.” Id., 9:35–41. Conversely,
`
`if “the usage map 306 does not include an indication 308 of valid data for the
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`corresponding private storage unit 304,” than the data item is read from the shared
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`storage unit.
`
`Id., 9:48–53;, Fig. 6.
`
`
`
` “[T]he file system 200 of each virtual process 101 may be conceptualized as
`
`a combination of the set of shared storage units 302 and the set of private storage
`
`units 304 from the corresponding template 310”:
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`
`
`Id., 9:54–57, Fig. 7.
`
`
`
`In addition to the advantage of not needing to duplicate an initial file system
`
`for each virtual process, in Menage, “since all the virtual processes 101 use the same
`
`set of shared storage units 302, the shared storage units may be easily cached for
`
`high speed access in the computer memory 102 or in a memory integrated with the
`
`storage device 204.” Id., 10:2–6.
`
`Menage discloses and/or renders obvious claims 1–13 of the ’844 patent.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`Detailed Analysis of Ground 1
`a.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`1)
`[1.pre] “A system for providing data to a
`plurality of compute nodes,
`th